Kiszla: Broncos coach John Fox gaining genius status [Archive]

Denver Native (Carol)

11-16-2011, 11:31 AM

Not to suggest the NFL is rocket science, but building a playoff contender with Tim Tebow at quarterback is like flying to the moon in a space shuttle made from Lego blocks.

What on heaven or earth could Broncos coach John Fox have been thinking when he took the big gamble of trying to win pro games by putting complete faith in the run and declaring "pass" a four-letter word?

Good question.

rest of article - http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_19345193

Denver Native (Carol)

11-16-2011, 11:35 AM

One interesting thing in article: Other things which also caught my eye.

For example, there's the wacky conspiracy theory that won't die. Broncos executive John Elway and Fox secretly want Tebow to fail, because he was a first-round draft choice of Josh McDaniels, generally considered the biggest knucklehead ever to roam the Denver sideline.

"That doesn't make much sense to me. Like buying a Ferrari and pouring sugar in the gas tank," Fox told New York media during a conference call.

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_19345193

wayninja

11-16-2011, 11:36 AM

catfish

11-16-2011, 11:51 AM

agreed, definition of ball control offense, when the game got closer they took a shot down field and went back up by 10...why throw if you don't need to?

BroncoNut

11-16-2011, 11:51 AM

Yeah, sure he is. And Clay's most recent ancestors displayed no sensitivity to light

BroncoNut

11-16-2011, 11:53 AM

Lots of folks in and out of the media just don't get it. It's not about NOT passing, it's simply about running until you need to pass. We didn't need to pass much in the win against KC. It's that simple.

If KC had scored more, we probably would have passed more. Not sure why that stuns so many people.

the worst Defenses will/should adjust to the most effective running schemes in 60 minutes of play. that's why looking at the stats, this KC win is actually quite puzzling to me.

catfish

11-16-2011, 11:59 AM

the worst Defenses will/should adjust to the most effective running schemes in 60 minutes of play. that's why looking at the stats, this KC win is actually quite puzzling to me.

adjust all you want to, it still comes down to execution and talent. People know the pats and green bay are going to come in passing, doesn't mean they can stop it. Right now this team is able to beat teams of a similar quality because they can execute this offense better than the other team can defend it.

It really has nothing to do with adjustments at this point as no one should be surprised Denver is going to run, KC certainly knew what was going to happen. I actually think had McGahee and Moreno not gone down the KC game could have been a blowout.

That said a team with much higher overall talent is going to blow Denver out of the water, no surprise there.

BroncoNut

11-16-2011, 12:04 PM

adjust all you want to, it still comes down to execution and talent. People know the pats and green bay are going to come in passing, doesn't mean they can stop it. Right now this team is able to beat teams of a similar quality because they can execute this offense better than the other team can defend it.

It really has nothing to do with adjustments at this point as no one should be surprised Denver is going to run, KC certainly knew what was going to happen. I actually think had McGahee and Moreno gone down the KC game could have been a blowout.

That said a team with much higher overall talent is going to blow Denver out of the water, no surprise there.

I would think that 8 pass attempts in a game is pretty rare

catfish

11-16-2011, 12:25 PM

I would think that 8 pass attempts in a game is pretty rare

agreed, but that isn't the average he is throwing a game. It is the number of throws called for in 1 game that Denver was dominating the whole time

MasterShake

11-16-2011, 12:32 PM

Plus, when we hired Fox was this not EXACTLY the type of offense he promised us? Run heavy, pass second, with a dominating defense. If we could build around this type of team I would be very pleased.

I could still be in shock from going from an average team to being a bad team and now starting to get an identity, but I really like the tough type of football we played the last few weeks. Never thought I'd say that because I enjoy watching high scoring games with lots of passing. But if it works for my team, I'm all over it.

If this pans out somehow, it would be nice to get Tebow to just be an average passer so we can make teams pay for trying to stop the run. Draft some option QBs late and give it a shot. Maybe we could take the NFL by surprise! Or fail spectacularly. Either way it will be more fun that the last few years.

Mike

11-16-2011, 12:35 PM

MasterShake

11-16-2011, 12:38 PM

To be honest, I am waiting for the hammer to drop. I hope they keep it up, but am skeptical. Guess the Broncos have just about beaten most optimism out of me over the years.

I really want them to beat the Jets though...so I hope the bubble doesn't bust for one more week.

I hear ya! A few weeks ago I was looking at the schedule and I just wanted to win 3 games really bad. Oakland, New York, and Chicago. Anything else would be gravy, so lets hope we don't get figured out too quickly... :lol:

silkamilkamonico

11-16-2011, 12:47 PM

The ball control offense is fine as long as Denver keeps winning with it. If something happens where teams figure it out and Denver starts struggling, the fanbase is going to quickly move back to being dissatisfied. When the ball control offense doesn't work, it is absolutely dreadful to watch.

catfish

11-16-2011, 12:49 PM

Mike

11-16-2011, 01:04 PM

the same can be said for any offense that loses. Losing sucks, doesn't matter how you lose

I agree losing sucks. But losing run, run, run, punt a whole game is definitely worse to watch, IMO anyways.

UnderArmour

11-16-2011, 01:09 PM

Lots of folks in and out of the media just don't get it. It's not about NOT passing, it's simply about running until you need to pass. We didn't need to pass much in the win against KC. It's that simple.

If KC had scored more, we probably would have passed more. Not sure why that stuns so many people.
I don't think the media understands that the team that scores the most points win the ball game 100% of the time with 0.0000000% margin of error . Nothing else matters on any stat sheet period.

catfish

11-16-2011, 01:11 PM

I agree losing sucks. But losing run, run, run, punt a whole game is definitely worse to watch, IMO anyways.

I don't know I guess I still see football as a sport and not as entertainment. If run, run, run punt is what gives you the best chance to win boring or not so be it. 1st and ten, 3yd pass attempt pick six, kickoff team(see Lions/ Bears) hurts more to watch than playing the field position game to each his own(my 2 cents)

catfish

11-16-2011, 01:13 PM

I agree losing sucks. But losing run, run, run, punt a whole game is definitely worse to watch, IMO anyways.

as an aside living in Tampa bay when the Bucs won the superbowl no-one cared at all that the offense was sub-par, my guess is baltimore fans felt the same way

silkamilkamonico

11-16-2011, 01:16 PM

as an aside living in Tampa bay when the Bucs won the superbowl no-one cared at all that the offense was sub-par, my guess is baltimore fans felt the same way

That's a terrible argument, considering those 2 defenses were among the top 5 defenses in the history of the NFL.

I'm all for this conversation you guys are having. But offenses win in the NFL, period. Week after week we see guys like Brees, Brady, Manning, Rodgers, and a plethora of NFL QB's completely dismantle the best defenses in the NFL.

Defense in today's NFL is overrated, and a second thought to offense.

Mike

11-16-2011, 01:17 PM

as an aside living in Tampa bay when the Bucs won the superbowl no-one cared at all that the offense was sub-par, my guess is baltimore fans felt the same way

Because they were winning. Keep winning and run, run, run, punt all you want. Start losing and people will not support running on 3rd and 10.

And our defense, while improved, is nowhere near the league of those two teams. When they get there and can shut down good offensive teams consistently then we can go down that road.

Run, run, run, punt...trailing in games is going to piss people off and be tough to watch.

Dreadnought

11-16-2011, 01:18 PM

I agree losing sucks. But losing run, run, run, punt a whole game is definitely worse to watch, IMO anyways.

Moreno off tackle for one yard, Orton misses a man over the middle, Orton completes a 4 yard hitch on 3rd and 9, punt. That was worse.

jhildebrand

11-16-2011, 01:21 PM

That's a terrible argument, considering those 2 defenses were among the top 5 defenses in the history of the NFL.

I'm all for this conversation you guys are having. But offenses win in the NFL, period. Week after week we see guys like Brees, Brady, Manning, Rodgers, and a plethora of NFL QB's completely dismantle the best defenses in the NFL.

Defense in today's NFL is overrated, and a second thought to offense.

Except Brady and Manning are considered the league's two best QB's (or were) and both lost SB's recently due in large part to defense.

The O has to get you there, the D has to finish the job is the way I see it.

wayninja

11-16-2011, 01:22 PM

I don't think the media understands that the team that scores the most points win the ball game 100% of the time with 0.0000000% margin of error . Nothing else matters on any stat sheet period.

Nah, they get it. They are just trying to weasel out or shift the focus of the argument. You don't still hear the media talking about how he would never be an NFL QB, do you? You don't hear them saying that he can't win in the NFL?

No, now playing/winning isn't good enough, he has to be 'pretty' doing it or somehow it doesn't count.

Mike

11-16-2011, 01:23 PM

Moreno off tackle for one yard, Orton misses a man over the middle, Orton completes a 4 yard hitch on 3rd and 9, punt. That was worse.

As the Capt of the anti-Bum fan club I understand. But watching run (stuff), run (stuff), Tebow run QB draw on 3rd and 10, punt is worse, IMO. 6 of one, half dozen of the other I guess.

My opinion on why it is worse is because of the fear that they have an unknown in Tebow and aren't giving him the chance to grow or fail. To keep pounding it when it ain't there and when you are losing is just tougher to watch for me.

silkamilkamonico

11-16-2011, 01:26 PM

Except Brady and Manning are considered the league's two best QB's (or were) and both lost SB's recently due in large part to defense.

The O has to get you there, the D has to finish the job is the way I see it.

Rodgers isn't? Brees isn't? There's 4 of 32 QB's in the NFL. Can I add a couple more in there that deserve to be? Roethleberger. Schaub is known for lighting up elite defenses but I won't add him. Rivers?

That's 6 of 32 starting QB's in the NFL. Almost 20% of starting NFL QB's are capable of making today's best defenses moot. And I could even add to that.

I can accept your argument for the Pats vs Giants. But nobody wants to look at the fact that Brady played on a fractured foot due to the SD game and had surgery after the season. But even with that argument, I could make more for offense.

Denver Native (Carol)

11-16-2011, 01:28 PM

back to article - this also caught my eye:

"I'm his biggest fan. The kid's a competitor," Fox said, explaining why he designed a run-heavy, read-option offense around the skills of Tebow.

"No knock against anybody else, but the quarterback we have now likes this stuff. He has a bigger body. Running is one of this guy's strengths. Put in this offense and some quarterbacks in the league would look at you like you had three heads. Tebow feeds off it. He likes the physical part of football, and it's a little bit unique. He can pass. But this is an ability (Tebow) has that most quarterbacks don't have in this league."

http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_19345193

Trailer Park Casanova

11-16-2011, 01:35 PM

Bronc's have the 3'rd best defense in the NFL.
Hold that thought.
It'll get even better.

The team has lot's of talent in all respects IMHO.

When they hit the playoffs the non-believers will be difficult to live with.

MOtorboat

11-16-2011, 01:38 PM

as an aside living in Tampa bay when the Bucs won the superbowl no-one cared at all that the offense was sub-par, my guess is baltimore fans felt the same way

Take a look at the quarterbacks they faced in those Super Bowls too.

There was a void in talent between when Montana, Young, Elway, Aikman, Marino and Kelly retired until the current crop took over in earnest, and during that in between period is when you saw two defensive teams win the Super Bowl.

catfish

11-16-2011, 01:39 PM

Rodgers isn't? Brees isn't? There's 4 of 32 QB's in the NFL. Can I add a couple more in there that deserve to be? Roethleberger. Schaub is known for lighting up elite defenses but I won't add him. Rivers?

That's 6 of 32 starting QB's in the NFL. Almost 20% of starting NFL QB's are capable of making today's best defenses moot. And I could even add to that.

I can accept your argument for the Pats vs Giants. But nobody wants to look at the fact that Brady played on a fractured foot due to the SD game and had surgery after the season. But even with that argument, I could make more for offense.

from a gambling standpoint 20% is not a large number. which in my mind means you will be in a bidding war with 80% of the league every year to try to get a QB who MIGHT be able to become elite EVENTUALLY without trading him away first or him getting injured all the while trying to compete with a team that has gaping holes in other positions because you have pissed away your top pick every year on the next franchise QB.

You win the superbowl with either elite offense and above average D or Elite Defense with above average O. Denver currently has a core on defense that could develop into something elite. The offense is a steaming pile, ask yourself which one is the shorter trip developing your above average D to elite, or polishing the turd of your offense until it is a diamond

silkamilkamonico

11-16-2011, 01:42 PM

from a gambling standpoint 20% is not a large number. which in my mind means you will be in a bidding war with 80% of the league every year to try to get a QB who MIGHT be able to become elite EVENTUALLY without trading him away first or him getting injured all the while trying to compete with a team that has gaping holes in other positions because you have pissed away your top pick every year on the next franchise QB.

You win the superbowl with either elite offense and above average D or Elite Defense with above average O. Denver currently has a core on defense that could develop into something elite. The offense is a steaming pile ask yourself which one is the shorter trip developing your above average D to elite, or polishing the turd of your offense until it is a diamond

In this day and age elite defense is a gimmick mask off a potent offense. Potent offenses that can score points allow defenses to play aggressive, which is why you see defenses thriving on TO's. Look at Green Bay. NO benefitted when they won the SuperBowl. Indy's offense when it works allows their defense to play a certain way.

You win the SuperBowl by outscoring your opponents. You don't have to look past your example of the Bucs winning the SuperBowl, when their offense scored 42 points. And that's even an exception.

Aaron Rodgers absolutely shredded 3 top 10 defenses on his way to SuperBowl MVP last year.

Forget defense. Offense wins.

claymore

11-16-2011, 01:43 PM

Lots of folks in and out of the media just don't get it. It's not about NOT passing, it's simply about running until you need to pass. We didn't need to pass much in the win against KC. It's that simple.

If KC had scored more, we probably would have passed more. Not sure why that stuns so many people.

If we were up 28-0 in the first qtr that theory might hold more water. We are a low... scoring offense with a traditionaly bad defense. No way we score 7 points, then start pumping the breaks.

I think we all know why we didnt throw more, and it has to do with Tebows erratic throws more than the massive 7 point lead we had.

catfish

11-16-2011, 01:46 PM

In this day and age elite defense is a gimmick mask off a potent offense. Potent offenses that can score points allow defenses to play aggressive, which is why you see defenses thriving on TO's. Look at Green Bay. NO benefitted when they won the SuperBowl. Indy's offense when it works allows their defense to play a certain way.

You win the SuperBowl by outscoring your opponents. You don't have to look past your example of the Bucs winning the SuperBowl, when their offense scored 42 points. And that's even an exception.

Aaron Rodgers absolutely shredded 3 top 10 defenses on his way to SuperBowl MVP last year.

Forget defense. Offense wins.

You are right, definately wait till you guys have a QB that can outperform Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady at their own game. it shouldn't take very long to get the level of talent that they have at all positions on offense, 8-10 years max.

wayninja

11-16-2011, 01:48 PM

If we were up 28-0 in the first qtr that theory might hold more water. We are a low... scoring offense with a traditionaly bad defense. No way we score 7 points, then start pumping the breaks.

I think we all know why we didnt throw more, and it has to do with Tebows erratic throws more than the massive 7 point lead we had.

Not sure what you are saying. Are you saying reality didn't happen? You do know we scored the first 7 points with our foot ON the brakes, right?

So, Tebow is the reason we didn't throw more, despite that the first 3 pass plays called were 40+ yard bombs? Sorry, but that seems less plausible.

silkamilkamonico

11-16-2011, 01:50 PM

You are right, definately wait till you guys have a QB that can outperform Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady at their own game. it shouldn't take very long to get the level of talent that they have at all positions on offense, 8-10 years max.

You have a much higher % in finding a capable SuperBowl winning QB in the NFL than you do of all of a sudden transforming your defense into elite.

I mean, there are only currently 6 capable QB's in the NFL now, and a couple others knocking on the door. I'll take my chances with 1 out of 5.

Npba900

11-16-2011, 01:53 PM

I agree losing sucks. But losing run, run, run, punt a whole game is definitely worse to watch, IMO anyways.

That scenario sure wouldn't give your defense much time to rest! A worn out defense = oppossing teams scoring points in the 4th qtr.

catfish

11-16-2011, 01:58 PM

You have a much higher % in finding a capable SuperBowl winning QB in the NFL than you do of all of a sudden transforming your defense into elite.

I mean, there are only currently 6 capable QB's in the NFL now, and a couple others knocking on the door. I'll take my chances with 1 out of 5.

from what I can recall 7 of the last 10 superbowl champs have had overall top 10 defenses, 4 have had overall top 10 offenses.

jhildebrand

11-16-2011, 03:34 PM

Rodgers isn't? Brees isn't? There's 4 of 32 QB's in the NFL. Can I add a couple more in there that deserve to be? Roethleberger. Schaub is known for lighting up elite defenses but I won't add him. Rivers?

That's 6 of 32 starting QB's in the NFL. Almost 20% of starting NFL QB's are capable of making today's best defenses moot. And I could even add to that.

I can accept your argument for the Pats vs Giants. But nobody wants to look at the fact that Brady played on a fractured foot due to the SD game and had surgery after the season. But even with that argument, I could make more for offense.

Rodgers is the best in the game right now. The guys you mentioned save for Rivers I would say are elite or very very close to it (Rivers was until this season).

But the record breaking Pats offense lost perfection and the SB to the Giants D and a not so elite (at the time) Eli.

Brady was on the field. I wouldn't discount it at all. In fact, since Spygate the Pats have only won one playoff game with what many consider the league's best passer ever!

Brees and his saints were losing to the Colts. It took an onside kick and recovery as well as a Tracy Porter pick 6.

Rodgers and his team had a pick six by collins in the 2nd which one could argue was the difference in the game.

Pittsburgh's win over AZ could have the 100 yard retun by James Harrison as the difference.

SB 32 the turnover's by Denver's D and the blocked pass to end the game were the difference that day not the ELITE QB's.

Again, your offense has to get you there. But in the SB you can assume two great O's are going to go at it. The difference usually tends to be who makes the plays on D.

BroncoStud

11-16-2011, 04:56 PM

I owe Fox an apology. He has proven to be exactly the opposite of what I thought he was....

Stubborn, antiquated, lacking guts...

He has Denver winning by sticking his brass balls out on the line and installing a 1960's offense because it gave Denver the best chance to compete. I never thought I would see a legit option offense in the NFL and John Fox was the one to do it. Kudos to him for not only having the guts to do this but for spreading the mentality to the defense as well.

I was wrong about him. I now view him like I do Tebow... It isn't about the numbers or the stats, it's about how the team improves. I've warmed up dramatically to both Fox and Tebow. It looks like they may be a very good fit, for each other.

catfish

11-16-2011, 05:05 PM