PDA

View Full Version : New Sheriff coming to town..



Lonestar
01-08-2009, 07:42 PM
Hey folks it just dawned on me that:

No more mikey swinging for the fence with late round draft choices..


most likely no more ZBS

less smaller type OLINE.

quality RB's drafted instead of "who is that?" types


Probably a complete overhaul of our Defense:


which has relied on smaller faster LB's

retread DL type with just a few years or in some cases games left in them..

some semblance of safety play..

maybe even a real "Special" in ST's..

probably no more lies in press conferences.

and most likely no more huge surprises on draft day...


Just maybe some great good old fashioned smash mouth football..

DenBronx
01-08-2009, 07:45 PM
Oh Jrwiz, I'm sure it didn't just dawn on you. :lol: You have been calling for Mikeys head for years.

I do like the idea of getting a coach that actually wants a franchise back. Looking for diamonds in the ruff in the 6th and 7th round got old.

Still on the fence about the ZBS for the running game though.

Lonestar
01-08-2009, 07:57 PM
Oh Jrwiz, I'm sure it didn't just dawn on you. :lol: You have been calling for Mikeys head for years.

I do like the idea of getting a coach that actually wants a franchise back. Looking for diamonds in the ruff in the 6th and 7th round got old.

Still on the fence about the ZBS for the running game though.

actually it did reading all the other threads about folks whining about this and that they wanted to keep all the existing players and not changes to OLINE how we could change the defense around with using doom and moss as DE in a 3-4..

I just wanted folks to start thinking out of the box and realize all the old crapola that mikey spun is no more, it (all things broncos as most of the current fans know it) most likely will all be NEW..

Yes I wanted mikey the GM gone, the lord and master of Dove Valley, the mastermind gone. But not mikey the the OC gone..

But now folks we WILL have a guy with new ideas to ponder..

Tned
01-08-2009, 09:01 PM
Hey folks it just dawned on me that:

No more mikey swinging for the fence with late round draft choices..


most likely no more ZBS

less smaller type OLINE.

quality RB's drafted instead of "who is that?" types


Probably a complete overhaul of our Defense:


which has relied on smaller faster LB's

retread DL type with just a few years or in some cases games left in them..

some semblance of safety play..

maybe even a real "Special" in ST's..

probably no more lies in press conferences.

and most likely no more huge surprises on draft day...


Just maybe some great good old fashioned smash mouth football..

Be careful what you wish for.

On the bright side, the BEST side of Shanahan being fired is that at some point in the foreseeable future we will see an end to the use of "Mikey".

broncohead
01-08-2009, 09:06 PM
I don't think Doom will be successful as a 3-4 OLB. He will only be good on passing downs IMO. I don't see him being very good in coverage. Moss on the other hand will probably be better suited for it.

MOtorboat
01-08-2009, 09:09 PM
Be careful what you wish for.

On the bright side, the BEST side of Shanahan being fired is that at some point in the foreseeable future we will see an end to the use of "Mikey".

I'm sorry JR, but that bugs the crap out of me...:cool:

Nature Boy
01-08-2009, 09:11 PM
Maybe I'm just a pessimist or I just like Mikey that much as a HC and hate the firing but I think the Broncos will take a step back or a few steps back in our progression towards another SB ring.

We'll be rebuilding for years, never get beyond .500 and this next coach will get canned faster than coaches who land in Oakland.

Mikey will land in KC or Dallas or wherever and he'll kick our arses without end. I think Mikey will get the last laugh just as he did with Al Davis.

.

SR
01-08-2009, 09:28 PM
most likely no more ZBS

less smaller type OLINE.




That won't change.

TXBRONC
01-08-2009, 09:48 PM
Be careful what you wish for.

On the bright side, the BEST side of Shanahan being fired is that at some point in the foreseeable future we will see an end to the use of "Mikey".

Well it more than likely wont happen as much because Shanahan isn't the coach anymore however, anytime he is mentioned count it. ;)

MOtorboat
01-08-2009, 10:12 PM
That won't change.

It might.

Tned
01-08-2009, 10:18 PM
It might.

It all depends on who the new coach is.

Medford Bronco
01-08-2009, 10:18 PM
It might.

I agree there is a chance the whole team has
a completely different feel to it and I have no problem with that


Clady can excel in a tradtional offensive line scheme.

Its not like our scheme has been very successful lately

(ready for the flames to rain down on my head for this but
facts are facts :flame: :target: )

MOtorboat
01-08-2009, 10:20 PM
I agree there is a chance the whole team has
a completely different feel to it and I have no problem with that


Clady can excel in a tradtional offensive line scheme.

Its not like our scheme has been very successful lately

(ready for the flames to rain down on my head for this but
facts are facts :flame: :target: )

It's been more successful than you might think. Check out the www.footballoutsiders.com web site.

With that said...both Clady and Harris ran different schemes in college, Nalen is gone, and Wiegmann ran a non-ZBS scheme in KC for years, we have a young guy Kuper/Lichtensteiger, at RG...so the only real player locked in to the ZBS is Hamilton.

TXBRONC
01-08-2009, 10:23 PM
I agree there is a chance the whole team has
a completely different feel to it and I have no problem with that


Clady can excel in a tradtional offensive line scheme.

Its not like our scheme has been very successful lately

(ready for the flames to rain down on my head for this but
facts are facts :flame: :target: )

Scheme wasn't the problem no consistency at running back was.

Clady is probably the only current starting lineman that we have that could succeed in a traditional scheme.

Shazam!
01-08-2009, 11:08 PM
So much pessimism!!

The Broncos have been needing a coaching change for years. Shanahan has been too complacent. The players weren't responding with the decline in on-field veteran leadership (Lynch, Al, Smith, etc.) This year's collapse despite the injuries and horiffic defense shows us that. They couldn't beat some sorry ass teams even at home.

The Broncos were 24-24 over the last three seasons, lost important games to some inferior competition, got routinely embarassed at home and the defense was pitiful.

If he stayed and Shanahan's Broncos in 2009 went 6-10 or worse and was fired, everyone still would be finding excuses and say Pat lost his mind. Already the most popular excuse would've been the schedule was too tough.

I am looking forward to the change. Denver needs a new 'Sheriff' as Jr referred to him to motivate these guys.

I still think Shanahan should've resigned when Elway left and said- "My job here is done. I accomplished what we set out to do. I feel this franchise is better off now than when I arrived. I am no longer needed."

That would've been acceptable to many Broncos faithful after four seasons, going 54-18, three playoff seasons and two Championships.

SR
01-08-2009, 11:11 PM
Scheme wasn't the problem no consistency at running back was.

Clady is probably the only current starting lineman that we have that could succeed in a traditional scheme.

Our offensive line is built for the zone blocking scheme. Any offensive coordinator or head coach that would mess with that will be putting Cutler at risk, and in turn putting our whole offensive success at risk. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our offensive line allowed the fewest sacks in the league this year. We still finished in the top 15 in the NFL in the run game (I think) and Cutler threw for over 4,500 yards as a direct result of the protection he was able to get.

MOtorboat
01-08-2009, 11:13 PM
Our offensive line is built for the zone blocking scheme. Any offensive coordinator or head coach that would mess with that will be putting Cutler at risk, and in turn putting our whole offensive success at risk. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our offensive line allowed the fewest sacks in the league this year. We still finished in the top 15 in the NFL in the run game (I think) and Cutler threw for over 4,500 yards as a direct result of the protection he was able to get.

ZBS is mostly about run-blocking, not pass blocking. You don't pull guards on a pass block. I think our o-line was the best in the league in pass blocking, so I doubt a change in run-blocking scheme, which is what the ZBS is, would change the pass protection.

omac
01-08-2009, 11:22 PM
ZBS is mostly about run-blocking, not pass blocking. You don't pull guards on a pass block. I think our o-line was the best in the league in pass blocking, so I doubt a change in run-blocking scheme, which is what the ZBS is, would change the pass protection.

If we had to change personnel on the OL to accommodate a new scheme, that would be messing with success. No matter, if Clady, Harris, and Kuper can continue to excel in the new scheme, then I'd be good with that.

MOtorboat
01-08-2009, 11:24 PM
If we had to change personnel on the OL to accommodate a new scheme, that would be messing with success. No matter, if Clady, Harris, and Kuper can continue to excel in the new scheme, then I'd be good with that.

Clady and Harris, the real anchors of the line, could definitely survive in a non-ZBS system.

Lonestar
01-09-2009, 03:03 AM
Clady and Harris, the real anchors of the line, could definitely survive in a non-ZBS system.

the only guy that might have a tough time in a real scheme would be Hamilton who is about 25 pounds shy of a real OG..

Everyone else is about right on the scale side of the weight issues.. most played REAL blocking in college..and Weigmann certainly did in KC..

I do not see an issue

Most of last year was shotgun or drop back passing and some running..

I'm guessing if Spags comes to town he is alot less likely to tinker with the offense.. and concentrate on the D where the real problem is..

MOtorboat
01-09-2009, 07:40 AM
the only guy that might have a tough time in a real scheme would be Hamilton who is about 25 pounds shy of a real OG..

Everyone else is about right on the scale side of the weight issues.. most played REAL blocking in college..and Weigmann certainly did in KC..

I do not see an issue

Most of last year was shotgun or drop back passing and some running..

I'm guessing if Spags comes to town he is alot less likely to tinker with the offense.. and concentrate on the D where the real problem is..

So being at the top of the league in rushing year after year is not REAL blocking.

You're hate for Shanahan never ceases to amaze me.

TXBRONC
01-09-2009, 10:40 AM
the only guy that might have a tough time in a real scheme would be Hamilton who is about 25 pounds shy of a real OG..

Everyone else is about right on the scale side of the weight issues.. most played REAL blocking in college..and Weigmann certainly did in KC..

I do not see an issue

Most of last year was shotgun or drop back passing and some running..

I'm guessing if Spags comes to town he is alot less likely to tinker with the offense.. and concentrate on the D where the real problem is..

According to the roster Weigman is 285lbs, Hamilton is 290lbs, Kuper is 302lbs, Harris is 300lbs, and Clady is 320lbs. So according what you consider REAL four of our five linemen fall short of mark by 10lbs or more. So according to you measure if understand your measure only Clady is a real lineman.

Lonestar
01-09-2009, 01:21 PM
According to the roster Weigman is 285lbs, Hamilton is 290lbs, Kuper is 302lbs, Harris is 300lbs, and Clady is 320lbs. So according what you consider REAL four of our five linemen fall short of mark by 10lbs or more. So according to you measure if understand your measure only Clady is a real lineman.

IIRC I said in another thread I'd like to see the OLINE bigger by about 10-15 across the board..

Center 300-305
OG 305-315
OT 320-335

That would allow us to get more of those down and dirty 3rd and 2's we have passed on for much of the year..

We have the makings of a great OLINE in something other than pass Protection which this current OLINE was more designed to do that ZBS.. While we have a decent YPC we flat did not run enough this past year for it to be a real valid Number..

You you take a couple of the Royale reverses out of the loop our tied for number 2 in YPC falls to tied for number 6..

Lets hope that the new guy whom ever he is gets here soon to evaluate who stays and who goes.. coaching wise and well as players..

TXBRONC
01-09-2009, 02:26 PM
IIRC I said in another thread I'd like to see the OLINE bigger by about 10-15 across the board..

Center 300-305
OG 305-315
OT 320-335

That would allow us to get more of those down and dirty 3rd and 2's we have passed on for much of the year..

We have the makings of a great OLINE in something other than pass Protection which this current OLINE was more designed to do that ZBS.. While we have a decent YPC we flat did not run enough this past year for it to be a real valid Number..

You you take a couple of the Royale reverses out of the loop our tied for number 2 in YPC falls to tied for number 6..

Lets hope that the new guy whom ever he is gets here soon to evaluate who stays and who goes.. coaching wise and well as players..

We had total 387 rushing attempts take out those of Royal, Marshall, and Scheffler it still 373 attempts. It's a valid number. With all attempts included it 4.8 ypc, take out the ones by the receivers it 4.7 ypc so I doubt we would fall to 6th. To know that you would have to take out wide receiver rushing numbers from the other 31 teams. So in the big picture of things the rushing attempts of Royal, Marshall, and Scheffler do not really skew the numbers.

I agree it's Denver's advantage to get a new coach in asap but if it's Spagnuolo we could be waiting for several more weeks.

Lonestar
01-09-2009, 02:53 PM
We had total 387 rushing attempts take out those of Royal, Marshall, and Scheffler it still 373 attempts. It's a valid number. With all attempts included it 4.8 ypc, take out the ones by the receivers it 4.7 ypc so I doubt we would fall to 6th. To know that you would have to take out wide receiver rushing numbers from the other 31 teams. So in the big picture of things the rushing attempts of Royal, Marshall, and Scheffler do not really skew the numbers.

I agree it's Denver's advantage to get a new coach in asap but if it's Spagnuolo we could be waiting for several more weeks.

as I said in another thread I had not noticed how few times the WR really got the ball to run with I only got to see 6-7 games this year on live TV so those couple of huge runs by Eddie really stuck out in my mind..

and yes your correct I must have miss calculated the numbers as when I did them last night they were 4.5 YPC and today 4.7 so it did not skew it as much as I thought..

thanks for making me double check the numbers..:salute:

we did however rank 28th in the league in run attempts which is scary compared to years past..

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

TXBRONC
01-09-2009, 02:58 PM
as I said in another thread I had not noticed how few times the WR really got the ball to run with I only got to see 6-7 games this year on live TV so those couple of huge runs by Eddie really stuck out in my mind..

and yes your correct I must have miss calculated the numbers as when I did them last night they were 4.5 YPC and today 4.7 so it did not skew it as much as I thought..

thanks for making me double check the numbers..:salute:

we did however rank 28th in the league in run attempts which is scary compared to years past..

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

Given what happened to running backs it's no small wonder our attempts were way down. I do however think that if Hillis had remained healthly we would have gone over 400 attempts easily.

Lonestar
01-09-2009, 03:01 PM
Given what happened to running backs it's no small wonder our attempts were way down. I do however think that if Hillis had remained healthly we would have gone over 400 attempts easily.

I think we would have easily been in the 450 range back in the top ten area.. he was a load.. how many DB's did he take out of the OAK IIRC 2-3 for some to many plays..

One wonders what might have happened with a decent running game to take some of the load off of Jays shoulders..

Tned
01-09-2009, 09:52 PM
we did however rank 28th in the league in run attempts which is scary compared to years past..


In about half the games, the Broncos started off running well, and then lost their starting RB, sometimes first and second RB, and then turned to an almost pass only offense. In the last few games, when the RB barrel was empty, the running game was more or less abandoned, except for "keep the defense honest" runs.

Lonestar
01-09-2009, 10:02 PM
In about half the games, the Broncos started off running well, and then lost their starting RB, sometimes first and second RB, and then turned to an almost pass only offense. In the last few games, when the RB barrel was empty, the running game was more or less abandoned, except for "keep the defense honest" runs.


from what I remember in many cases instead of keeping the mix up someone calling the plays went pass happy when down a couple of scores.. was it mikey, bates or Jay making adjustments at the LOS I do not know..

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 10:12 PM
as I said in another thread I had not noticed how few times the WR really got the ball to run with I only got to see 6-7 games this year on live TV so those couple of huge runs by Eddie really stuck out in my mind..

and yes your correct I must have miss calculated the numbers as when I did them last night they were 4.5 YPC and today 4.7 so it did not skew it as much as I thought..

thanks for making me double check the numbers..:salute:

we did however rank 28th in the league in run attempts which is scary compared to years past..

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=RUSHING_ATTEMPTS&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

We had a 4.7 YPC average and ranked 28th in the league in attempts? Thats mind boggling. I understand we went through tons of RB's, but from the numbers they were getting the job done.

Tned
01-09-2009, 10:13 PM
from what I remember in many cases instead of keeping the mix up someone calling the plays went pass happy when down a couple of scores.. was it mikey, bates or Jay making adjustments at the LOS I do not know..

"Mikey" wasn't calling plays, as was widely reporte. Plus, for those watching the games and seeing the shots of the sidelines, Coach Shanahan often was looking at the play card, but not speaking.

Yes, they started to pass more when they were down, which is what teams in the NFL do. No surprise there. However, the real impact on the play calling was injured running backs.

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 10:18 PM
"Mikey" wasn't calling plays, as was widely reporte. Plus, for those watching the games and seeing the shots of the sidelines, Coach Shanahan often was looking at the play card, but not speaking.

Yes, they started to pass more when they were down, which is what teams in the NFL do. No surprise there. However, the real impact on the play calling was injured running backs.

So did Bates or Dennison call the plays? And, if our YPC was 4.7 then why was Jay throwing 50 times against SD 2 weeks into the season?

The more and more I think about it, this decision by Bowlen might be the best thing thats happened to the Broncos since 98. Fresh blood, thoughts, and mentality is never a bad thing if things are going stale like the offense was.

Tned
01-09-2009, 10:34 PM
So did Bates or Dennison call the plays? And, if our YPC was 4.7 then why was Jay throwing 50 times against SD 2 weeks into the season?

The more and more I think about it, this decision by Bowlen might be the best thing thats happened to the Broncos since 98. Fresh blood, thoughts, and mentality is never a bad thing if things are going stale like the offense was.

Bates called the plays. It has been reported on since early in the season, and multiple times since then.

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 10:36 PM
Bates called the plays. It has been reported on since early in the season, and multiple times since then.

Well then Bates needs to work on his creativity and adjustments throughout the game if he is going to stick around.

Lonestar
01-09-2009, 10:38 PM
Bates called the plays. It has been reported on since early in the season, and multiple times since then.


Well then Bates needs to work on his creativity and adjustments throughout the game if he is going to stick around.

but he was calling plays from the GAME plan and playbook written by mikey..

they were not drawing plays in the sand on the sidelines..

and I'll just guess that if he called something mikey did not like it got changed..

Tned
01-09-2009, 10:44 PM
Well then Bates needs to work on his creativity and adjustments throughout the game if he is going to stick around.

The last SD gameplan was ridiculous. Beyond that, I think a lot of the play calling problems in the second half of the year were:

First, a result of personnel. After Hillis went down, they basically abandoned any two RB sets, because Hillis was out and Larsen injured. So, a large part of their playbook disappeared the final 4 or 5 games of the season.

Second, as I said elsewhere, about half the games, early on they lost a back or multiple backs to injury, which resulted in the team abandoning the run.

Third, Jay's poor decision making. Jay made a lot of bad decisions in terms of what receivers to throw to, and when he did throw to a deep receiver that wasn't double or triple covered, he often overthrew the receiver. His bad decisions and inaccuracy were complicated by a LOT of dropped passes. About 2/3 of the way through the season we were third in dropped passes.

Considering Bates is 32 and just took control of the offense, I am sure he does have some learning to do both in game planning and making adjustments, but there were also multiple factors that limited his chances of being successful in the second half of the season.

TXBRONC
01-09-2009, 10:45 PM
from what I remember in many cases instead of keeping the mix up someone calling the plays went pass happy when down a couple of scores.. was it mikey, bates or Jay making adjustments at the LOS I do not know..

It was a lack of a dependable running game, at least that's what I think.

Tned
01-09-2009, 10:51 PM
but he was calling plays from the GAME plan and playbook written by mikey..

they were not drawing plays in the sand on the sidelines..

and I'll just guess that if he called something mikey did not like it got changed..

Ahhh, I didn't realize you were in the offensive meetings during the week. Clearly you know more than the media.

Jr, I'm just going to pass on responding from this point forward, because the guy is gone and I don't feel like dealing with the hatred you have towards him any more. You and I both got irritated with others that were so blinded with hatred towards Jake. I just don't want to go through anymore blind hatred 'debates'.

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 10:57 PM
The last SD gameplan was ridiculous. Beyond that, I think a lot of the play calling problems in the second half of the year were:

First, a result of personnel. After Hillis went down, they basically abandoned any two RB sets, because Hillis was out and Larsen injured. So, a large part of their playbook disappeared the final 4 or 5 games of the season.

Second, as I said elsewhere, about half the games, early on they lost a back or multiple backs to injury, which resulted in the team abandoning the run.

Third, Jay's poor decision making. Jay made a lot of bad decisions in terms of what receivers to throw to, and when he did throw to a deep receiver that wasn't double or triple covered, he often overthrew the receiver. His bad decisions and inaccuracy were complicated by a LOT of dropped passes. About 2/3 of the way through the season we were third in dropped passes.

Considering Bates is 32 and just took control of the offense, I am sure he does have some learning to do both in game planning and making adjustments, but there were also multiple factors that limited his chances of being successful in the second half of the season.


Good points...especially about the dropped passes. Combine those with the red zone fumbles and INt's, they were ALL guilty of drive killers.

The SD was dreadful when it came to play calling. I would have liked to see more of the run game. Those two TD's by Tatum were good and we could have used more clock management to slow down SD's offense. 3 and outs on offense sure didn't help our D much. We ran the ball 10 times in that game....10 times for 90 yards. Tatum had 8 carries for 86 yards. Where did that go?

Tned
01-09-2009, 11:05 PM
Good points...especially about the dropped passes. Combine those with the red zone fumbles and INt's, they were ALL guilty of drive killers.

The SD was dreadful when it came to play calling. I would have liked to see more of the run game. Those two TD's by Tatum were good and we could have used more clock management to slow down SD's offense. 3 and outs on offense sure didn't help our D much. We ran the ball 10 times in that game....10 times for 90 yards. Tatum had 8 carries for 86 yards. Where did that go?

We only had 10 runs for 90 yards because the defense wasn't defending the run. There is no way that Tatum running in a single back set would have been effective in a run heavy game plan. At least I don't believe so.

Those were "keep the defense honest" runs, and like a draw on 3rd and 25 might get 20 yards, it wasn't necessarily an indication of an effective running game.

Basically when Hillis moved to RB and then I think the following week Larsen got hurt, and the week after that Hillis goes down, the two back set (running with a FB) was a abandoned. Shanahan's explanation for that was that with Larsen hurt that would mean the Broncos would have to enter the game with only one FB (can't remember his name, don't think he ever dressed), which you can't do because if you have a game plan that counts on a FB and you only have one available and he gets hurt, then half of your gameplan goes out the window.

That's a major disruption to the offense. In the first 2/3 of the season or so, a great many, if not most, of the running plays were run with the FB. When you combine having to throw all those plays out, PLUS turn your running game over to the 6th or 7th guy on your RB depth chart OR a guy that was cut and was selling cell phones, you simply aren't going to have the option of running the offense you spent all off season and pre-season putting in place.

TXBRONC
01-09-2009, 11:10 PM
We only had 10 runs for 90 yards because the defense wasn't defending the run. There is no way that Tatum running in a single back set would have been effective in a run heavy game plan. At least I don't believe so.

Those were "keep the defense honest" runs, and like a draw on 3rd and 25 might get 20 yards, it wasn't necessarily an indication of an effective running game.

Basically when Hillis moved to RB and then I think the following week Larsen got hurt, and the week after that Hillis goes down, the two back set (running with a FB) was a abandoned. Shanahan's explanation for that was that with Larsen hurt that would mean the Broncos would have to enter the game with only one FB (can't remember his name, don't think he ever dressed), which you can't do because if you have a game plan that counts on a FB and you only have one available and he gets hurt, then half of your gameplan goes out the window.

That's a major disruption to the offense. In the first 2/3 of the season or so, a great many, if not most, of the running plays were run with the FB. When you combine having to throw all those plays out, PLUS turn your running game over to the 6th or 7th guy on your RB depth chart OR a guy that was cut and was selling cell phones, you simply aren't going to have the option of running the offense you spent all off season and pre-season putting in place.

Excellent points Tned. :salute:

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 11:22 PM
I completely understand the problems we had a RB....but I still think we abandoned it too early in games.

SD game for instance...
1st offensive series...7 passes, 2 rushes to complete the drive on a 26 yd td run by Tatum. TD
2nd series. Only down 10-6, pass 3, run 1. Punt
3rd series. Down 17-6, 5 pass, 0 run. Punt
4th series. 5 pass, 2 run for 10 yards...5.0 ypc....drive ended with an INT in endzone.

4 offensive series in the first half and only 6 points to show for it. That surely didn't help our awful defense stay off the field. SD knew what we were going to do on 85% of our plays and it was pass. When we did run, it was successful. The coaches got in panic mode down by 4 or 11 and the play calling suffered because of it if you ask me.

Tned
01-09-2009, 11:27 PM
I completely understand the problems we had a RB....but I still think we abandoned it too early in games.

SD game for instance...
1st offensive series...7 passes, 2 rushes to complete the drive on a 26 yd td run by Tatum. TD
2nd series. Only down 10-6, pass 3, run 1. Punt
3rd series. Down 17-6, 5 pass, 0 run. Punt
4th series. 5 pass, 2 run for 10 yards...5.0 ypc....drive ended with an INT in endzone.

4 offensive series in the first half and only 6 points to show for it. That surely didn't help our awful defense stay off the field. SD knew what we were going to do on 85% of our plays and it was pass. When we did run, it was successful. The coaches got in panic mode down by 4 or 11 and the play calling suffered because of it if you ask me.

Ok, lets be honest here. Do you really think that Tatum running 25 times in a single back set would have been effective? It's easy to second guess the play calling, but there is no OC in his right mind that was going to run TB 20-25 times in a single back set.

On the one hand the OC has Cutler, Marshall, Royal, Scheffler, Stokley and Graham and a O-line that is giving up less than a sack a game.

On the other hand we have a small, no longer speedy, running back that was traded away for no being able to carry the load, then not being able to stay on the roster of the WORST team in the league, and after being cut wasn't picked up by another team. Even when he did have 'some' success early in his career, it was running behind a FB, but in this game you have no FB.

Your the OC, which 'hand' do you rely on.

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 11:34 PM
Ok, lets be honest here. Do you really think that Tatum running 25 times in a single back set would have been effective? It's easy to second guess the play calling, but there is no OC in his right mind that was going to run TB 20-25 times in a single back set.

On the one hand the OC has Cutler, Marshall, Royal, Scheffler, Stokley and Graham and a O-line that is giving up less than a sack a game.

On the other hand we have a small, no longer speedy, running back that was traded away for no being able to carry the load, then not being able to stay on the roster of the WORST team in the league, and after being cut wasn't picked up by another team. Even when he did have 'some' success early in his career, it was running behind a FB, but in this game you have no FB.

Your the OC, which 'hand' do you rely on.


Well, I have a Defense that gives up a ton of yards and points so I need to keep them off the field. I think I would balance my offensive attack in the first half more than 20-5...especially when the incompletions were dreadful and we only put up 6 points to show for it.

All San Diego had to do was drop the safety, bring the heat on Cutler and forget about the run because we had obviously forgotten about it. When they did forget about it, we would break one on the ground for a TD. All that was left to do was dink and dunk with our passing game and that didn't even work. It would be one thing to abandon the run if the passing game was working, but it wasn't.

I would also recognize that the hungriest player on the field that day was Tatum. Keep giving him the ball and see what happens. ( I am not big on Tatum, was not the first time around, and am not now but I liked the heart and drive he showed in that game)

Tned
01-09-2009, 11:44 PM
Well, I have a Defense that gives up a ton of yards and points so I need to keep them off the field. I think I would balance my offensive attack in the first half more than 20-5...especially when the incompletions were dreadful and we only put up 6 points to show for it.

All San Diego had to do was drop the safety, bring the heat on Cutler and forget about the run because we had obviously forgotten about it. When they did forget about it, we would break one on the ground for a TD. All that was left to do was dink and dunk with our passing game and that didn't even work. It would be one thing to abandon the run if the passing game was working, but it wasn't.

I would also recognize that the hungriest player on the field that day was Tatum. Keep giving him the ball and see what happens. ( I am not big on Tatum, was not the first time around, and am not now but I liked the heart and drive he showed in that game)


It's easy to second guess, but going into that game, what is more likely, Tatum ripping off big gains or Royal catching balls hitting him in the hands?

A lot went wrong in that game, but no OC in his right mind was going to think it would be possible to run a ball control offense with tatum bell as the main back in a single back offense.

Watchthemiddle
01-09-2009, 11:59 PM
It's easy to second guess, but going into that game, what is more likely, Tatum ripping off big gains or Royal catching balls hitting him in the hands?

A lot went wrong in that game, but no OC in his right mind was going to think it would be possible to run a ball control offense with tatum bell as the main back in a single back offense.

Don't you mean Royal dropping balls?

I am not second guessing...well maybe a little.

But your post kind of proves my point about our offense and Bates. ( not sure if i mentioned it in this thread or another) No adjustments were made. From what it looks like now looking back on it, we went into the game knowing we were going to throw the ball 49 times to 10 rushes. As the game went on though, what was working was never adjusted too. Thats what I don't like about Bates. He NEVER adjusted throughout the game. Whether during or at the half.

Its kind of like our defense against Buffalo. We blitzed with success in the first quarter, but after that stopped and got worked because of it. 13-0 and call off the dogs. Game over.

TXBRONC
01-10-2009, 12:02 AM
Don't you mean Royal dropping balls?

I am not second guessing...well maybe a little.

But your post kind of proves my point about our offense and Bates. ( not sure if i mentioned it in this thread or another) No adjustments were made. From what it looks like now looking back on it, we went into the game knowing we were going to throw the ball 49 times to 10 rushes. As the game went on though, what was working was never adjusted too. Thats what I don't like about Bates. He NEVER adjusted throughout the game. Whether during or at the half.

Its kind of like our defense against Buffalo. We blitzed with success in the first quarter, but after that stopped and got worked because of it. 13-0 and call off the dogs. Game over.

There aren't a lot of adjustments you can make if you don't have any players to make the adjustments.

Watchthemiddle
01-10-2009, 12:08 AM
There aren't a lot of adjustments you can make if you don't have any players to make the adjustments.

Adjustments meaning - for our offense more balance because it was working when we did it. We couldn't even run play action because we never stuck with the run long enough.

For the defense, more blitzing because it was working when we did it. A blind man could see that our front 4 couldn't pressure the QB on their own.

Tned
01-10-2009, 12:11 AM
Don't you mean Royal dropping balls?


No, I mean Royal catching balls. Again, if you are OC, based on what you have seen this year in the pass, do you think it is more likely that:

Tatum will rip off long runs
or
Royal will catch EVERYTHING caught his way, every ball that hits his hands.

They bet on Royal. They wouldn't predict he would drop a key pass and kill a drive, not pull in another that was high, but catchable and off the hands.

You go with the odds.


I am not second guessing...well maybe a little.

But your post kind of proves my point about our offense and Bates. ( not sure if i mentioned it in this thread or another) No adjustments were made. From what it looks like now looking back on it, we went into the game knowing we were going to throw the ball 49 times to 10 rushes. As the game went on though, what was working was never adjusted too. Thats what I don't like about Bates. He NEVER adjusted throughout the game. Whether during or at the half.

Of course we went in with a plan to throw 5 passes for every run. It was widely discussed. In the interview that Andrea Kraemer had with Cutler she talked about the fact that Cutler would have to have a 'perfect' game in order for the Broncos to win, which Cutler acknowledged and agreed to.

Neither the Broncos, nor San Diego, nor any reporters expected the Broncos to run the ball, because they couldn't win that game running the ball with Tatum Bell. Not just because of Tatum Bell, but because SD would score on most possessions, which meant the Broncos had to score on every possession, or nearly every. That was only going to happen if the talent (all the guys on offense except Tatum) had 'great' games. It was never going to happen running the ball.

There was no half time adjustment to be made that included feeding the ball to Tatum. I agree, that the screens were inneffective and they shouldn't have kept tryng them. However, the answer wasn't turning to the running game. That was never an option, everyone knew it.

I know the response is then, "if everyone knew the Broncos wouldn't run, that's the very reason to run the ball and catch them by surprise." No, because while that worked on the handful of runs, it was only because they were "keep them honest" runs. If the Broncos started running more, then the defense would have shut it down quickly.


Its kind of like our defense against Buffalo. We blitzed with success in the first quarter, but after that stopped and got worked because of it. 13-0 and call off the dogs. Game over.

I think you are mistaking breaking a fluke long run with Tatum being a real option as a workhorse in a single back set against SD.

Watchthemiddle
01-10-2009, 12:30 AM
When your QB goes into the half with a 51% rating, its time to slow the game down and run the rock.

We came out after the half and Tatum broke a 37 yarder for a TD and the score was 24-13.

So the runs were to keep the defense "honest" who cares, they worked. The pass obviously wasn't. Jay was 10 of 17 for 103 yards and an INT at the half. Tatum was 7 carries for 49 yards. Run the ball, regardless of who is back there. The Broncos are known for being able to run the ball, and we did it effectively with Tatum against the Chargers when used. Why not do it more than 10 times for the entire game? ( 2 of those carries were by Jay ) Thats all I am saying.

We got away from one of the things we do best.

Tned
01-10-2009, 12:37 PM
When your QB goes into the half with a 51% rating, its time to slow the game down and run the rock.

We came out after the half and Tatum broke a 37 yarder for a TD and the score was 24-13.

So the runs were to keep the defense "honest" who cares, they worked. The pass obviously wasn't. Jay was 10 of 17 for 103 yards and an INT at the half. Tatum was 7 carries for 49 yards. Run the ball, regardless of who is back there. The Broncos are known for being able to run the ball, and we did it effectively with Tatum against the Chargers when used. Why not do it more than 10 times for the entire game? ( 2 of those carries were by Jay ) Thats all I am saying.

We got away from one of the things we do best.

Well, since it is impossible to go back and replay that game and see which of us is right, I say we just agree to disagree.

Simple Jaded
01-10-2009, 05:07 PM
I'd question the intelligence of any HC that scraps Denver's ZBS, but I fear that McDaniels is just stupid enough to do it.......

Tned
01-10-2009, 05:49 PM
I'd question the intelligence of any HC that scraps Denver's ZBS, but I fear that McDaniels is just stupid enough to do it.......

Why? It was Shanahan/Gibbs sysem. Why would you expect a new head coach to adopt the offensive philosiphy of the fired head coach, and the O-line coach that left years ago?

BroncoWave
01-10-2009, 06:37 PM
I'd question the intelligence of any HC that scraps Denver's ZBS, but I fear that McDaniels is just stupid enough to do it.......

Yeah, what kind of moron would install an offense that led a team to a 16-0 season then led them to a 11-5 season with a backup QB? :rolleyes:

Wake up people. Our offensive system isn't the only successful system in pro football. And seeing as we based some of our offense off of NE, I doubt it will change that much under McD anyways.

Lonestar
01-10-2009, 06:45 PM
Yeah, what kind of moron would install an offense that led a team to a 16-0 season then led them to a 11-5 season with a backup QB? :rolleyes:

Wake up people. Our offensive system isn't the only successful system in pro football. And seeing as we based some of our offense off of NE, I doubt it will change that much under McD anyways.

some have forgot that mikey is gone.. or do not want to forget his memory just like there will never be another QB in DEN other than John..


Move on folks a new sheriff is about to come to town with new rules and ideas..

some will be good some not..

Grow a pair..

Broncolingus
01-10-2009, 06:47 PM
...does anyone have a problem with Shanny being gone as a GM?

Lonestar
01-10-2009, 06:52 PM
...does anyone have a problem with Shanny being gone as a GM?

I have been calling for that head for 4-5 years now .. Will not lose seconds sleep on that one..

Tned
01-10-2009, 07:10 PM
...does anyone have a problem with Shanny being gone as a GM?

Ask me again in 3-4 years.

Simple Jaded
01-10-2009, 08:12 PM
Yeah, what kind of moron would install an offense that led a team to a 16-0 season then led them to a 11-5 season with a backup QB? :rolleyes:

Wake up people. Our offensive system isn't the only successful system in pro football. And seeing as we based some of our offense off of NE, I doubt it will change that much under McD anyways.

Never said his system wasn't successful, I said he'd be stupid to scrap the ZBS.

You like the Spread Offense, I think it's gay, don't take it personal.......

BroncoWave
01-10-2009, 08:33 PM
Never said his system wasn't successful, I said he'd be stupid to scrap the ZBS.

You like the Spread Offense, I think it's gay, don't take it personal.......

I'm not taking anything personal, and I've never endorsed us using the spread over what we have now. I just think that our offense will be fine rather we keep it the way it is or if McD spreads it out. I just find it odd that people are shitting on an offense that led a team to a 27-5 record over the past 2 seasons.

omac
01-10-2009, 08:37 PM
Well, since it is impossible to go back and replay that game and see which of us is right, I say we just agree to disagree.

Nah, I'd say Tned is right. :D

omac
01-10-2009, 09:00 PM
I'm not taking anything personal, and I've never endorsed us using the spread over what we have now. I just think that our offense will be fine rather we keep it the way it is or if McD spreads it out. I just find it odd that people are shitting on an offense that led a team to a 27-5 record over the past 2 seasons.

I think most people aren't against having the Pats offense; it's about changing something that's already working well, when we have something else that really needs help.

I wouldn't mind McDaniels keeping the plays and terminology, then gradually adding from the Pats playbook. Bottomline, though, is not on offense; getting McDaniels means we have great confidence in Capers.

Simple Jaded
01-10-2009, 09:11 PM
I'm not taking anything personal, and I've never endorsed us using the spread over what we have now. I just think that our offense will be fine rather we keep it the way it is or if McD spreads it out. I just find it odd that people are shitting on an offense that led a team to a 27-5 record over the past 2 seasons.

I don't see many other members shitting on his offense and personally, I don't shit on his system because it's not successful, I shit on his offense because I hate the spread offense.

I'm not a big fan of the offense Denver ran in 08 but I never really thought the running game would take a backseat in the long run.

The running game, along with who would be McD's defensive coordinator are the reasons I'm not excited about his being hired.......Dom Capers? Not so much.......

Lonestar
01-11-2009, 01:00 AM
Remember all those post earlier in the year about becoming a pass first team..

well I was wrong..

Now I think they were correct and now that mickey is toast even more so.. Unless Spags is the new coach..

Requiem / The Dagda
01-11-2009, 01:25 AM
His name wasn't Mickey.

Lonestar
01-11-2009, 03:05 AM
His name wasn't Mickey.

it is to me.. maybe mickey would have been better.. ya think?

Requiem / The Dagda
01-11-2009, 07:53 AM
No.