PDA

View Full Version : Broncos' season post-mortem



rationalfan
01-16-2012, 11:44 AM
This is the first time in years a Broncos' season has ended with a (very) disappointing loss and I'm hopeful for the future; because this team finally seems to have a credible plan with some competitive balance (translation: both the offense AND defense seem to be promising).

A lot of you are posting your position breakdowns and offseason wishlists. And that's cool. This is more of an oblique reflection/forecast of the team.

- For the first time since Reeves was coaching, I'm not worried when the Broncos play a physical opponent.
Through the Shanny years, and definitely with McD, the Broncos always struggled against the Pittsburghs and Baltimores; teams that hit hard, aim to kill the QB, swarm to the ball and run with the mentality that they want to demolish the defense. These were always bad matchups for Denver. Not anymore. I knew Fox would improve the toughness of this team, I didn't think it would happen in one, short offseason.

- For the first time since the Super Bowl teams, I'm not going into the offseason craving a new DT.
Don't get me wrong, the DLine could improve it's interior. But, finally, this doesn't feel like the most deficient part of the roster.

- For the first time since Al Wilson left, the team feels like it has genuine chemistry.
So much is made of the roster's talent level. That's important. But, I feel, just as important is the mood in a locker room. Through Shanny's final few years and McD's time here, there was never this obvious sense of team unity. The players didn't look like they liked they each other - much less enjoyed playing with each other. But this team came together like nothing I've seen since Elway's final days. They were laughing with each other. They were hugging each other - a lot. They were jumping into each other's arms. Granted, winning can do that to teammates, but there was more to it than victories. They felt like a team with a very strong bond. That should only grow in the next 8 months.

- For the first time since 2005, I don't feel like the roster needs a drastic overhaul.
the team needs to improve everywhere, but it doesn't need to implode the foundation and build from scratch. The offense is VERY young with some obvious upside (and, unlike some others, I don't think the Oline needs to be rebuilt; much of the poor pass protection came from QBs holding the ball way too long, perhaps as they were instructed to do). And the defense finally feels like an NFL defense; not just a collection of cast-offs and practice squad pickups. But the D does need some upgrades; particularly some linebackers and safeties who can cover the underneath routes - that's the weakness of this defense, and why the Patriots matchup killed us twice.

- For the first time in many, many years I feel like the team has a legit chance at the Super Bowl - in 2-3 years.
The young Broncos will grow, the older Broncos will be replaced by (hopefully) smart draft choices. And the current crop of elite of AFC QBs will be aging (Brady, Manning, Big Ben). The future finally looks promising, not just a mirage.

HORSEPOWER 56
01-16-2012, 11:53 AM
Just a question...

The big loss to the Chargers, the loss to KC, and the loss to SF (a losing team) in OT weren't "very big" crushing losses? Those all happened in 3 of our last 4 seasons with playoff implications (most were win and we're in scenarios).

How can you possibly rank the loss to the Pats by a team who wasn't "supposed" to be there in the first place as one of the biggest losses? Yeah, we got beaten, badly... but it wasn't any worse than any of those other games.

The difference this year is that we're on the "upswing" as a franchise instead of stagnant or bottoming out like last year.

MasterShake
01-16-2012, 11:57 AM
Just a question...

The big loss to the Chargers, the loss to KC, and the loss to SF (a losing team) in OT weren't "very big" crushing losses? Those all happened in 3 of our last 4 seasons with playoff implications (most were win and we're in scenarios).

How can you possibly rank the loss to the Pats by a team who wasn't "supposed" to be there in the first place as one of the biggest losses? Yeah, we got beaten, badly... but it wasn't any worse than any of those other games.

The difference this year is that we're on the "upswing" as a franchise instead of stagnant or bottoming out like last year.

I think I get what RationalFan is trying to say, but I agree with this. I'm not depressed and mopey like I should be after a playoff loss (my friend in New Orleans is on suicide watch by contrast) because it felt like we walked into a party we were not supposed to be at. There is no shame in losing to the #1 seed, but I am a little upset that we got toasted like we did.

I'll agree with those who are actually looking forward to next season a bit more though, we made HUGE strides this year despite having so many issues to address still. The playoff experience is huge for such a young team.

ShooterJM
01-16-2012, 12:34 PM
I agree with most, but not the O-line play. Go back through the games and look at the time from snap to sack and snack to pressure. Without going back and looking at the numbers again I'd say the ball was held to long maybe 30% of the time, the line flat blocked horribly 70%. Blame tebow all you want, but we flat out had one of the worst pass blocking lines in the NFL.

rationalfan
01-16-2012, 12:37 PM
Just a question...

The big loss to the Chargers, the loss to KC, and the loss to SF (a losing team) in OT weren't "very big" crushing losses? Those all happened in 3 of our last 4 seasons with playoff implications (most were win and we're in scenarios).

How can you possibly rank the loss to the Pats by a team who wasn't "supposed" to be there in the first place as one of the biggest losses? Yeah, we got beaten, badly... but it wasn't any worse than any of those other games.

The difference this year is that we're on the "upswing" as a franchise instead of stagnant or bottoming out like last year.

simply because it's a big loss that ended the team's season. just like the other games (san diego, SF, etc.). "big" isn't necessarily reflective of the score, but what was at stake.

rationalfan
01-16-2012, 12:39 PM
I agree with most, but not the O-line play. Go back through the games and look at the time from snap to sack and snack to pressure. Without going back and looking at the numbers again I'd say the ball was held to long maybe 30% of the time, the line flat blocked horribly 70%. Blame tebow all you want, but we flat out had one of the worst pass blocking lines in the NFL.

i'm just going by what i saw/think. i'm not a guy who goes back and studies film. and i'm not just blaming tebow. i wrote the "QBs" held the ball too long. that includes orton.

ShooterJM
01-16-2012, 12:59 PM
Wow, I wrote "from snack to pressure". Can you tell I'm on a diet! :D

Yeah, I know you said QB, but I bet 95% of times a denver QB held the ball too long it was Tebow. Orton has his faults but he didn't usually hold the ball past 4 seconds.

wayninja
01-16-2012, 01:58 PM
simply because it's a big loss that ended the team's season. just like the other games (san diego, SF, etc.). "big" isn't necessarily reflective of the score, but what was at stake.

Well, that's fair enough, but by that standard, any postseason (or win and in) loss is a 'big' loss.

spikerman
01-16-2012, 02:26 PM
Good post. One place where I'd disagree, though, is about DT. Denver never places a priority on that position and I can't figure out why since if you look at the teams that are consistently good, they have very good d-lines. Not having a DT who can push the pocket is why QB's like Brady consistently chew Denver up. Denver needs somebody who can put pressure in the face of the QB.

SOCALORADO.
01-16-2012, 02:35 PM
Good post. One place where I'd disagree, though, is about DT. Denver never places a priority on that position and I can't figure out why since if you look at the teams that are consistently good, they have very good d-lines. Not having a DT who can push the pocket is why QB's like Brady consistently chew Denver up. Denver needs somebody who can put pressure in the face of the QB.

I agree.
http://www.4malamute.com/images/alameda.jpg

spikerman
01-16-2012, 02:38 PM
I agree.
http://www.4malamute.com/images/alameda.jpg

I was at the Alamo Bowl. No Huskies or Bears defensive players! :D

Nomad
01-16-2012, 02:40 PM
I agree.
http://www.4malamute.com/images/alameda.jpg

I thought the NFL didn't allow gang signs:D

underrated29
01-16-2012, 03:02 PM
I thought the NFL didn't allow gang signs:D



Actually, he is using sign language to order food. He wants to order 3, not four cheeseburgers, W- with, E- extra cheese.

cmc0605
01-16-2012, 03:35 PM
Actually, I thought we had one of the best o lines in the league (at least before the NE game), and I've heard commentators say something to that effect many times. They did a fantastic job for the bulk of the season, especially after Franklin started getting more experience (he did struggle more early on). There were countless occasions when Tebow had all day to throw. Some of this had to do with his ability to scramble and break tackles, but keep in mind that this was not a QB who just dropped back and passed the football. He sat there , ran around, scrambled, ran some more, then threw a deep ball to Thomas. Some of it was "holding the ball too long," other times it was good scrambling that kept plays alive. But with that style of play you're inevitably going to give up sacks on occasion. But in the Tebow era, I actually don't think you could have asked for better o-line play. Granted, they flopped against NE (and with one of the starters out), but they are also very young and will only grow together. Let's also not forget the run success.

ShooterJM
01-17-2012, 10:36 AM
Actually, I thought we had one of the best o lines in the league (at least before the NE game), and I've heard commentators say something to that effect many times. They did a fantastic job for the bulk of the season, especially after Franklin started getting more experience (he did struggle more early on). There were countless occasions when Tebow had all day to throw. Some of this had to do with his ability to scramble and break tackles, but keep in mind that this was not a QB who just dropped back and passed the football. He sat there , ran around, scrambled, ran some more, then threw a deep ball to Thomas. Some of it was "holding the ball too long," other times it was good scrambling that kept plays alive. But with that style of play you're inevitably going to give up sacks on occasion. But in the Tebow era, I actually don't think you could have asked for better o-line play. Granted, they flopped against NE (and with one of the starters out), but they are also very young and will only grow together. Let's also not forget the run success.


Commentators said it a few times, but go look at the stats. You can even remove the NE game if you want. Look at the actual line play, position by position. Terrible. Center and guard play was literally the worst in the NFL.