PDA

View Full Version : Well, despite this loss



Northman
12-18-2011, 07:32 PM
I dont think we have a problem at QB honestly. I saw some awesome throws by Teebs today. I just think he will get better as he gets more experience. But defensively we got some serious issues.

igoe4broncos
12-18-2011, 07:33 PM
I agree. There were some tight windows that he made perfect throws too. Some off throws of course as well, but that's OK as long as they aren't intercepted.

I still think he will get 10X better with a whole off-season to work on things.

Dreadnought
12-18-2011, 07:34 PM
Tebow was not why the Pats won today. He played pretty solidly

cmc0605
12-18-2011, 07:37 PM
Absolutely, and he was still playing with heart when the game was over. If we make the playoffs, this team is probably not superbowl quality, but I think we're still good enough to be that "spoiler team" that might surprise one or two opponents. Need a lot of upgrades on defense, but keep in mind we should also be getting Dawkins back.

MasterShake
12-18-2011, 07:40 PM
Honestly I would have been shocked if we won. I agree Tebow looked much better though. No harm done with the Raiders falling to the lions today, so I'll give them a mulligan. Hope we regroup and finish strong!

tomjonesrocks
12-18-2011, 07:44 PM
Agreed--though he did fumble *again*, which sucked.

The defense got taken to school, fellas.

VonSackemMiller
12-18-2011, 07:45 PM
I mean we put the defense in a bad bad position today. With 3 turnovers in the 2nd quarter on a short field and momentum swinging completely. 17 points off turnovers today all in one quarter. that kills you on the scoreboard and killed our dominant flow we had going. We never seemed to gain it back.

This team is still legit though and scary, But yeah we dont need a QB its obvious where the problem is and thats CB,DT,RB. And somebody needs to tell Tebow to RUN the ball when the lanes are clearly there instead of looking to scramble around everytime and try to make something happen throwing. Pick and choose better tebow. Youve proved you can throw the ball now dont over do it and take away whats made us successful also YOUR LEGS. extending drives with first downs is what this offense is about. I hope Tebows not listening to the critics that much.

hotcarl
12-18-2011, 07:47 PM
gay play by fag bags

VonSackemMiller
12-18-2011, 07:50 PM
The refs were slinging the flags alot for the pats today.

battherastard
12-18-2011, 07:54 PM
not to be a defensive apologist, but they fumbled inside their own 30 three times.

TeBRO
12-18-2011, 08:04 PM
Fumbles or No Fumbles. Brady tore us a new one.

CrazyHorse
12-18-2011, 08:10 PM
The fumbles which resulted in scores and a large lead took us out of our game plan. Had we not turned the ball over and kept running the ball I think we could have an eked out a victory.

OrangeHoof
12-18-2011, 08:11 PM
It was a backwards week all around. The defense, which had been outstanding, played poorly. The offense, which had been dreadful, looked solid enough. The Packers lost. Indy won. The universe spun counter-clockwise for awhile. But we still got our miracle comeback finish - it just came in Oakland this week instead of Denver. We still lead the division and own some tie-breakers. Keep the faith. We're still alright.

CrazyHorse
12-18-2011, 08:15 PM
Remember how the Jets got blown out by the Patriots last year then beat them in the playoffs. I'm hoping for a similar scenario this year.

lgenf
12-18-2011, 08:16 PM
We got beat by a far superior team

The fact that we handed it to them with 3 TOs didn't help, but it was NOT the reason we got beat, it was one of the reasons

SmilinAssasSin27
12-18-2011, 08:18 PM
If San Diego loses, this day is fine. Oakland, Tennessee and NYJ losing was huge for us. And we beat Cincy head to head if it comes down to that.

igoe4broncos
12-18-2011, 08:21 PM
Brady says "we might see them again down the road" in the post-game. I hope he is right. We seem to play more sound football on the road anyways and the advantage of a rematch usually goes to the team that lost the first time around.

With that said, have to actually get into the playoffs AND win a game first, but just a thought.

I Eat Staples
12-18-2011, 08:26 PM
Agreed, Tebow and our offense in general looked very good today. The turnovers hurt us but otherwise we moved the ball well.

Defensively...I am at a loss for words.

wayninja
12-18-2011, 08:27 PM
The fumbles which resulted in scores and a large lead took us out of our game plan. Had we not turned the ball over and kept running the ball I think we could have an eked out a victory.

That may be, but that doesn't excuse how the defense was completely outplayed today. They did nothing today. Couldn't stop them when we needed a stop, didn't take the ball away once and generally got carved up.

Pretty much what was expected, but that doesn't make it hurt any less.

CrazyHorse
12-18-2011, 08:29 PM
That may be, but that doesn't excuse how the defense was completely outplayed today.

I hope we get Dawkins back soon. He doesn't miss the tackles our safeties were missing.

wayninja
12-18-2011, 08:30 PM
Agreed, Tebow and our offense in general looked very good today. The turnovers hurt us but otherwise we moved the ball well.

Defensively...I am at a loss for words.

I know it was garbage time, but taking a 30 yard sack wasn't exactly 'pretty'.
And 2 fumbles is not good.

Beyond, that, the offense was serviceable if not good.

That 40 yard laser beam to DT in the 4th quarter was a thing of beauty though. I didn't think Tebow had a throw like that in him.

horsepig
12-18-2011, 08:46 PM
Agreed, Tebow and our offense in general looked very good today. The turnovers hurt us but otherwise we moved the ball well.

Defensively...I am at a loss for words.

Credit NE's OL, Brady had a lot of time, looook out!

horsepig
12-18-2011, 08:49 PM
That may be, but that doesn't excuse how the defense was completely outplayed today. They did nothing today. Couldn't stop them when we needed a stop, didn't take the ball away once and generally got carved up.

Pretty much what was expected, but that doesn't make it hurt any less.

Wouldn't it be nice to have Atwater and Smith back there headhunting? They'd get flagged a lot, but Hell, they flagged us plenty today anyway.

steelerddan
12-18-2011, 09:00 PM
Remember the Broncos were playing against the worst pass defense in the NFL, who just a week before gave up over 300 yds passing to rex grossman and over 300 to orlovsky of the colts a week prior to that. To be honest I thought Tebow would do much better. Also layoff the Defense That was Tom Brady they were facing not some scrub...

CoachChaz
12-18-2011, 09:03 PM
Safeties killed us

wayninja
12-18-2011, 09:18 PM
Remember the Broncos were playing against the worst pass defense in the NFL, who just a week before gave up over 300 yds passing to rex grossman and over 300 to orlovsky of the colts a week prior to that. To be honest I thought Tebow would do much better. Also layoff the Defense That was Tom Brady they were facing not some scrub...

Agreed, but you expect them to be at least competitive. They weren't. I'm not blaming them, our D doesn't have the 1-for-1 talent that The pats have on offense, but that chink in the armor is going to be studied like crazy, and that's not good for us.

TXBRONC
12-18-2011, 09:22 PM
Honestly I would have been shocked if we won. I agree Tebow looked much better though. No harm done with the Raiders falling to the lions today, so I'll give them a mulligan. Hope we regroup and finish strong!

I don't mean to be a wet blanket but that kind of depends on what happens with the Chargers. If they win they obviously gain ground on us.

bcbronc
12-18-2011, 09:30 PM
Agreed, but you expect them to be at least competitive. They weren't. I'm not blaming them, our D doesn't have the 1-for-1 talent that The pats have on offense, but that chink in the armor is going to be studied like crazy, and that's not good for us.

Except most teams don't have Tom Brady.

wayninja
12-18-2011, 09:36 PM
Except most teams don't have Tom Brady.

That's true, but the playoff teams have Brees, Hamburgler, Rogers. There's enough good offensive teams out that we need a better showing than what we saw today if we hope to have a prayer.

For the record, I don't think we actually do have a prayer. I'd be amazed if we made it past the first round vs Bal or Pit.

bcbronc
12-18-2011, 09:43 PM
We do need a better effort, but simple fact is we can't absorb any injuries. Get Carter or Moore off the field for Dawkins, we play better. Still wouldn't have stopped Brady, but maybe we keep them out of the endzone once or twice.

Come the playoffs, if we get there, we'll be in tough no matter who we play. It's really icing on the cake though considering what the expectations were coming into the season. We're still a few pieces away from being a team that can beat a NE on the strength of our defense.

VonSackemMiller
12-18-2011, 09:51 PM
Champ Bailey was not trying to tackle and shying away from contact today, Is he injured or something?

Slick
12-18-2011, 10:04 PM
Safeties killed us

I almost would have rather played Champ at safety today and took my chances with Goodman and Harris or Wilhite on the outside.

Maybe next year???

Draft a corner, sign one in free agency and move Champ to centerfield?

The thought of drafting another safety makes me cringe.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BroncoNut
12-18-2011, 10:05 PM
Absolutely, and he was still playing with heart when the game was over. If we make the playoffs, this team is probably not superbowl quality, but I think we're still good enough to be that "spoiler team" that might surprise one or two opponents. Need a lot of upgrades on defense, but keep in mind we should also be getting Dawkins back.

yes. Orton would have folded

MOtorboat
12-18-2011, 10:12 PM
No worries. Last time I checked the Patriots are pretty good.

BroncoStud
12-18-2011, 10:17 PM
I dont think we have a problem at QB honestly. I saw some awesome throws by Teebs today. I just think he will get better as he gets more experience. But defensively we got some serious issues.

Yep, agree totally. The defense has a glaring need for talent upgrade. But Tebow played just fine. He is clearly getting better. That's all I ever expected to see from him, improvement. That 40 yard out he threw in the 4th quarter was pretty freaking impressive by ANY standards.

BroncoStud
12-18-2011, 10:23 PM
Chargers up 31-7 against the Ravens late in the 3rd... They could easily win out. We need to win another game, it has to be the Chiefs.

topscribe
12-18-2011, 10:23 PM
Tebow was not why the Pats won today. He played pretty solidly

Tebow was a reason the point spread wasn't any greater than it was . . .

NightTerror218
12-18-2011, 10:41 PM
Offense played well, we could have kept rushing but had serious catch to do. I wanted to know what happened to defense. Where was Miller? I say the Pats started to rush well against us. Bailey shut out who ever he was on and Harris was being picked on and both safeties are rookies. I hope they get better.

Joel
12-18-2011, 10:44 PM
Agreed--though he did fumble *again*, which sucked.

The defense got taken to school, fellas.
He did, yes, because as he turned to make a pitch our "great" blockers had already let one of the Pats into the backfield to grab him. Gimme a great CB and LG in the off season, not a QB.

wayninja
12-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Offense played well, we could have kept rushing but had serious catch to do. I wanted to know what happened to defense. Where was Miller? I say the Pats started to rush well against us. Bailey shut out who ever he was on and Harris was being picked on and both safeties are rookies. I hope they get better.

They were kept in check by Light and Solder, as expected.

wayninja
12-18-2011, 10:47 PM
He did, yes, because as he turned to make a pitch our "great" blockers had already let one of the Pats into the backfield to grab him. Gimme a great CB and LG in the off season, not a QB.

Agreed, that one's on Timmy, but that was a blown play, he had a defender in his face within a second of the snap... Best case scenario there is a sack...

Joel
12-18-2011, 10:59 PM
Agreed, that one's on Timmy, but that was a blown play, he had a defender in his face within a second of the snap... Best case scenario there is a sack...
About the worst I can say about Tebow on plays like that, and there were many of them tonight, is that he too often holds the ball too long trying to make something happen when he should throw it out of bounds and avoid the sack (or fumble, which we've seen more of lately.) On the other hand, on a lot of those plays he DOES avoid the sack and get a big completion downfield, so I'm not sure how much I can complain.

The main thing he's missing now (apart from reliable blocking; I wish rookie RT Orlando Franklin played half as well as rookie RT Ben Solder did on Miller tonight) is game speed decision making, correctly anticipating receivers getting open and getting through his progressions a lot faster than he's forced to do it on the practice field. That should come in time, and better protection would make it less critical. For all the talk of fainting goats, if that goat had had Pro Bowler Casey Wiegmann at center in Denver like he did in KC today he might not have fainted as much as he did with J.D. Walton. Oh, wait, he DID have Wiegmann--until someone cut him and replaced him with Walton.... :tsk:

bcbronc
12-18-2011, 11:05 PM
He did, yes, because as he turned to make a pitch our "great" blockers had already let one of the Pats into the backfield to grab him. Gimme a great CB and LG in the off season, not a QB.

Anderson was Tebow's man to account for. He came off the edge from the outside, Clady blocked down to help sell the inside handoff play-action. If Anderson doesn't bite on the PA, it's up to Tebow to beat him with his legs or the pitch.

That fumble lies 100% on Tebow, and no one else. Not that that means we should trade up for a QB in RD1 or anything.

bcbronc
12-18-2011, 11:06 PM
Agreed, that one's on Timmy, but that was a blown play, he had a defender in his face within a second of the snap... Best case scenario there is a sack...

It wasn't a blown play, it was a triple option.....

Joel
12-18-2011, 11:10 PM
Chargers up 31-7 against the Ravens late in the 3rd... They could easily win out. We need to win another game, it has to be the Chiefs.
I wouldn't say, "easily;" they finish on the road against the Lions and Faders. Also, they have three losses in the Division, so about the only way they win it is if they're the ONLY 9-7 team. The Chiefs are probably a more plausible Division winner, since they're 2-2 in the Division and their last two are hosting Chokeland and in Denver. However, I don't consider either of those scenarios terribly plausible: Between us and the Faders, one of us has another win left in us.

We need to win another game regardless, preferably the Chiefs, since that would lock up the Division outright. Unfortunately, that means unless the Raiders lose next week we can't KNOW beating Buffalo clenches.

Joel
12-18-2011, 11:15 PM
Anderson was Tebow's man to account for. He came off the edge from the outside, Clady blocked down to help sell the inside handoff play-action. If Anderson doesn't bite on the PA, it's up to Tebow to beat him with his legs or the pitch.

That fumble lies 100% on Tebow, and no one else. Not that that means we should trade up for a QB in RD1 or anything.
How can a 3-4 DE come off the edge from the outside OR be the QBs man in any scenario? Even if Clady has a different assignment, where's Beadles ("where's Beadles?" is a frequent question in Denver.)

That play is either a sack or a fumble, every time; if it was drawn up that way in the triple option, it's just one more reason not to run that offense.

weazel
12-18-2011, 11:15 PM
the loss today was based on a couple things obviously...
we turned the ball over and they capitalized and the Pats can simply score more points than we can at present.

It sucks that the Broncos lost but I think Tebow had arguably his best game besides a couple of times where he hung on to the ball too long. He really is showing great progress, Im pretty damn impressed and I think the guy deserves the chance to lead the team next season. He's starting to look more like a QB instead of a quasi QB/RB, and he is showing alot more poise. I could go on about how much he has improved but I think everyone has seen it for themselves. I'm excited for the future of this team, we need to shore up some obvious holes on D but thats what the off-season is for.

I cannot believe Cosby was still fielding kicks in the second half, someone has to question Fox on that one...

bcbronc
12-18-2011, 11:36 PM
How can a 3-4 DE come off the edge from the outside OR be the QBs man in any scenario? Even if Clady has a different assignment, where's Beadles ("where's Beadles?" is a frequent question in Denver.)

That play is either a sack or a fumble, every time; if it was drawn up that way in the triple option, it's just one more reason not to run that offense.

Beadles? Joel, Anderson lined up in the "Wide 9"...in what alternate universe does he become the LG's man? It also wasn't a 30 front, it was a 40. The replay is up on NFL.com and they show a good endzone view.

It was a classic triple option, and yes the athleticism of NFL DEs is a huge reason why you don't see it in the big leagues very much. Anderson initially bit on the FB, but was able to get to Tebow before he could get the edge. imo it looked like Tebow thought Anderson was out of the play when his first step was inside and Tebow was surprised at how quick Anderson recovered and closed the space. Good play by the defense.

Can't really say that play is either a sack or a fumble, every time, not when it's been run at various levels for maybe 100 years, and we've seen Tebow have some success with it earlier.

Joel
12-19-2011, 12:14 AM
Beadles? Joel, Anderson lined up in the "Wide 9"...in what alternate universe does he become the LG's man? It also wasn't a 30 front, it was a 40. The replay is up on NFL.com and they show a good endzone view.

It was a classic triple option, and yes the athleticism of NFL DEs is a huge reason why you don't see it in the big leagues very much. Anderson initially bit on the FB, but was able to get to Tebow before he could get the edge. imo it looked like Tebow thought Anderson was out of the play when his first step was inside and Tebow was surprised at how quick Anderson recovered and closed the space. Good play by the defense.

Can't really say that play is either a sack or a fumble, every time, not when it's been run at various levels for maybe 100 years, and we've seen Tebow have some success with it earlier.
I avoid NFL.com until after the last game ends so it doesn't lock my browser but, OK, I've had a chance to look at it again, if not from the end zone, and I see what you mean. Beadles handled his assignment, so about the only thing I can say is that I don't like runs designed to let a DE into the backfield on the side where the run is going. Giving a DE a free run at the ball then running TOWARD him usually ends badly in the NFL. Not a blown blocking assignment though, just a bad playcall (IMHO.) Anderson didn't really come off the edge, but he didn't have to because Clady let him go so he could go around the end of the line and block a LB (who was already being effectively blocked by Walton.)

TXBRONC
12-19-2011, 08:29 AM
No worries. Last time I checked the Patriots are pretty good.

It's still aggravating that we lost.

catfish
12-19-2011, 09:06 AM
Just a note, the Pats defense is quite a bit better than people are giving them credit for...they give up a high amount of yards, but relatively few points due to a high turnover margin in their favor...Denver racked up a decent amount of yards yesterday..points not so much...on to the Bills

JaxBroncoGirl
12-19-2011, 09:06 AM
Because I went to a non sports bar (loud music) at the beginning of the game and the fact they showed every last second of the Miami/Buffalo game, what was the meaning with Brady spiking the ball, was it a screw you type moment or just that he scored???

catfish
12-19-2011, 09:10 AM
Because I went to a non sports bar (loud music) at the beginning of the game and the fact they showed every last second of the Miami/Buffalo game, what was the meaning with Brady spiking the ball, was it a screw you type moment or just that he scored???

Just looked like a spike after a rare QB sneak for a TD by Brady to me

CoachChaz
12-19-2011, 09:11 AM
It's still aggravating that we lost.

Key words.

I think with a 2nd quarter where we dont look like a JV high school team, this is obviously a completely different game. Despite the fact that we have 2 young safeties that have no clue how to play the game.

catfish
12-19-2011, 09:14 AM
Key words.

I think with a 2nd quarter where we dont look like a JV high school team, this is obviously a completely different game. Despite the fact that we have 2 young safeties that have no clue how to play the game.

Agreed, kind of puts Foxball in perspective....limit turnovers=win the game, period. all the other stats can be argued from the point of view of talent vs.gameplan, but what it comes down to is for this team to win(against a very good team) turnovers need to be basically non-existent

TXBRONC
12-19-2011, 09:18 AM
Key words.

I think with a 2nd quarter where we dont look like a JV high school team, this is obviously a completely different game. Despite the fact that we have 2 young safeties that have no clue how to play the game.

I agree if Denver doesn't shoot themselves in the foot like they did in the second quarter this more than likely a completely different game.

Rick
12-19-2011, 09:48 AM
All in all the offense played pretty good.

What killed us in the game was:



Denver Fumbles
FUM LOST REC
T. Tebow 2 1 0
L. Ball 1 1 0
Q. Cosby 1 1 0
Team 4 3 0


The defense got chewed on as well but they were doing ok early, I think the turnovers and subsequent scores NE got as a result just brought it all crashing down.

Every time it seemed that the offense would start to move after the first couple scoring drives they would just turn it over.

catfish
12-19-2011, 09:50 AM
I agree if Denver doesn't shoot themselves in the foot like they did in the second quarter this more than likely a completely different game.

once the turnovers turned into points they had to get away from running the ball(McGahee getting hurt didn't help) All downhill from there. This team doesn't have the ability to compete in the passing game with a team like NE(no shame, not many are hence 11-3) The QB and the WR/TE aren't there yet

weazel
12-19-2011, 11:51 AM
once the turnovers turned into points they had to get away from running the ball(McGahee getting hurt didn't help) All downhill from there. This team doesn't have the ability to compete in the passing game with a team like NE(no shame, not many are hence 11-3) The QB and the WR/TE aren't there yet

that brings up the question of what they do next year for a feature RB... Moreno has shown he isnt one and McGahee is getting older and doesnt seem to be holding up to well this season. We need a guy who can run alot every game.

catfish
12-19-2011, 11:59 AM
that brings up the question of what they do next year for a feature RB... Moreno has shown he isnt one and McGahee is getting older and doesnt seem to be holding up to well this season. We need a guy who can run alot every game.

I'm a huge fan of Richardson, but even if it isn't him Denver needs to get someone to rotate in(maybe 2 someones)

NightTerror218
12-19-2011, 12:30 PM
the loss today was based on a couple things obviously...
we turned the ball over and they capitalized and the Pats can simply score more points than we can at present.

It sucks that the Broncos lost but I think Tebow had arguably his best game besides a couple of times where he hung on to the ball too long. He really is showing great progress, Im pretty damn impressed and I think the guy deserves the chance to lead the team next season. He's starting to look more like a QB instead of a quasi QB/RB, and he is showing alot more poise. I could go on about how much he has improved but I think everyone has seen it for themselves. I'm excited for the future of this team, we need to shore up some obvious holes on D but thats what the off-season is for.

I cannot believe Cosby was still fielding kicks in the second half, someone has to question Fox on that one...

I questioned Fox when he called a timeout when there was an injured bronco on the field, because there would be an automatic injury time out. Unless he really wanted that player back on the field because they would have to sit for a play.

NightTerror218
12-19-2011, 12:32 PM
Key words.

I think with a 2nd quarter where we dont look like a JV high school team, this is obviously a completely different game. Despite the fact that we have 2 young safeties that have no clue how to play the game.

2nd quarter we had 2 turnovers and barely had the ball at all.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 12:33 PM
2nd quarter we had 2 turnovers and barely had the ball at all.

3 turnovers.

vandammage13
12-19-2011, 12:48 PM
I think this game puts into perspective into what our team is right now....

We are NOT a team that can overcome 3 straight turnovers...

We don't have enough playmakers on offense to overcome those mistakes, and (depsite a lot of belief that our defense is the reason for our recent winning ways) our defense is not good enough to hold teams unless our offense controls the clock, protects the ball, and keeps the D in good field position.

We are not that far removed from a 4-12 season and a 1-4 start to this year. The defense is not that far removed from being considered one of the worst in the league either.

This team has enough talent and leadership to win, but IF, and ONLY IF, we don't turn the ball over.

It is not all doom and gloom, and I still think this team can make some noise in the playoffs if we get there, we just aren't good enough to win while simultaneouly shooting ourselves in the foot (or leg). Just not enough playmakers on the roster.

If the offense can get back to protecting the ball, then we can beat anybody, anytime, anywhere.

weazel
12-19-2011, 12:54 PM
we just aren't good enough to win while simultaneouly shooting ourselves in the foot (or leg)

maybe thats why the Jets are having problems! :lol:

MOtorboat
12-19-2011, 12:58 PM
Only one team this entire season has overcome a three turnover deficit to win this season, so no one has the talent to do it.

1-33 was the stat Elway recited on twitter I believe.

Just can't do that, especially when they got off to the start that they did. They had the Pats on the ropes early

Nomad
12-19-2011, 01:14 PM
I hope everyone's satisfied with this loss and the lack of media coverage of Tim Tebow!:lol:

wayninja
12-19-2011, 01:17 PM
3 turnovers, while sounding nasty is slightly misleading. 1 of the turnovers was with 5 seconds left in the half. So we really couldn't have done anything with that possession. It did allow NE 3 more points, but it wasn't as costly as it sounds. The 2 fumbles by Tebow and Ball were more of a problem since they affected our drives and gave NE instant scoring opportunities with time on the clock.

NightTrainLayne
12-19-2011, 01:28 PM
3 turnovers, while sounding nasty is slightly misleading. 1 of the turnovers was with 5 seconds left in the half. So we really couldn't have done anything with that possession. It did allow NE 3 more points, but it wasn't as costly as it sounds. The 2 fumbles by Tebow and Ball were more of a problem since they affected our drives and gave NE instant scoring opportunities with time on the clock.

Giving NE a free FG kick is just as costly as it sounds. The fact that we couldn't do much with that posession makes it even more costly.

vandammage13
12-19-2011, 01:34 PM
3 turnovers, while sounding nasty is slightly misleading. 1 of the turnovers was with 5 seconds left in the half. So we really couldn't have done anything with that possession. It did allow NE 3 more points, but it wasn't as costly as it sounds. The 2 fumbles by Tebow and Ball were more of a problem since they affected our drives and gave NE instant scoring opportunities with time on the clock.

You can't give a team like NE free points no matter what if you want to win.

Add in the fumbled snap on the extra point and all of those fumbles add up to basically 14 free points for NE.

It's hard enough to beat a team like NE as it is without spotting them the equivlent of two TD's.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 02:16 PM
Giving NE a free FG kick is just as costly as it sounds. The fact that we couldn't do much with that posession makes it even more costly.

I'm not saying it wasn't dumb, but it just wasn't like the other turnovers where we could have actually USED that possession to score. They didn't even have enough time to go for a TD. Turnovers are never good, but this one simply wasn't as damaging as the other two. If it was more costly since we couldn't do anything with the possession, does that make the other two fumbles less costly since we could? :confused:

Since we lost by way more than a FG, I'm not sure it mattered all that much.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 02:18 PM
You can't give a team like NE free points no matter what if you want to win.

Add in the fumbled snap on the extra point and all of those fumbles add up to basically 14 free points for NE.

It's hard enough to beat a team like NE as it is without spotting them the equivlent of two TD's.


I'm not arguing the PAT or the other fumbles. But this is just empty rhetoric. You can give them 3 free points and still win. We lost by more points than we spotted them.

vandammage13
12-19-2011, 02:28 PM
I'm not arguing the PAT or the other fumbles. But this is just empty rhetoric. You can give them 3 free points and still win. We lost by more points than we spotted them.

It's not just the point total in of itself, but that the point total dictates your gameplan DURING the game.

Before the 14 points that were spotted, the gameplan was working, once the TO's started happening, the Broncos couldn't stick to that gameplan.

Yeah, we lost by more than 14, but the game most likely plays out completely different and you can't just simply look at the final score and say that NE still would have won because the margin of victory was more than 14 points.

Irrelevant really, the game is over, but it certainly is a game we could have or even should have won had the TO's not happened. We were in control and dictating the flow of the game until the wheels came off.

TXBRONC
12-19-2011, 02:39 PM
once the turnovers turned into points they had to get away from running the ball(McGahee getting hurt didn't help) All downhill from there. This team doesn't have the ability to compete in the passing game with a team like NE(no shame, not many are hence 11-3) The QB and the WR/TE aren't there yet

On the Ticket this morning Elway on his weekly radio spot with Vic and Gary said that teams turn the ball over 3 time or more are 1-33 for the year.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 02:42 PM
Yeah, we lost by more than 14, but the game most likely plays out completely different and you can't just simply look at the final score and say that NE still would have won because the margin of victory was more than 14 points.



Sure I can. In fact, that's the only intellectually honest thing I can do. You have no idea how the game would play out if you take those TO's away, there are way too many variables to play that what if game. Taking the points away is the only thing I can be sure of if those TO's didn't happen, and there's no telling if they would have scored those points anyway.

I know I'm in the minority (again), but the TO's were not what lost us this game despite that popular opinion. The game was lost because our Defense could do absolutely nothing to stop the patriots and they made 0 mistakes. I firmly believe that if the turnovers didn't happen the end result is still the same. It may have been by only 11 points instead of 18, but it also could have been 25, who knows.

LordTrychon
12-19-2011, 02:52 PM
Sure I can. In fact, that's the only intellectually honest thing I can do. You have no idea how the game would play out if you take those TO's away, there are way too many variables to play that what if game. Taking the points away is the only thing I can be sure of if those TO's didn't happen, and there's no telling if they would have scored those points anyway.

I know I'm in the minority (again), but the TO's were not what lost us this game despite that popular opinion. The game was lost because our Defense could do absolutely nothing to stop the patriots and they made 0 mistakes. I firmly believe that if the turnovers didn't happen the end result is still the same. It may have been by only 11 points instead of 18, but it also could have been 25, who knows.

While our Defense may or may not have been too bad for us to win yesterday... there was no larger factor than the three turnovers.

We lost by 18 and gave them 13 of those easy, while taking away 2 drives from ourselves. We also asked our Defense to be on the field something like 13/15 minutes in that quarter.

I'd imagine that wasn't easy on them, and didn't help things.

3 turnovers was enough for the Redskins to beat a Giants team who is largely considered to be a much more complete team, by 13 points.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 02:59 PM
While our Defense may or may not have been too bad for us to win yesterday... there was no larger factor than the three turnovers.

We lost by 18 and gave them 13 of those easy, while taking away 2 drives from ourselves. We also asked our Defense to be on the field something like 13/15 minutes in that quarter.

I'd imagine that wasn't easy on them, and didn't help things.

3 turnovers was enough for the Redskins to beat a Giants team who is largely considered to be a much more complete team, by 13 points.

Yep, those turnovers were bad. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Without our Defense making some more stops/plays, we could have been perfect and still completely outmatched.

If we would have kept it close, they would have simply poured it on in the 4th instead of sitting on a 3 possession lead.

CoachChaz
12-19-2011, 03:01 PM
Didnt help that our safeties have no clue. Even when the plays were completed to people they werent assigned to...it was obvious they blew assignments. The Ochocinco TD is a prime example. Goodie let up...knowing he had safety help. And where was Carter? Doubling the underneath route that was nowhere near being open.

Or how about the easy INT that drilled Moore right between the eyes.

I've seen ZERO improvement in those 2. Not sure if Dawk just sucks as a mentor or if they are just that bad. But it needs to be addressed if they cant figure it out

Joel
12-19-2011, 03:03 PM
once the turnovers turned into points they had to get away from running the ball(McGahee getting hurt didn't help) All downhill from there. This team doesn't have the ability to compete in the passing game with a team like NE(no shame, not many are hence 11-3) The QB and the WR/TE aren't there yet
I disagree, I thought the QB and WRs generally looked good, but the line looked VERY bad, letting defenders into the backfield too often on both runs and passes. Why did Ball fumble? Because a two Pat defenders hit him at the line and one of them FORCED the fumble. Why did Tebow fumble? Because an unblocked DE came at him unblocked, and since the option run was called to that side our QB ran right into him and lost the ball. Why did Tebow fumble in the end zone, risking a safety or TD that would've ended the game? Because, once again, a Patriot defender forced the ball loose.

And those are just the FUMBLES; you can add another 4 sacks and 5 QB hits to that, including one when 4/5 NE defenders met at the QB. We could use another star WR so opponents can't just double cover Decker and Thomas, but if Tebow had more time to go through progressions he could be effective getting to the likes of Willis, Royal, Fells and Rosario. He needs to speed up the rate at which he does that, no doubt, but he also needs a line that consistently gives him more time to do it; they hadn't done horribly the last couple weeks, but they really fell apart in pass AND run blocking after the 1st quarter yesterday.

Give me a solid LG and/or C in the next draft; after CB that's what I want more than anything.

topscribe
12-19-2011, 03:10 PM
Didnt help that our safeties have no clue. Even when the plays were completed to people they werent assigned to...it was obvious they blew assignments. The Ochocinco TD is a prime example. Goodie let up...knowing he had safety help. And where was Carter? Doubling the underneath route that was nowhere near being open.

Or how about the easy INT that drilled Moore right between the eyes.

I've seen ZERO improvement in those 2. Not sure if Dawk just sucks as a mentor or if they are just that bad. But it needs to be addressed if they cant figure it out

Give them a break, Coach. They're rookies. ;)

catfish
12-19-2011, 03:11 PM
I disagree, I thought the QB and WRs generally looked good, but the line looked VERY bad, letting defenders into the backfield too often on both runs and passes. Why did Ball fumble? Because a two Pat defenders hit him at the line and one of them FORCED the fumble. Why did Tebow fumble? Because an unblocked DE came at him unblocked, and since the option run was called to that side our QB ran right into him and lost the ball. Why did Tebow fumble in the end zone, risking a safety or TD that would've ended the game? Because, once again, a Patriot defender forced the ball loose.

And those are just the FUMBLES; you can add another 4 sacks and 5 QB hits to that, including one when 4/5 NE defenders met at the QB. We could use another star WR so opponents can't just double cover Decker and Thomas, but if Tebow had more time to go through progressions he could be effective getting to the likes of Willis, Royal, Fells and Rosario. He needs to speed up the rate at which he does that, no doubt, but he also needs a line that consistently gives him more time to do it; they hadn't done horribly the last couple weeks, but they really fell apart in pass AND run blocking after the 1st quarter yesterday.

Give me a solid LG and/or C in the next draft; after CB that's what I want more than anything.

I agree, you are correct. I was referencing the QB/WR/TE as in taking in the full body of their work, not just this game...should have listed the line too.

LordTrychon
12-19-2011, 03:12 PM
Yep, those turnovers were bad. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Without our Defense making some more stops/plays, we could have been perfect and still completely outmatched.

If we would have kept it close, they would have simply poured it on in the 4th instead of sitting on a 3 possession lead.

Yeah, we will just have to agree to disagree. You may well be right about the final outcome... but when you play the what-if game, it's impossible to really know.

The defense HAD gotten us a stop prior to the fumbilitis. We were up by two scores... what if rather than fumbling the very first one, we kept up with the success we had... and suddenly it's 23-7 early in the second?

Who knows?

Nomad
12-19-2011, 03:22 PM
I disagree, I thought the QB and WRs generally looked good, but the line looked VERY bad, letting defenders into the backfield too often on both runs and passes. Why did Ball fumble? Because a two Pat defenders hit him at the line and one of them FORCED the fumble. Why did Tebow fumble? Because an unblocked DE came at him unblocked, and since the option run was called to that side our QB ran right into him and lost the ball. Why did Tebow fumble in the end zone, risking a safety or TD that would've ended the game? Because, once again, a Patriot defender forced the ball loose.

And those are just the FUMBLES; you can add another 4 sacks and 5 QB hits to that, including one when 4/5 NE defenders met at the QB. We could use another star WR so opponents can't just double cover Decker and Thomas, but if Tebow had more time to go through progressions he could be effective getting to the likes of Willis, Royal, Fells and Rosario. He needs to speed up the rate at which he does that, no doubt, but he also needs a line that consistently gives him more time to do it; they hadn't done horribly the last couple weeks, but they really fell apart in pass AND run blocking after the 1st quarter yesterday.

Give me a solid LG and/or C in the next draft; after CB that's what I want more than anything.

This was one of those games where I wished the BRONCOS had an all pro DT.

Moore would have had a better chance to catch the ball if he would of tried to catch with his hands.

Joel
12-19-2011, 03:34 PM
I think this game puts into perspective into what our team is right now....

We are NOT a team that can overcome 3 straight turnovers...

We don't have enough playmakers on offense to overcome those mistakes, and (depsite a lot of belief that our defense is the reason for our recent winning ways) our defense is not good enough to hold teams unless our offense controls the clock, protects the ball, and keeps the D in good field position.

We are not that far removed from a 4-12 season and a 1-4 start to this year. The defense is not that far removed from being considered one of the worst in the league either.

This team has enough talent and leadership to win, but IF, and ONLY IF, we don't turn the ball over.

It is not all doom and gloom, and I still think this team can make some noise in the playoffs if we get there, we just aren't good enough to win while simultaneouly shooting ourselves in the foot (or leg). Just not enough playmakers on the roster.

If the offense can get back to protecting the ball, then we can beat anybody, anytime, anywhere.
Few teams can overcome three straight turnovers, especially on their end of the field, and ESPECIALLY fumbles, which increase a teams expected points by about 4.5 at ANY location.

The D was exposed, no doubt; our secondary is awful, but let's bear in mind NE is still one of the elite offenses. It's an offense as good as San Diego, who scored 38, 37 and 34 points in their last 3 games (the last against an elite Ravens D yesterday.) Before that they managed 13 points in 5 full quarters against Denver.

The biggest reason for that was that Champ shut down Vincent Jackson, D.J. shut down Gates except for 1 TD (he had 49 yds in the game) and they had nothing else. The Pats have a MUCH better line and an almost limitless supply of receivers, and most of us knew that would translate into lots of NE points even if Dawkins hadn't been replaced by a THIRD rookie DB starting in our secondary.

If we get Champ some quality help we can be a truly stellar D; Harris looks like a promising #2 CB down the road, maybe even good enough to replace Champ as age slows him (at which point he'd be outstanding at either safety position.) Until then, however, opponents who can will play us the way the Colts did at the start of the decade. Those with QBs, offensive lines and receiving corps as good as theirs and the Pats' will give us major trouble, even when our offense is good enough to light them up when we get the ball. Fortunately, there are few teams like that, and this team is already good enough to make the playoffs regularly once we have reliable interior blocking--we just won't be there long until we have a secondary.

After 10 years, we're ALMOST back where we started: Scrambling QB, solid unspectacular RB and front four, good LBs, NO secondary. The main difference is our line is far worse; that and a CB would make us contenders.

Joel
12-19-2011, 03:52 PM
I agree, you are correct. I was referencing the QB/WR/TE as in taking in the full body of their work, not just this game...should have listed the line too.
Yeah, sounds like we're on the same page, just focusing more on different things, while aware of all of them. You may recall I've been critical of our WRs the past few weeks, and pretty critical of Thomas all year, but I was impressed with his play yesterday. I won't say our receivers had NO drops yesterday, but am hard pressed to think of any now; Thomas was clearly working hard not to have a repeat of the Chicago game, and it showed. He's now up to THREE good games in two seasons, a 50% increase. :tongue: But seriously, if he keeps playing like that he'll be a fine primary receiver and I'll be less eager to draft one.

That doesn't mean our receivers couldn't be better or excuse their poor performance through most of the season, and I'm disappointed by the near total absence of Fells along with Willis in the passing game recently. In this League, the Pats are far from the only team capable of forcing us into a shootout that demands big days from multiple receivers just to keep us in it, and our guys have yet to show they can deliver that. When I watch the Texans I can only enviously shake my head at a receiving corps so good it can be neck and neck for playoff homefield despite losing Andre Johnson for basically the whole season.

Until we have BLOCKING as good as the Texans though, the quality of our QB, WRs, TEs and even RB won't matter much; we can't do ANYTHING without a good line, and an offensive line is only as strong as the weakest link defences blow up every week. Fixing that problem would improve the whole offense a lot more than adding any one player at any of the oh, so important "skill" positions. Fixing the secondary while we're at it would make it a lot easier to avoid those shootouts where any team playing Foxball is guaranteed big problems.

This was one of those games where I wished the BRONCOS had an all pro DT.

Moore would have had a better chance to catch the ball if he would of tried to catch with his hands.
No argument on the last point; I have never been impressed by Moore, Bruton or Carter in any game (actually, that's not true; I was very UNFAVORABLY impressed by Carters missed coverages and blown tackles yesterday; one sack does not make up for all that.) I'm not sure an all pro DT would've helped much against a line as good as the Pats; sometimes, you just have to cover, and that has yielded "coverage sacks" to many a team even against great pass blocking.

Agent of Orange
12-19-2011, 04:12 PM
I dont think we have a problem at QB honestly. I saw some awesome throws by Teebs today. I just think he will get better as he gets more experience. But defensively we got some serious issues.


Here are some importante elements to consider:

1. Von's thumb seems to be affecting his play. It's not that he's a non-factor but he's not as much of a factor as he was before. And you don't see the same explosiveness and variety of moves from him when beating his man. If you have a healthy Von Miller getting after QBs, things can change in a big way. But he doesn't appear to be 100% yet. I wonder when that cast will come off?

2. We had 3 rookies in the defensive backfield yesterday. This can be a big problem against any team at any point in the season but it's even less ideal this late in the season against one of the elite QBs in the league. In the post game interviews Goodman spoke of a lot of miscommunication in the secondary. It's not like they had a choice.

3. When the 3 fumbles gave them an easy 17 points going into the second half, this could have altered how Allen wanted to call defense. There were times when we were burnt on blitzes when we were blitzing to generate a turnover to close point gap which arose from the 3 turnovers.

It's hard to really assess the defense because they were put in less than ideal situations in a variety of ways starting with playing 3 rookies in the secondary together for the first time.

It's hard to look at the 41 points the Patriots scored and really look at it as a valid litmus test for where our defense is considering all the variables that have skewed things.

Nomad
12-19-2011, 04:21 PM
No argument on the last point; I have never been impressed by Moore, Burton or Carter in any game (actually, that's not true; I was very UNFAVORABLY impressed by Carters missed coverages and blown tackles yesterday; one sack does not make up for all that.) I'm not sure an all pro DT would've helped much against a line as good as the Pats; sometimes, you just have to cover, and that has yielded "coverage sacks" to many a team even against great pass blocking.

There was no pressure on Brady period. I believe a great DT having to be doubled would have opened the game up for others rather the Patriots oline did a good job one on one. Nate Solder played an excellent game.

Yes, secondary has to cover but that also falls back on no pressure on the QB.

I believe the BRONCOS underestimated the Patriots.

VonSackemMiller
12-19-2011, 05:37 PM
The Broncos underestimated the Patriots? LOL

wayninja
12-19-2011, 05:46 PM
There was no pressure on Brady period. I believe a great DT having to be doubled would have opened the game up for others rather the Patriots oline did a good job one on one. Nate Solder played an excellent game.

Yes, secondary has to cover but that also falls back on no pressure on the QB.

I believe the BRONCOS underestimated the Patriots.

No, it was the turnovers. Without the turnovers we win. In effect, we handed the patriots the game much like many of our opponents the previous 6 weeks. Right guys?

Nomad
12-19-2011, 05:52 PM
No, it was the turnovers. Without the turnovers we win. In effect, we handed the patriots the game much like many of our opponents the previous 6 weeks. Right guys?

And the Patriots defense/STs caused those turnovers, wherein all week I heard the Pats defense/ST were soft. Joel breaks it down pretty good. The BRONCOS didn't expect this kind of production from the Pats defense. And letting Brady pass at will wasn't a factor.....right!

BTW, VonSackemMiller, your boy got owned pretty much all game when he was supposed to abuse Solder.:coffee:

The BRONCOS underestimated the Patriots

SmilinAssasSin27
12-19-2011, 06:00 PM
Defensively...I am at a loss for words.

Ummm...Brady is on pace to break marino's yardage record and we gave em the ball 3 times in our own territory. D didn't look great, but I'm not gonna hate on the D as a whole given the situation they were in yesterday.

Poet
12-19-2011, 06:06 PM
The Broncos ran into a one of the most prolific passers the league has seen and one of, if not the greatest coaches ever. The Patriots have a WR in Welker who is top flight, a tight end having the best year a tight end has had in a long time and made a lot of mental mistakes.

I don't believe in good losses, but this is pretty much a wash.

Tebow looked fine as a runner and as a passer.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 06:14 PM
Ummm...Brady is on pace to break marino's yardage record and we gave em the ball 3 times in our own territory. D didn't look great, but I'm not gonna hate on the D as a whole given the situation they were in yesterday.

Yeah, I hear a lot of QB's these days are on pace to break that...

Kinda makes it less meaningful... doesn't it?

TXBRONC
12-19-2011, 06:16 PM
Ummm...Brady is on pace to break marino's yardage record and we gave em the ball 3 times in our own territory. D didn't look great, but I'm not gonna hate on the D as a whole given the situation they were in yesterday.

I think the problem was that they didn't bring the heat up the middle otherwise I agree. It's on Allen's game plan imo.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Poet
12-19-2011, 06:23 PM
Yeah, I hear a lot of QB's these days are on pace to break that...

Kinda makes it less meaningful... doesn't it?

It actually kinda makes Marino's number that much more impressive. Imagine what he could do today.

Joel
12-19-2011, 06:38 PM
There was no pressure on Brady period. I believe a great DT having to be doubled would have opened the game up for others rather the Patriots oline did a good job one on one. Nate Solder played an excellent game.

Yes, secondary has to cover but that also falls back on no pressure on the QB.

I believe the BRONCOS underestimated the Patriots.
Solder plain shocked me, a rookie RT who didn't start the season going against a DROY candidate and he flat shut him OUT all day. Doom had more success going against Matt Light, and he's a three time Pro Bowler. A big time DT would've helped, but I honestly don't see it helping much. Again, NO ONE has gotten to Brady >3 times in a game all year (and that only happened TWICE; if Casey Hampton couldn't create >3 sacks I don't see anyone else doing it.)

Not saying a dominating double team demanding NT wouldn't have helped, but another shut down CB like Champ rather than Andre "Human Torch" Goodman and a bunch of rookie scrubs would've helped a lot more. After Champ and Dawkins the only part of our secondary I consider worth a roster spot is Harris.

The Pats top five line handled our two premiere pass rushers, and their excellent QB and receivers lit up our secondary like a Christmas tree. If the team underestimated them and didn't expect that, maybe they should make visiting BF part of their pre-game ritual, because a LOT of folks here expected EXACTLY that.

Stopping offenses like NE, GB or Houston will probably always be impossible for our D or anyones, but a top tier DB would slow them down a lot more effectively than a top tier NT, IMHO. If we got a Hall of Famer at each position, the amount of improvement would be far greater in our secondary than on our defensive line. Against the Pats in particular, their quick throw offense, designed to get the ball out ahead of the rush, would have far more trouble against good coverage than a good pass rush. Even with all the time in the world, how often did Brady throw at Champ? ;)

Yeah, I hear a lot of QB's these days are on pace to break that...

Kinda makes it less meaningful... doesn't it?
In this League? Not really; it's hard to argue with DBs who say they're playing flag football professionally. When it's illegal to hit the QB OR WRs, yeah, passing yardage goes through the roof. Marino did it without that help.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 06:44 PM
It actually kinda makes Marino's number that much more impressive. Imagine what he could do today.

That's kinda what I was saying, jut the other side of the coin...

Chef Zambini
12-19-2011, 06:48 PM
I think this game puts into perspective into what our team is right now....

We are NOT a team that can overcome 3 straight turnovers...

We don't have enough playmakers on offense to overcome those mistakes, and (depsite a lot of belief that our defense is the reason for our recent winning ways) our defense is not good enough to hold teams unless our offense controls the clock, protects the ball, and keeps the D in good field position.

We are not that far removed from a 4-12 season and a 1-4 start to this year. The defense is not that far removed from being considered one of the worst in the league either.

This team has enough talent and leadership to win, but IF, and ONLY IF, we don't turn the ball over.

It is not all doom and gloom, and I still think this team can make some noise in the playoffs if we get there, we just aren't good enough to win while simultaneouly shooting ourselves in the foot (or leg). Just not enough playmakers on the roster.

If the offense can get back to protecting the ball, then we can beat anybody, anytime, anywhere.this ENTRIRE teams offense is predicated on our abilty to run the ball and protect it.

field position and clock management.
far more important than completion %


Colquitt is far more important than many realize.
who here wouild not take 3 punts over those 3 turnovers in the second quarter.

wayninja
12-19-2011, 06:52 PM
this ENTRIRE teams offense is predicated on our abilty to run the ball and protect it.

field position and clock management.
far more important than completion %


Colquitt is far more important than many realize.
who here wouild not take 3 punts over those 3 turnovers in the second quarter.

If we punted instead instead of getting that 3rd turnover, that would have been the first, first down punt in history.

Chef Zambini
12-19-2011, 06:52 PM
Solder plain shocked me, a rookie RT who didn't start the season going against a DROY candidate and he flat shut him OUT all day. Doom had more success going against Matt Light, and he's a three time Pro Bowler. A big time DT would've helped, but I honestly don't see it helping much. Again, NO ONE has gotten to Brady >3 times in a game all year (and that only happened TWICE; if Casey Hampton couldn't create >3 sacks I don't see anyone else doing it.)

Not saying a dominating double team demanding NT wouldn't have helped, but another shut down CB like Champ rather than Andre "Human Torch" Goodman and a bunch of rookie scrubs would've helped a lot more. After Champ and Dawkins the only part of our secondary I consider worth a roster spot is Harris.

The Pats top five line handled our two premiere pass rushers, and their excellent QB and receivers lit up our secondary like a Christmas tree. If the team underestimated them and didn't expect that, maybe they should make visiting BF part of their pre-game ritual, because a LOT of folks here expected EXACTLY that.

Stopping offenses like NE, GB or Houston will probably always be impossible for our D or anyones, but a top tier DB would slow them down a lot more effectively than a top tier NT, IMHO. If we got a Hall of Famer at each position, the amount of improvement would be far greater in our secondary than on our defensive line. Against the Pats in particular, their quick throw offense, designed to get the ball out ahead of the rush, would have far more trouble against good coverage than a good pass rush. Even with all the time in the world, how often did Brady throw at Champ? ;)

In this League? Not really; it's hard to argue with DBs who say they're playing flag football professionally. When it's illegal to hit the QB OR WRs, yeah, passing yardage goes through the roof. Marino did it without that help.this terams secondary has serious issues.
sorry boys and girls but goodman flat out stinks and shys away from contact.
Champ looked pathetic on several plays yesterday. and dawkins, god love him, is playing well beyond his extended warranty.

nevcraw
12-19-2011, 07:38 PM
time to show how much character this team has with a good week of practice and some inspired play in Buf.

bcbronc
12-19-2011, 09:02 PM
We don't have enough playmakers on offense to overcome those mistakes, and (depsite a lot of belief that our defense is the reason for our recent winning ways) our defense is not good enough to hold teams unless our offense controls the clock, protects the ball, and keeps the D in good field position.


I'm not sure if you can really say the offense that leads the league in 3 and outs (or at least did going into Sunday's games) is controlling the clock. I'd say the defense doing a good job of keeping drives short has been why we've been doing as well as we have in TOP and field position.


I disagree, I thought the QB and WRs generally looked good, but the line looked VERY bad, letting defenders into the backfield too often on both runs and passes. Why did Ball fumble? Because a two Pat defenders hit him at the line and one of them FORCED the fumble. Why did Tebow fumble? Because an unblocked DE came at him unblocked, and since the option run was called to that side our QB ran right into him and lost the ball. Why did Tebow fumble in the end zone, risking a safety or TD that would've ended the game? Because, once again, a Patriot defender forced the ball loose.

Come on Joel, a fumble is 100% on the ball carrier, cept maybe the odd time when a back gets hit immediately as he's receiving the hand off. Ball carriers face defenders trying to force the ball loose just about EVERY time they carry the ball. Ball was hit a couple of yards beyond the LOS, if that's on his blockers than just about every fumble from every RB is also on the blockers. Do you give Crosby a pass because the other guys didn't block the punt?

I understand you don't like Beadles (or Walton to a lesser extent). There are certainly legit complaints on their games, but the fumbles fall squarely on Ball, Tebow and Crosby, no one else.


And those are just the FUMBLES; you can add another 4 sacks and 5 QB hits to that, including one when 4/5 NE defenders met at the QB. We could use another star WR so opponents can't just double cover Decker and Thomas, but if Tebow had more time to go through progressions he could be effective getting to the likes of Willis, Royal, Fells and Rosario. He needs to speed up the rate at which he does that, no doubt, but he also needs a line that consistently gives him more time to do it; they hadn't done horribly the last couple weeks, but they really fell apart in pass AND run blocking after the 1st quarter yesterday.

Some of the blame has to fall on Tebow as well. There were plays where the OL gave Tebow more than enough time, but TT took too long or was too indecisive in the pocket and the protection broke down.

Might as well get used to it. QBs like Tebow take more sacks. People always seem to have this false believe that mobile QBs help their OL and take less sacks, when the opposite is actually true. A QB like Brady gets rid of the ball when protection breaks down, a mobile QB tries to extend the play. Sometimes this results in a big play, sometimes a sack. There's a reason why Elway is the all-time sacked QB, and Big Ben is usually near the top of the league.



Give me a solid LG and/or C in the next draft; after CB that's what I want more than anything.

I do agree Beadles is the weak link in the offense as far as pass protection goes. But he's doing a great job as a pulling guard in the run game. It's important to remember that both Beadles and Walton are only second year players, playing in their second blocking scheme, with no offseason.

Can they be upgraded? Of course. Unless you're starting five All-Pros, the same can be said for every OL in the league, it's always possible to upgrade. I certainly wouldn't object to drafting an interior lineman in the draft, but I don't think we urgently need new starters. They're improving as a five man unit, and will only continue to do so.

I'm all for upgrading every position when the opportunity is there. But all we're doing is spinning our tires if we're only going to give our draft picks one or two seasons before throwing them in the trash. If LG or C is BPA, pick him. And if the rook beats out Beadles or Walton, great we're a better team. As is, they're good enough to be at the top of the league in rushing, despite a pretty sparse stable of RBs and being the youngest OL in the league. No they're not the Hogs, and no NE wasn't their best game after the first quarter. But they've come pretty far from the craptastic unit they were at the beginning of the season.

TXBRONC
12-19-2011, 09:13 PM
time to show how much character this team has with a good week of practice and some inspired play in Buf.

I sure hope so. :nod:

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Joel
12-19-2011, 11:15 PM
Come on Joel, a fumble is 100% on the ball carrier, cept maybe the odd time when a back gets hit immediately as he's receiving the hand off. Ball carriers face defenders trying to force the ball loose just about EVERY time they carry the ball. Ball was hit a couple of yards beyond the LOS, if that's on his blockers than just about every fumble from every RB is also on the blockers. Do you give Crosby a pass because the other guys didn't block the punt?

I understand you don't like Beadles (or Walton to a lesser extent). There are certainly legit complaints on their games, but the fumbles fall squarely on Ball, Tebow and Crosby, no one else.
I consider it a team non-effort in that case. Just checked the replay again: An UNBLOCKED Patriot LB wrapped both arms around Balls legs a full yard beyond the LoS, immediately taking him down; on the way to the ground, a DE shed Walton and knocked the ball out, then Ninkovich recovered it in our backfield. Many things went wrong on that play; it looked like a run called to the left, but the LB quickly stepped up to fill that hole and Ball cut it back the other way, where he was tackled by one guy while another pushed Walton aside to cause the fumble. Yes, Ball needs to protect the ball better, and most of that is on him, but not nearly all of it, IMHO.

Some of the blame has to fall on Tebow as well. There were plays where the OL gave Tebow more than enough time, but TT took too long or was too indecisive in the pocket and the protection broke down.
There were a few, but it also takes time for the receivers to get open. On a few of those occasions Tebow needed to just get rid of it, but unless we want him to take 3 step throwaways, he needs better protection.

Might as well get used to it. QBs like Tebow take more sacks. People always seem to have this false believe that mobile QBs help their OL and take less sacks, when the opposite is actually true. A QB like Brady gets rid of the ball when protection breaks down, a mobile QB tries to extend the play. Sometimes this results in a big play, sometimes a sack. There's a reason why Elway is the all-time sacked QB, and Big Ben is usually near the top of the league.
It depends on the line, really; with a bad line, a tough elusive QB does save them sacks, but a good line can convince a scrambling QB to scramble when he shouldn't. I realize Tebow's going to take more sacks (he's gotten better about throwing it away, but still needs some work; hopefully that near safety/TD in our end zone taught him a lesson about getting rid of balls) but right now I think we're getting more big and less bad plays because of his feet. No one ever accused Orton of being a scrambler, but he got his fair share of sacks, too. Could be interesting to see if he does better now; all he's ever had was the Bears awful pass protection and what we had left after McDumbass dumped Wiegmann and Hamilton to replace them with his handpicked guards.

I do agree Beadles is the weak link in the offense as far as pass protection goes. But he's doing a great job as a pulling guard in the run game. It's important to remember that both Beadles and Walton are only second year players, playing in their second blocking scheme, with no offseason.

Can they be upgraded? Of course. Unless you're starting five All-Pros, the same can be said for every OL in the league, it's always possible to upgrade. I certainly wouldn't object to drafting an interior lineman in the draft, but I don't think we urgently need new starters. They're improving as a five man unit, and will only continue to do so.

I'm all for upgrading every position when the opportunity is there. But all we're doing is spinning our tires if we're only going to give our draft picks one or two seasons before throwing them in the trash. If LG or C is BPA, pick him. And if the rook beats out Beadles or Walton, great we're a better team. As is, they're good enough to be at the top of the league in rushing, despite a pretty sparse stable of RBs and being the youngest OL in the league. No they're not the Hogs, and no NE wasn't their best game after the first quarter. But they've come pretty far from the craptastic unit they were at the beginning of the season.
I get that they're still young, but we're running out of time for them to get over the pro hump. Yeah, they're better than in September, but that's setting the bar pretty low. I also think our stable makes them look better than they are; McGahee has run far better than I expected, and there's usually a big production drop when he's not in the game. That might happen less if he didn't so often have to break multiple tackles just to get 5 yards. After Balls fumble (and later near fumble) Sunday, I'd like to see more of Johnson, who brings the speed and elusiveness to complement McGahees power, as well as catching and blocking skills to make him an every down back so defences can't call "run" or "pass" based on who's in the game. Either way, the line didn't get knock Ninkovich off Tebow so he could get to the end zone on our first drive, Tebow did that.

I'm just not convinced Walton or Beadles will ever be more than depth players; I've seen them miss too many plays. I'm not really sold on BPA any more, because I think we're a playoff caliber team, which means plugging a few key holes could make us a Super Bowl caliber team, so I want to focus on the "best needed players available." I can, however, see the argument that we're not yet a consistent playoff team and still need to be building up our core to become one; if that's our philosophy then the BPA who isn't a QB or OLB is probably the way to go. If we ARE after need, however, G trumps anything but CB at this point, IMHO.

bcbronc
12-20-2011, 02:15 AM
I consider it a team non-effort in that case. Just checked the replay again: An UNBLOCKED Patriot LB wrapped both arms around Balls legs a full yard beyond the LoS, immediately taking him down; on the way to the ground, a DE shed Walton and knocked the ball out, then Ninkovich recovered it in our backfield. Many things went wrong on that play; it looked like a run called to the left, but the LB quickly stepped up to fill that hole and Ball cut it back the other way, where he was tackled by one guy while another pushed Walton aside to cause the fumble. Yes, Ball needs to protect the ball better, and most of that is on him, but not nearly all of it, IMHO.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. imo the tackler being unblocked isn't an excuse for fumbling. In the end, all tacklers are unblocked...that's how they become tacklers.


There were a few, but it also takes time for the receivers to get open. On a few of those occasions Tebow needed to just get rid of it, but unless we want him to take 3 step throwaways, he needs better protection.

There were a couple plays where Tebow had a lot of time in the pocket where I got the idea that even though he was working through his progressions, all that was registering was "stay in the pocket stay in the pocket stay in the pocket" :lol:. Once the pocket becomes a bit more natural for Tebow, I think we'll see him tuck and run those times the receivers are covered. I like the improvement in his patience in the pocket; next I'd like to see a bit better pocket presence when coming from under center.


It depends on the line, really; with a bad line, a tough elusive QB does save them sacks, but a good line can convince a scrambling QB to scramble when he shouldn't. I realize Tebow's going to take more sacks (he's gotten better about throwing it away, but still needs some work; hopefully that near safety/TD in our end zone taught him a lesson about getting rid of balls) but right now I think we're getting more big and less bad plays because of his feet. No one ever accused Orton of being a scrambler, but he got his fair share of sacks, too. Could be interesting to see if he does better now; all he's ever had was the Bears awful pass protection and what we had left after McDumbass dumped Wiegmann and Hamilton to replace them with his handpicked guards.

Wiegmann and Hamilton were done. Don't miss either, and I'd be surprised if many do. Not hating on either, both played well for us but they weren't overly effective anymore.


I get that they're still young, but we're running out of time for them to get over the pro hump. Yeah, they're better than in September, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

I guess I don't get this. They're young, you admit they've improved as the season progressed (you're willing to give Tebow the benefit of the doubt over no offseason, but not Beadles or Walton?), and they're 40% of the starting OL for the best rushing team in the league. I agree they need to continue to improve, every 2nd year player does.

It's almost like you don't like them because they're McDaniel's guys, or because they replaced Hamilton and Weigmann. It's really the only explanation for why you'd give Beadles the blame for not blocking a guy lined up in the eight or nine technique, or for Ball's fumble. *shrugs*


I also think our stable makes them look better than they are; McGahee has run far better than I expected, and there's usually a big production drop when he's not in the game.

vs NE all three backs had big runs. Our OL was imposing their will on NE defense. We put up over 250 yards rushing. We averaged 8.1 yards per carry. Some of it was Tebow, but lots of it was our OL.

McGahee has been great, and there have been many times he's pushed the pile to turn no gain into 4 yards. He's also had some pretty nice holes to run through.

Our pass blocking isn't as impressive, but it's not as bad as it was vs NE either. They did a great job vs CHI, gave Tebow all the time in the world. They're a young unit, and like Tebow or DThomas, they're going to have rough patches.


That might happen less if he didn't so often have to break multiple tackles just to get 5 yards. After Balls fumble (and later near fumble) Sunday, I'd like to see more of Johnson, who brings the speed and elusiveness to complement McGahees power, as well as catching and blocking skills to make him an every down back so defences can't call "run" or "pass" based on who's in the game.

Not sure why JJ hasn't got more touches. I've like him too.


Either way, the line didn't get knock Ninkovich off Tebow so he could get to the end zone on our first drive, Tebow did that.

Zone read, Tebow reads Ninkovich to decide whether to keep or give. Ninkovich ends up Tebows man...the whole idea behind 11 on 11 is that the QB accounts for someone...and Tebow kicked his man's ass.


I'm just not convinced Walton or Beadles will ever be more than depth players; I've seen them miss too many plays.

sure, but you also had DThomas written off as a bust just a couple of days ago. Just sayin'.


I'm not really sold on BPA any more, because I think we're a playoff caliber team, which means plugging a few key holes could make us a Super Bowl caliber team, so I want to focus on the "best needed players available." I can, however, see the argument that we're not yet a consistent playoff team and still need to be building up our core to become one; if that's our philosophy then the BPA who isn't a QB or OLB is probably the way to go. If we ARE after need, however, G trumps anything but CB at this point, IMHO.

We need players at every position. Can't be 1-deep at any position if you want to be a Superbowl contender.

VonSackemMiller
12-20-2011, 03:29 AM
I really dont get what film hes watching when it comes to beadles and walton. Both have really played well to be 2nd year players. You consistantly see beadles and walton winning on passing downs and running downs. NFLN broke down the play of our OL and said the guys were playing well as a unit on a consistant basis, And thats exactly what i see. Sure they have there moments but everybody has there screw up moments. Let these guys stick together and keep playing. Our OL is fine IMO and alot of so called experts opinion also.

Chef Zambini
12-20-2011, 08:41 AM
time to show how much character this team has with a good week of practice and some inspired play in Buf.I remember the blizzard of 97, only one plane left DIA that day and it was the broncos who showed up on snowmobiles and neighbors 4 x 4s at the airport to make the plane out of town! we rocked the buffs, and went on to win the big dance in sunny san diego !
not even an "act of god" kept us from our destiny.

vandammage13
12-20-2011, 10:47 AM
I really dont get what film hes watching when it comes to beadles and walton. Both have really played well to be 2nd year players. You consistantly see beadles and walton winning on passing downs and running downs. NFLN broke down the play of our OL and said the guys were playing well as a unit on a consistant basis, And thats exactly what i see. Sure they have there moments but everybody has there screw up moments. Let these guys stick together and keep playing. Our OL is fine IMO and alot of so called experts opinion also.

I agree...It's a young unit and they are growing together. I see more upside than downside with them.

I would still like to see the Broncos draft or sign a couple more O-Linemen for depth and competition, but I think the unit as a whole is improving and is pretty solid from top to bottom. Maybe get a better RT and slide Franklin inside.

I didn't think this a few months ago, but these guys have grown on me. As much as TT has improved our running game, we don't lead the league in rushing with a suspect O-Line no matter how you try to spin it. Pass protection has room for improvement though.

Joel
12-20-2011, 06:00 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. imo the tackler being unblocked isn't an excuse for fumbling. In the end, all tacklers are unblocked...that's how they become tacklers.
Fair enough. Obviously the bulk of responsibility for fumbles is the ball carriers, but unless he drops it in open space (Quan Cosby, I'm looking at you) some goes to the guy who missed a block if it happens at the line.

There were a couple plays where Tebow had a lot of time in the pocket where I got the idea that even though he was working through his progressions, all that was registering was "stay in the pocket stay in the pocket stay in the pocket" :lol:. Once the pocket becomes a bit more natural for Tebow, I think we'll see him tuck and run those times the receivers are covered. I like the improvement in his patience in the pocket; next I'd like to see a bit better pocket presence when coming from under center.
No argument there. I think the biggest issue is still adjusting to game vs. practice speed. He can get through his progressions, but it's naturally harder to do when you know the defender charging toward you won't pull up.

Wiegmann and Hamilton were done. Don't miss either, and I'd be surprised if many do. Not hating on either, both played well for us but they weren't overly effective anymore.
Neither were young, but Wiegmann's playing well enough two years later to be back starting in KC. Maybe we should ask Orton if HE misses WALTON. I think we both know his answer though. ;)

I guess I don't get this. They're young, you admit they've improved as the season progressed (you're willing to give Tebow the benefit of the doubt over no offseason, but not Beadles or Walton?), and they're 40% of the starting OL for the best rushing team in the league. I agree they need to continue to improve, every 2nd year player does.

It's almost like you don't like them because they're McDaniel's guys, or because they replaced Hamilton and Weigmann. It's really the only explanation for why you'd give Beadles the blame for not blocking a guy lined up in the eight or nine technique, or for Ball's fumble. *shrugs*
On Balls fumble, the guy who knocked it loose was engaged on Walton until he shoved him aside and dove at Ball. However much responsibility we give Ball for fumbling while a SECOND Patriot was wrapping up his legs, the fact remains that if Walton maintains that block the fumble doesn't happen. I've retracted my criticism of Beadles on Tebows fumble; he had and completed a different assignment satisfactorily.

In general, replacing far superior players in Wiegmann and Hamilton, combined with their improvement lagging FAR behind Tebows, is precisely why I dislike them. That McDumbass hand selected them certainly doesn't help, because his eye for talent is so notoriously bad; his only other picks that haven't already washed out are Tebow (whom everyone knew was good,) Decker, Thomas and Ayers. That SOUNDS like a lot, but for 19 picks it's really not; it's barely 20% even if Tebow, Decker, Thomas and Ayers prove to be good long term.

Beadles and Walton need to get much better very fast; Tebow only needs to get a little better by the start of next year. Considering they've been on the field twice as long and have far less complex duties that doesn't bode well for their careers, and THAT doesn't bode well for Denver so long as they're starting. Whether we're the leading rushing team depends on how it's measured; we have the most total yards, but we also have a TON of attempts: Our rushing AVERAGE is fourth, putting us in company wise teams avoid: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&season=2011&seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&conference=ALL&d-447263-s=RUSHING_AVERAGE_YARDS

vs NE all three backs had big runs. Our OL was imposing their will on NE defense. We put up over 250 yards rushing. We averaged 8.1 yards per carry. Some of it was Tebow, but lots of it was our OL.

McGahee has been great, and there have been many times he's pushed the pile to turn no gain into 4 yards. He's also had some pretty nice holes to run through.

Our pass blocking isn't as impressive, but it's not as bad as it was vs NE either. They did a great job vs CHI, gave Tebow all the time in the world. They're a young unit, and like Tebow or DThomas, they're going to have rough patches.
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention, but I saw Ball have one big run and one big catch against NE. Admittedly, both were very good (the first a TD, the second setting up a TD) and I know the running game is built around many short runs setting up game breakers, but McGahee was the only one CONSISTENTLY getting big gains. Again, on Balls first fumble he got all of ONE yard before one guy tackled him as another forced out the ball. I'm STILL not sure he converted the 4th and short in the second half, but know he nearly fumbled again trying. That's a gimme for any team with real line surge, one of the key reasons I want it; if we were getting it from Beadles, Walton and, yes, even Kuper I wouldn't complain.

Kuper makes up for it by being our only guard who can pass block worth a darn, and as a pure ZB guard I don't expect a LOT of surge from him, but that would be a lesser issue if we were getting it from anyone else. When Beadles and Walton pass block that well maybe I'll over look their lack of push because Tebow can just stand in the pocket forever, then sling it to an open receiver. For right now, if they can't give him Kupers pass protection they better darned well knock some DTs on their butts. McGahee and the others occasionally get nice holes, but at least as often MUST move those piles to even get 3-4 yards; McGahee can do it, but gets beat up in the process, and Ball can't do it at all. I don't give Walton or Beadles much credit for the fact McGahee and Tebow are great at breaking tackles.

Not sure why JJ hasn't got more touches. I've like him too.
If Ball has another week like his last one, Johnson ought to get his shot. I loved seeing him put Urlacher on his face against Chicago (possibly a game saving play, because the MLB immediately fought to his feet in time to hit Tebow right after the throw; without the block that's a sack instead of the play that set up the game winning FG.) He's got the speed, pass blocking and receiving skills I want, so as long as he doesn't fumble he's already way ahead of Ball (who seldom gets much yardage after contact) in my book.

Zone read, Tebow reads Ninkovich to decide whether to keep or give. Ninkovich ends up Tebows man...the whole idea behind 11 on 11 is that the QB accounts for someone...and Tebow kicked his man's ass.
Maybe. I don't follow college ball enough to know the option well, but my rule of thumb is any play predicated on letting a LB come straight up the middle unblocked into your backfield should be taken out of the playbook. I mean, OK, the QB needs to make a guy miss; does it have to be the guy standing RIGHT BEHIND the NT? That's a GREAT way to ensure a ball carrier gets hit right as he takes the handoff (lucky we didn't have FOUR fumbles.)

sure, but you also had DThomas written off as a bust just a couple of days ago. Just sayin'.
Again, fair enough. I you'll recall, I qualified those comments by saying he could change that impression if he plays well down the stretch, and against NE he went a long way toward doing that. My criticism there (and I realize he's missed a lot of time with injuries; getting hurt three times in two seasons does that) was that his only two good games came a year and a half apart, and that otherwise he was either on the sideline hurt or trying to win the Chicago game he put in jeopardy with all his early drops. If Beadles and Walton improve even as much in their last two games as Thomas did against NE, I won't be as eager for a G on the first day of the draft. As it stands, their performance went DOWN--a LOT--against NE. If I needed a good argument for why Miller could get into the backfield playing from the inside, Ninkovich provided plenty of it last weekend.

We need players at every position. Can't be 1-deep at any position if you want to be a Superbowl contender.
True enough, but I don't want to draft for depth on the first day. First day draft picks should be projected starters; if you just want a warm body you can find plenty in later rounds.

I really dont get what film hes watching when it comes to beadles and walton. Both have really played well to be 2nd year players. You consistantly see beadles and walton winning on passing downs and running downs. NFLN broke down the play of our OL and said the guys were playing well as a unit on a consistant basis, And thats exactly what i see. Sure they have there moments but everybody has there screw up moments. Let these guys stick together and keep playing. Our OL is fine IMO and alot of so called experts opinion also.
I DON'T "consistently see Beadles and Walton winning on passing and running downs." I see them do quite well some plays and quite badly others; the problem is when four linemen do well on a play and one does badly, defenders pour through the one hole and it's usually a big loss. Which of them was "winning" when three Bears came up the middle of our line to block a chip shot FG? *waits to hear why that was Praters fault*

SmilinAssasSin27
12-20-2011, 06:12 PM
Yeah, I hear a lot of QB's these days are on pace to break that...

Kinda makes it less meaningful... doesn't it?

You can't be serious.

wayninja
12-21-2011, 11:12 AM
You can't be serious.

I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

Do you really think it's just coincidence that so many QB's all of a sudden are on pace to set a record that's stood for almost 20 years?

edit: that was a typo, should say almost 30 years.

BroncoNut
12-21-2011, 12:57 PM
I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

Do you really think it's just coincidence that so many QB's all of a sudden are on pace to set a record that's stood for almost 20 years?

I don't. I think it has to do with the evolution of the game

wayninja
12-21-2011, 01:03 PM
I don't. I think it has to do with the evolution of the game

Personally, I think it's devolution... I'm sick of the pass happy, offense rules imbalance that the new rules have brought.

Player safety is overrated. The guys playing the game now, knew what they were signing up for when they were growing up. It's why so much money is at stake. You don't see crab fishermen pulling in millions of dollars each year, do you?

And the other rules changes are simply to promote more scoring because dumb fans eat that up. And the NFL doesn't really care how dumb their fans are as long as there are lots of them. Catering to the lowest common denominator is hardly evolution IMHO.

BroncoNut
12-21-2011, 01:06 PM
Personally, I think it's devolution... I'm sick of the pass happy, offense rules imbalance that the new rules have brought.

Player safety is overrated. The guys playing the game now, knew what they were signing up for when they were growing up. It's why so much money is at stake. You don't see crab fishermen pulling in millions of dollars each year, do you?

And the other rules changes are simply to promote more scoring because dumb fans eat that up. And the NFL doesn't really care how dumb their fans are as long as there are lots of them. Catering to the lowest common denominator is hardly evolution IMHO.

interesting, and you bring a great argument. For that I :salute: you

TT15Superman
12-21-2011, 01:52 PM
And the other rules changes are simply to promote more scoring because dumb fans eat that up.I guess I am "dumb" as I cannot stand futbol/soccer because it is low scoring.

I don't mind the Tebow offense because it's a game of imposing one's will on another..."we're going to pound you"...especially from when our QB does it. However, with that said, I don't think Tebow can last more than 5-7 years playing that game, so I hope he evolves.

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 02:01 PM
Look no further than the NCAA Championship game for proof of this. All kinds of people want OSU to play in the title game. They can give me all the BS reasons they want, but at the end of the day...they just dont want to see another 9-6 overtime game. They want to see a team that can score points. So, I say let them enjoy watching Wheeden and Luck put up 40 points. The real football fans will watch a good defensive battle between 2 teams that still realize that side of the ball can still have an impact on the game.

vandammage13
12-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Look no further than the NCAA Championship game for proof of this. All kinds of people want OSU to play in the title game. They can give me all the BS reasons they want, but at the end of the day...they just dont want to see another 9-6 overtime game. They want to see a team that can score points. So, I say let them enjoy watching Wheeden and Luck put up 40 points. The real football fans will watch a good defensive battle between 2 teams that still realize that side of the ball can still have an impact on the game.

I'm happy for the matchup we're getting in this BCS game...If it were LSU vs. OKlahoma State or Stanford it might be high scoring, but it would be a blowout...LSU would probably win 45-21 or something like that.

LSU/Alabama might be a low scoring contest (and boring to some), but at least it will be a competitve matchup.

wayninja
12-21-2011, 02:36 PM
I guess I am "dumb" as I cannot stand futbol/soccer because it is low scoring.

I don't mind the Tebow offense because it's a game of imposing one's will on another..."we're going to pound you"...especially from when our QB does it. However, with that said, I don't think Tebow can last more than 5-7 years playing that game, so I hope he evolves.

There's a fine line here. Games were not too low scoring before the rules changes. Not anywhere near the level of soccer.

catfish
12-21-2011, 02:37 PM
I'm happy for the matchup we're getting in this BCS game...If it were LSU vs. OKlahoma State or Stanford it might be high scoring, but it would be a blowout...LSU would probably win 45-21 or something like that.

LSU/Alabama might be a low scoring contest (and boring to some), but at least it will be a competitve matchup.

SEC homerism coming thru, but lots of teams are said to be able to put up points tills they play an SEC team....turns out if you play well on both sides of the ball you usually beat a team thatt only plays well on one side

vandammage13
12-21-2011, 02:45 PM
SEC homerism coming thru, but lots of teams are said to be able to put up points tills they play an SEC team....turns out if you play well on both sides of the ball you usually beat a team thatt only plays well on one side

Not an SEC homer (I'm a CO Native), but I recognize superior football when I see it.

Every year a high powered offense faces an SEC team in the BCS game and every year results in a beatdown.

I'd just rather see a competitive game for once.

*Edit-After re-reading your post, it appears you were referring to yourself as an SEC homer, not me. :salute:

G_Money
12-21-2011, 02:46 PM
I really dont get what film hes watching when it comes to beadles and walton. Both have really played well to be 2nd year players. You consistantly see beadles and walton winning on passing downs and running downs. NFLN broke down the play of our OL and said the guys were playing well as a unit on a consistant basis, And thats exactly what i see. Sure they have there moments but everybody has there screw up moments. Let these guys stick together and keep playing. Our OL is fine IMO and alot of so called experts opinion also.

IMO...

Beadles: Fine on early-down rushing plays, great as a pulling guard and getting to the 2nd level. Can't move a pile to save his life in short yardage, keeps getting used as a lawn dart by strong interior pass rushers, which leads to Tebow trying to move in the pocket and failing because there's no longer a pocket. He runs into an OL and gets sacked.

Walton: Fine on early-down rushing plays, more of a fighter than Beadles, will alligator-wrestle larger men in a stand-off. Acceptable in pass-blocking, can't move a pile in short yardage either, might do better with a larger and stronger running mate at LG.

I still want to keep Walton at C for another year, move Franklin to LG, and use Beadles in our Heavy sets. Franklin probably can't pull around and destroy a LB the way Beadles can, but on 3rd and one he can get enough push to move the pile for one yard, which is part of what has killed our 3rd-down conversion rate all year.

I don't care as much about Walton and Beadles helping us get 3 or four on 1st and 10, because any competent line should be able to do that. I care more about not being able to get a first down on 3rd and short even with the strongest QB in the league to sneak it or a very good RB to drive the pile.

Fixing our inside rushing on short yardage is a key to me, as is protecting Tim's blindside, and Franklin's pass protection still scares me.

I absolutely believe there is room for improvement on this OL. We're far better than at the beginning of the year, but the same deficiencies are showing up. And there's a reason that we seem to crack big runs off the right side of the line while only Tebow-around-the-edge seems to be a large gainer around the left side.

New RT in the draft or FA, please, to help us improve LG as well, take this offensive running game to 11 consistently and give Tebow more pocket time when the D is pressuring him.

~G

catfish
12-21-2011, 03:08 PM
Not an SEC homer (I'm a CO Native), but I recognize superior football when I see it.

Every year a high powered offense faces an SEC team in the BCS game and every year results in a beatdown.

I'd just rather see a competitive game for once.

*Edit-After re-reading your post, it appears you were referring to yourself as an SEC homer, not me. :salute:

definately referring to myself, not you, as a homer :)

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 03:25 PM
New RT in the draft or FA, please, to help us improve LG as well, take this offensive running game to 11 consistently and give Tebow more pocket time when the D is pressuring him.

~G

Great idea...but who? Very slim pickings in FA and anyone from the draft would be a transition like Franklin has been. Doesnt really seem to be a quick fix

Jsteve01
12-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Great idea...but who? Very slim pickings in FA and anyone from the draft would be a transition like Franklin has been. Doesnt really seem to be a quick fix

I'd rather draft/sign a top notch bruising guard and give Franklin another year at tackle. Seems like we could get more bang for our buck going that route.

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 03:45 PM
I'd rather draft/sign a top notch bruising guard and give Franklin another year at tackle. Seems like we could get more bang for our buck going that route.

If Corgy Glenn is still on the board in the mid-20's, I'll get behind that idea...because DeCastro wont be. otherwise I take my chances on Osemele being there in the 2nd

Jsteve01
12-21-2011, 03:56 PM
If Corgy Glenn is still on the board in the mid-20's, I'll get behind that idea...because DeCastro wont be. otherwise I take my chances on Osemele being there in the 2nd

I could get on board either of those picks. Two huuuuuge maulers. I like Zeitler in the 2nd or 3rd as well

CoachChaz
12-21-2011, 04:29 PM
I could get on board either of those picks. Two huuuuuge maulers. I like Zeitler in the 2nd or 3rd as well

2nd is too high for Zeitler. Only problem with Glenn and Osemele is even though they are huge...they dont always play that way

bcbronc
12-21-2011, 08:26 PM
IMO...

I still want to keep Walton at C for another year, move Franklin to LG, and use Beadles in our Heavy sets. Franklin probably can't pull around and destroy a LB the way Beadles can, but on 3rd and one he can get enough push to move the pile for one yard, which is part of what has killed our 3rd-down conversion rate all year.

Pulling is a pretty big part of our running game though. I don't think it's something Fox would be willing to sacrifice to get that extra push on short yardage.





I absolutely believe there is room for improvement on this OL. We're far better than at the beginning of the year, but the same deficiencies are showing up. And there's a reason that we seem to crack big runs off the right side of the line while only Tebow-around-the-edge seems to be a large gainer around the left side.

New RT in the draft or FA, please, to help us improve LG as well, take this offensive running game to 11 consistently and give Tebow more pocket time when the D is pressuring him.

~G

With the right side being where the run success comes from, why move Franklin? Regardless of the back, our most successful running play seems to be Beadles pulling between Kuper and Frankin, or at least that's my impression.

Definitely need to draft one or two lineman, can never have too much depth in the trenches. And if someone beats out Beadles or pushes Franklin inside, great. Until that happens, they are improving and should be stronger (both individually and as a unit) next season.

TXBRONC
12-21-2011, 09:03 PM
I like Franklin. He's been a very good run blocker as far as I can tell.

topscribe
12-21-2011, 11:21 PM
Great idea...but who? Very slim pickings in FA and anyone from the draft would be a transition like Franklin has been. Doesnt really seem to be a quick fix

I may be wrong, but, in my opinion, Franklin will not realize his full potential at
tackle. It just seems his skill set is more appropriate for guard . . .

G_Money
12-22-2011, 01:35 PM
Great idea...but who? Very slim pickings in FA and anyone from the draft would be a transition like Franklin has been. Doesnt really seem to be a quick fix

I agree, it's an issue. I'd take McKenzie from the Giants at RT to move Franklin to LG - I think that would solve a lot of problems. But I'm not sold that the Broncos want to pay a FA offensive tackle when they're gonna have to crack open the piggy bank to keep Clady very shortly. And our draft position is falling by the day, leaving guys like Reiff far out of our reach.

Damn all this winning. :cool:

I like Zeitler more than you do, I think, but otherwise I agree with you, it doesn't look like there'll be an OT in the first couple rounds who will be better immediately than Frankin. Still, if we can get a crusher at guard and really believe Franklin can quicken up those feet and get better at pass protection then I'm good with that alternate solution. Ben Grubbs is still a FA, right?

He can line up next to Clady and flatten people for me any time. But there we're back to what the Broncos are willing to pay. In the draft I'd be willing to go with Glenn as well, though I'd love for DeCastro to fall for unexplainable reasons. If Zeitler made it to us in the 2nd I'd gobble him up. Osmele is a hulking monster and that would be fun, but he's NOT pulling in this offense.

Or if he could be a 340+ pound pulling guard I would feel really sorry for the LB that he runs into.

For that reason, though, I'd be more apt to hope for Zeitler.

It may be necessary for us to believe that Franklin can be our RT, and maybe he can be. I'd still upgrade the line, though. If we're gonna rely on the running game to carry this offense, with enough passing to keep defenses honest, then the OL is critically important, and the best way to improve our 3rd down conversion rates will be to get a line that can consistently move the defense off the ball.

~G

CoachChaz
12-22-2011, 02:05 PM
Which is why I like Glenn. For a big guy, he pulls very well. My biggest issue with him is he has a tendency to lean into hi blocks as opposed to firing off. I think it's definitely a coachable issue, but at the end of the day...it all comes down to FA for me. What we do there will depend on what I'd like to see in the draft. I'd love to sway an underrated Carlos Rogers or Brent Grimes to come our way...but if that cant happen, then we sorely need to look at a top CB first and foremost

Joel
12-22-2011, 08:02 PM
I agree...It's a young unit and they are growing together. I see more upside than downside with them.

I would still like to see the Broncos draft or sign a couple more O-Linemen for depth and competition, but I think the unit as a whole is improving and is pretty solid from top to bottom. Maybe get a better RT and slide Franklin inside.

I didn't think this a few months ago, but these guys have grown on me. As much as TT has improved our running game, we don't lead the league in rushing with a suspect O-Line no matter how you try to spin it. Pass protection has room for improvement though.
We lead the League in rushing as much because we're 2nd in attempts as because we're 4th in average. Looking at the rest of the top ten one might wonder if that's really a good thing:
http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&season=2011&seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=RUSHING&role=TM&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-p=1&conference=ALL&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS

I don't. I think it has to do with the evolution of the game
Turning the NFL into arena league flag football is not "evolution." The pendulum has historically swung back and forth between offense and defence, but with analysts suggesting Brees should get an asterisk when he (and probably three other people) break Marinos single season yardage record, expect it to swing back the other way soon.

Look no further than the NCAA Championship game for proof of this. All kinds of people want OSU to play in the title game. They can give me all the BS reasons they want, but at the end of the day...they just dont want to see another 9-6 overtime game. They want to see a team that can score points. So, I say let them enjoy watching Wheeden and Luck put up 40 points. The real football fans will watch a good defensive battle between 2 teams that still realize that side of the ball can still have an impact on the game.
In my case, I just want to see a championship won on the field rather than in the ballot box, which is why I don't watch SEC er, "NCAA" football. The SEC has already played its Conference Championship once; rehashing it is pointless. Alabama's champion if they win? Why? They're 1-1 against LSU just like LSU is 1-1 against them.

I don't care if the Championship final is 45-44 or 5-4, I just want a playoff tournament like EVERY OTHER COLLEGIATE SPORT (including all other levels of football) so I can stop hearing the SEC and a handful of other schools like Notre Dame and OU and OSU (the one allowed to play National Championship games) tell me they're the greatest because they win 51% of their games against hand picked opponents.

Undefeated teams routinely finish out of the top five because they "don't play good teams" while the Chosen Ones routinely finish in the top five with 1 or even more losses because "they played a tough schedule." And what defines a "tough" schedule? Lots of teams the SAME METRIC declared best last year. Yea for self fulfilling prophecies. At least when Montana and the '9ers were phoning in NFC West Championships for a decade they still had to win playoff games to reach the Super Bowl.

This years SEC Championship combined with the Broncos climbing from 1-4 to 8-6 to be the likely Division winner is a PERFECT example of why I don't watch college football, where a single loss dooms your season unless you're one of the cool kids, and even an undefeated season won't make you champion if you're not. NCAA Division IA football comes down to the SEC vs. everyone else each year because that's the way the NCAA as much as the SEC wants it. Fine by me; I say let them have it. It's not about scoring vs. defence for me, it's about disinterest in foregone conclusions.

Sorry if that's a little off topic; been distracted the past couple days but really wanted to reply to those points.

Joel
12-22-2011, 08:24 PM
IMO...

Beadles: Fine on early-down rushing plays, great as a pulling guard and getting to the 2nd level. Can't move a pile to save his life in short yardage, keeps getting used as a lawn dart by strong interior pass rushers, which leads to Tebow trying to move in the pocket and failing because there's no longer a pocket. He runs into an OL and gets sacked.

Walton: Fine on early-down rushing plays, more of a fighter than Beadles, will alligator-wrestle larger men in a stand-off. Acceptable in pass-blocking, can't move a pile in short yardage either, might do better with a larger and stronger running mate at LG.

I still want to keep Walton at C for another year, move Franklin to LG, and use Beadles in our Heavy sets. Franklin probably can't pull around and destroy a LB the way Beadles can, but on 3rd and one he can get enough push to move the pile for one yard, which is part of what has killed our 3rd-down conversion rate all year.

I don't care as much about Walton and Beadles helping us get 3 or four on 1st and 10, because any competent line should be able to do that. I care more about not being able to get a first down on 3rd and short even with the strongest QB in the league to sneak it or a very good RB to drive the pile.

Fixing our inside rushing on short yardage is a key to me, as is protecting Tim's blindside, and Franklin's pass protection still scares me.

I absolutely believe there is room for improvement on this OL. We're far better than at the beginning of the year, but the same deficiencies are showing up. And there's a reason that we seem to crack big runs off the right side of the line while only Tebow-around-the-edge seems to be a large gainer around the left side.

New RT in the draft or FA, please, to help us improve LG as well, take this offensive running game to 11 consistently and give Tebow more pocket time when the D is pressuring him.

~G
I agree with 90% of that; my only minor dissent is that "any competent line should be able to do that." I actually agree with THAT position, too; the problem is that our guards don't consistently do the latter and therefore do not qualify as the former.

My only other quibble is that if we moved Franklin inside and drafted a rookie RT he'd have to be ready to go out of the gate. RT has been even more of a revolving door for us than QB; sure, we drafted Tebow to replace Cutler after drafting HIM to replace Plummer, but we also drafted Franklin to replace Ryan Harris (remember when you guys told me letting him go was no big deal because he wasn't worth the price?) after we drafted HIM to replace Erik Pears (whom I always liked) after we drafted HIM to replace George Foster (to whom Franklin bears a striking resemblance) after we drafted HIM to replace Ephraim Salaam? At some point we need to actually DEVELOP someone into a quality RT and keep him there.

Tackles are always more highly sought after than guards, and they get their QBs blindsided less while maturing, so I'd rather draft a top guard prospect than hope to find a quality tackle (despite failing so many times) and move Franklin inside. Otherwise we could find ourselves in the unenviable situation of spending a high draft pick and STILL having a bit hole at LG AND RT.

None of the above should distract from the fact that I DO agree with 90% of what you said though: Our guards need a BIG upgrade, and since Kuper is easily the best of the lot, I'd start with Beadles and Walton. If "they're still young" is a valid defence for our second year guards it's at least as good for our rookie RT.

I'd rather draft/sign a top notch bruising guard and give Franklin another year at tackle. Seems like we could get more bang for our buck going that route.
Strongly agreed; rightly or not, tackles are in much more demand than guards, so better ones can be had with less investment than tackles. We could probably get a good FA cheaply because they're so often undervalued.

TXBRONC
12-22-2011, 08:37 PM
I guess I just see it differently. Franklin looks like he's improved as the season has gone on. Thnik had some shared some grading chart for offensive linemen and if recall correctly was ok. There is a lot of room for improvement but from what I've he's do ok. He run blocking is his strength I think just needs time to develop as pass blocker.

Bullgator
12-22-2011, 09:30 PM
my theory on his head scratcher throws is that his motion takes so long that he starts it no matter what and if he sees a something he doesn't like or the heat is bearing down on him, then he aborts the throw and it goes in the dirt or fifth row...

He does make bad throws aside from those, but they favor missing to the good side usually.

He will get better... he won't make leaps and bounds in a short time but he will steadily improve every week... as we have seen.

Hes been 54% the past 3 games... so hopefully that will keep going up.

With Goose and McCoy working with him this whole offseason (Not just TC, I be Tim will be bugging the hell out of them hehe) And with Elway promising to work with Tim, thats that much better Tim will be next year.

Next year I expect Tim will get in stride by the 4rth or 5th game to the tune of 250-300 a game... Run, Run, Run GOUGE.... You dont need 40 attepts to get 300 in this Offense... 20-25 will do just fine. But it will take some time to put all he will learn this offseason into practice. Could be a special year... and playoffs or not this year has been pretty damn special too.

Good years ahead for Denver I believe.

MOtorboat
12-22-2011, 09:40 PM
Yeah, I mean, it can't possibly be that he's just not good enough of a passer...it HAS to be he's doing it on purpose...

He is progressing, but the "every bad throw is a throw away argument" is getting a little ridiculous. He can't make the throws yet. It's ok to admit this.

MOtorboat
12-22-2011, 09:42 PM
P.S. Bullgator also predicted 3550 yards passing and over 1000 years rushing for this season. Take his statements as pure hyperbole and idol worship.

TXBRONC
12-22-2011, 09:57 PM
Yeah, I mean, it can't possibly be that he's just not good enough of a passer...it HAS to be he's doing it on purpose...

He is progressing, but the "every bad throw is a throw away argument" is getting a little ridiculous. He can't make the throws yet. It's ok to admit this.

Agreed on all counts. There are less purely bad throws now than just few ago but he still has a ways to go before to become good passer.

Bullgator
12-22-2011, 10:10 PM
Yeah, I mean, it can't possibly be that he's just not good enough of a passer...it HAS to be he's doing it on purpose...

He is progressing, but the "every bad throw is a throw away argument" is getting a little ridiculous. He can't make the throws yet. It's ok to admit this.

Mo do you like getting verbal beat downs? I mean how many times do I have to smack you with the flip side?

I clearly said he has bad throws, its right there in my post. I said the head scratchers were aborts.

And let me educate you on quotes... you only quote if its what the dude actually said. "every bad throw is a throw away" is not what I typed there but you are really bad at reading so cheers dude. That goes for you 2 TX

MOtorboat
12-22-2011, 10:27 PM
Mo do you like getting verbal beat downs? I mean how many times do I have to smack you with the flip side?

I clearly said he has bad throws, its right there in my post. I said the head scratchers were aborts.

And let me educate you on quotes... you only quote if its what the dude actually said. "every bad throw is a throw away" is not what I typed there but you are really bad at reading so cheers dude. That goes for you 2 TX

Were you quoted? No. Your assumption only makes you like an ass. Talk about bad at reading. Since you weren't quoted directly and my post wasn't referencing you directly, that makes you utterly wrong. It's a general statement after reading a number of posts over the last three or four weeks on the subject.

I did paraphrase your wrong predictions for Tebow's statistical outputs for the season, however. Care to discuss that?

Bullgator
12-22-2011, 10:43 PM
Were you quoted? No. Your assumption only makes you like an ass. Talk about bad at reading. Since you weren't quoted directly and my post wasn't referencing you directly, that makes you utterly wrong. It's a general statement after reading a number of posts over the last three or four weeks on the subject.

I did paraphrase your wrong predictions for Tebow's statistical outputs for the season, however. Care to discuss that?

Oh yea your right you were not referring to me at all... Right... so your intention was not to make it sound as if I was saying that all his throws and throw aways.

Is this a new form of trolling you invented? The reverse phantom troll? You say some shit then you say it wasn't directed at the person you were trolling? shmoook

as for the stats... he hasn't had a full year yet... Im sure next year he will have 3200 yards passing and over 1000 rushing..

This year would project to around 2700 yards passing and over 1000 yards rushing soooo yea those numbers are not that far off...

What did you say he would do? RIDE THE PINE. so sit down Jr.

You lose again Mo.

TXBRONC
12-22-2011, 10:52 PM
Mo do you like getting verbal beat downs? I mean how many times do I have to smack you with the flip side?

I clearly said he has bad throws, its right there in my post. I said the head scratchers were aborts.

And let me educate you on quotes... you only quote if its what the dude actually said. "every bad throw is a throw away" is not what I typed there but you are really bad at reading so cheers dude. That goes for you 2 TX

Cussing people and degrading them isn't a verbal beat down it's called being inarticulate and it shows a lack education.

MOtorboat
12-22-2011, 10:54 PM
Oh yea your right you were not referring to me at all... Right... so your intention was not to make it sound as if I was saying that all his throws and throw aways.

Is this a new form of trolling you invented? The reverse phantom troll? You say some shit then you say it wasn't directed at the person you were trolling? shmoook

as for the stats... he hasn't had a full year yet... Im sure next year he will have 3200 yards passing and over 1000 rushing..

This year would project to around 2700 yards passing and over 1000 yards rushing soooo yea those numbers are not that far off...

What did you say he would do? RIDE THE PINE. so sit down Jr.

You lose again Mo.

I was referring to a number of posts, and that is why you weren't directly quoted. Had I wanted to respond to your inane post, I would have quoted it, directly.

I love how now you're lowering your expectations so they won't be wrong. Priceless.

I never said he"d "ride the pine" the entire year. But, since you did say I said that, can you quote me on it? You know...lessons in quotes and all...

Bullgator
12-22-2011, 11:32 PM
I was referring to a number of posts, and that is why you weren't directly quoted. Had I wanted to respond to your inane post, I would have quoted it, directly.

I love how now you're lowering your expectations so they won't be wrong. Priceless.

I never said he"d "ride the pine" the entire year. But, since you did say I said that, can you quote me on it? You know...lessons in quotes and all...

:lol::lol::lol:

MOtorboat
12-23-2011, 12:02 AM
Agreed on all counts. There are less purely bad throws now than just few ago but he still has a ways to go before to become good passer.

He has a long ways to go. Let's hope he makes it there.

G_Money
12-23-2011, 05:16 PM
Which is why I like Glenn. For a big guy, he pulls very well. My biggest issue with him is he has a tendency to lean into hi blocks as opposed to firing off. I think it's definitely a coachable issue, but at the end of the day...it all comes down to FA for me. What we do there will depend on what I'd like to see in the draft. I'd love to sway an underrated Carlos Rogers or Brent Grimes to come our way...but if that cant happen, then we sorely need to look at a top CB first and foremost

Agreed. Our FA moves hold the key to our draft needs. If we add a RT or a CB in FA then obviously the board shuffles.

I’d love to get No-Hands Rogers on our team – I think the world of him. But I think he’s showing for the SF defense that he’s got loads of skills and he’s not leaving San Fran for a cheap offer. We’re gonna have to pay him to get him out of there.

If we wouldn’t pay Mebane 5/25 we’re not paying Rogers what it’ll take, IMO. We’re going strictly 2nd tier on FAs it seems, so at this moment I’m leaning toward 1st round CB.

If you could get me:

1st – CB Chase Minnifield, Virginia
2nd – OG Kevin Zeitler, Wisconsin
3rd – RB Doug Martin, Boise St

I’d call that a successful first couple of days. It’s not necessarily exciting, but that would help us a ton. But I know I’m higher on Doug Martin than many are (I’d be fine taking him in the 2nd). I was huge on Forte too even though he didn’t have game-breaking speed or other crazy measurables – he just did everything on a football field that I wanted done. Doug Martin is a lot like that. I would also take Chris Polk, but I have a soft spot for Martin.

And Minnifield is a terrific corner in his own right, with Zeitler as a mauler inside who is quick enough to pull for this offense. I wouldn’t put Chase out there on an island all the time, but he and Harris playing aggressive zone out there would be fun, with Champ demolishing whoever he’s on. Since we’re not a blitz-heavy team – Von aside – Minnifield is the kind of corner that could play zone and still get turnover-happy, which we need. Getting INTs is the only good thing Goodman has done this year, and we need to continue that, if not improve it.

I hope we do more in FA than re-sign Bunkley and find a punt returner we like. No sense mocking seriously until we get through the free-agent period. But I know what our needs are in the “talent acquisition period” and I hope the Broncos get serious about addressing them, since they’re basically the same ones we had last year.

- OG/OT
- CB
- DT
- MLB
- RB

We can address WR (since Royal may not be back), we’re still weak at TE (even with 3 additions there), safety is KILLING us (but with 2 high draft-picks there, we’re not addressing it again)…but the above 5 are all things I want cleaned up and improved upon.

Losses like the NE game are good for pointing out that our pass protection still isn’t there when the other team wants to get to our QB, our main RB is injury-prone and we lack significant depth, we still struggle to move teams inside (especially 3-4 defenses), our receivers have trouble getting separation, our non-champ corners have trouble not giving up separation or maintaining their assignments (safeties are also guilty there), and we get no interior push to help collapse the pocket.

I’m glad to see our weaknesses illustrated in stark relief in losses like that. It should make it fairly easy for the FO to identify what needs to happen to turn us from a plucky team that’s paper-thin depth-wise to a serious contender.

~G

Slick
12-23-2011, 05:29 PM
Agreed. Our FA moves hold the key to our draft needs. If we add a RT or a CB in FA then obviously the board shuffles.

I’d love to get No-Hands Rogers on our team – I think the world of him. But I think he’s showing for the SF defense that he’s got loads of skills and he’s not leaving San Fran for a cheap offer. We’re gonna have to pay him to get him out of there.

If we wouldn’t pay Mebane 5/25 we’re not paying Rogers what it’ll take, IMO. We’re going strictly 2nd tier on FAs it seems, so at this moment I’m leaning toward 1st round CB.

If you could get me:

1st – CB Chase Minnifield, Virginia
2nd – OG Kevin Zeitler, Wisconsin
3rd – RB Doug Martin, Boise St

I’d call that a successful first couple of days. It’s not necessarily exciting, but that would help us a ton. But I know I’m higher on Doug Martin than many are (I’d be fine taking him in the 2nd). I was huge on Forte too even though he didn’t have game-breaking speed or other crazy measurables – he just did everything on a football field that I wanted done. Doug Martin is a lot like that. I would also take Chris Polk, but I have a soft spot for Martin.

And Minnifield is a terrific corner in his own right, with Zeitler as a mauler inside who is quick enough to pull for this offense. I wouldn’t put Chase out there on an island all the time, but he and Harris playing aggressive zone out there would be fun, with Champ demolishing whoever he’s on. Since we’re not a blitz-heavy team – Von aside – Minnifield is the kind of corner that could play zone and still get turnover-happy, which we need. Getting INTs is the only good thing Goodman has done this year, and we need to continue that, if not improve it.

I hope we do more in FA than re-sign Bunkley and find a punt returner we like. No sense mocking seriously until we get through the free-agent period. But I know what our needs are in the “talent acquisition period” and I hope the Broncos get serious about addressing them, since they’re basically the same ones we had last year.

- OG/OT
- CB
- DT
- MLB
- RB

We can address WR (since Royal may not be back), we’re still weak at TE (even with 3 additions there), safety is KILLING us (but with 2 high draft-picks there, we’re not addressing it again)…but the above 5 are all things I want cleaned up and improved upon.

Losses like the NE game are good for pointing out that our pass protection still isn’t there when the other team wants to get to our QB, our main RB is injury-prone and we lack significant depth, we still struggle to move teams inside (especially 3-4 defenses), our receivers have trouble getting separation, our non-champ corners have trouble not giving up separation or maintaining their assignments (safeties are also guilty there), and we get no interior push to help collapse the pocket.

I’m glad to see our weaknesses illustrated in stark relief in losses like that. It should make it fairly easy for the FO to identify what needs to happen to turn us from a plucky team that’s paper-thin depth-wise to a serious contender.

~G

Is Chase Frank's son? (Cleveland Browns)

silkamilkamonico
12-27-2011, 01:43 AM
I see Bullgator has done his famous disappearing act after a poor performance by Tim Tebow...

"...shocking..."

catfish
12-27-2011, 09:05 AM
I see Bullgator has done his famous disappearing act after a poor performance by Tim Tebow...

"...shocking..."

He will be back pissing off Mo after a short time to lick his wounds

MOtorboat
12-27-2011, 09:11 AM
He will be back pissing off Mo after a short time to lick his wounds

I have a bad, bad feeling about Sunday.

catfish
12-27-2011, 09:30 AM
I have a bad, bad feeling about Sunday.

it's probably something you ate ;).....I understand what you are saying, I had a bad feeeling about the Bills....for some reason not so much about the chiefs, although I feel like I should

TXBRONC
12-27-2011, 09:31 AM
He has a long ways to go. Let's hope he makes it there.

I don't think he has as far to go as you do. Getting there is another matter altogether nevertheless I don't think it's insurmountable.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BroncoJoe
12-27-2011, 09:39 AM
Here's my feeling: Elway has said he looks forward to working with Timmy during the offseason. I believe our draft will be a direct result of that time together. Footwork and accuracy, learning how to read the defense faster, getting the ball out quickly without second-guessing himself, etc.

We'll see.

vandammage13
12-27-2011, 10:06 AM
Here's my feeling: Elway has said he looks forward to working with Timmy during the offseason. I believe our draft will be a direct result of that time together. Footwork and accuracy, learning how to read the defense faster, getting the ball out quickly without second-guessing himself, etc.

We'll see.

I still think TT needs to win this week (and play well) and possibly win a playoff game to convince EFX to draft a couple of guys that compliment TT's style of play.

Frankly, I'm sold on TT that he can at the very least be a servicable starter in this league for years to come, but I think Elway is looking for something more than that.

It is a big commitment to draft around a guy that plays like TT does, and while I was critical of Elway for being slow to show public support for Tebow, I understand that he needs to be SURE that TT's his guy.

TT is going to have to show that he can be that guy when it matters...and that starts this Sunday.

This year wasn't supposed to be anything more than a rebuilding year anyway, so the fact that we got what we wanted (most of us anyway) in that we got to see what TT could do, the fact that the playoffs are still a possibility is just gravy on top.

I don't think TT's going to disappoint us...I think he'll have a big game...just a feeling.

MOtorboat
12-27-2011, 10:10 AM
it's probably something you ate ;).....I understand what you are saying, I had a bad feeeling about the Bills....for some reason not so much about the chiefs, although I feel like I should

Do you know what Taco Johns is?

Krugan
12-27-2011, 10:15 AM
Do you know what Taco Johns is?

Dont be haten' on TJ's....

:)

MOtorboat
12-27-2011, 10:18 AM
Dont be haten' on TJ's....

:)

Oh, I love Taco Juans. It can just do interesting things to you later.

catfish
12-27-2011, 10:24 AM
Do you know what Taco Johns is?

similar to a Taco Bell from my understanding...food that is only acceptable after 2AM

VonSackemMiller
12-28-2011, 07:02 AM
When you break down the film you can see tebow just needs more time, On one of those ints the one to byrd if he read the defense right he would have notice the vacant part of the field, Fells streaking back across the middle and NOBODY covering him, Tebow locked onto Decker and Byrd locked onto tebows eyes, Now a few weeks ago vs the chargers he looked off the safety then came back to hit decker. so you see the inconsistancy of him reading defenses. All of this comes with time, Give him a off season tebow will be fine at these things. He is not perfect but his arm is good enough to get the ball places on time and accurate when he SEES whats going on on defense.