PDA

View Full Version : Broncos 'Insider' Says That The Broncos Have Abandoned Bates Defensive Scheme



Tned
10-21-2007, 02:20 PM
Very interesting if this is true.



The Broncos spent the bye week junking defensive coordinator Jim Bates' system and going back to what they played last season. "We just don't have the personnel to play it," said one Denver insider. The Broncos better try something new because they are allowing more rushing yards (187.6) a game than what the mighty Steelers are running for — 167 yards a game. The Broncos are a mess without WR Javon Walker (knee) because Jay Cutler hasn't had a consistent running game to rely on and there's no receiver opposite Brandon Marshall.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7358452

lex
10-21-2007, 02:28 PM
Bleh. I guess that just means the DEs' upfield pass rush will be toned down and they will blitz more. Hopefully they stick with it though beyond this year. Our underbelly is so soft this year. We really need to bolster our defense up the middle.

Tned
10-21-2007, 02:33 PM
Bleh. I guess that just means the DEs' upfield pass rush will be toned down and they will blitz more. Hopefully they stick with it though beyond this year. Our underbelly is so soft this year. We really need to bolster our defense up the middle.

Depending on how Marcus Thomas develops, hopefully in the offseason we can find one or two quality DE's in the draft or FA.

Skinny
10-21-2007, 02:36 PM
The apperant report from the Post is there will be some diffrent schemes installed. . . especially on 3rd down. . . but the defensive line will have the same philosophy.

From an article Friday in the Post.
Bates and Bly said the team used last week's bye and the extra practice Monday to work on all facets of the defense. Bates explains that if Denver can improve on third down, the entire defense will improve, and consequently the Broncos' offense will be better because of more chances to strike.

"Everything will change if we improve there," Bates said. "We'll get off the field, and the offense will have their chance. We have to do the little things better."

Without getting into specifics, Bates said there are schemes the team can use to improve on third down, but defensive line coach Bill Johnson's philosophy remains simple.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_7218869I would'nt expect anything to drastic. . .

lex
10-21-2007, 02:37 PM
Depending on how Marcus Thomas develops, hopefully in the offseason we can find one or two quality DE's in the draft or FA.


Even if Marcus Thomas develops, we still need to upgrade by adding a couple of DTs. Adams is too old to be counted on and everyone else besides Thomas sucks.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 02:37 PM
Original rumor was that they fired Bates, but I'd agree with this assessment. We'll see more blitzes and cover-ups than we have all year long. Disguising our defenses would actually be nice for a change. Despite drafting three defensive lineman and making some changes in the secondary and some other additions, we just don't have the players to run the defense.

In reality, it's really sad. Bates' defense is about as simple as they come and our players on the defensive side of the ball cannot even execute it. Remember that Litton cartoon the "one gap in the Broncos two gap defense" that pointed to the players brain? Well that's it.

When you watch our games over and over again, you can just see the weak minded mentality of this defense as it pans out over the course of the game. Players looking at each other shrugging shoulders, looking confused and consistently missing assignments. Our players can't win their assignments and it's absolutely frustrating. Green Bay let things play out, but I think there's just too much pride here in Denver for us to ever ride such a travesty on defense out and hope it gets better. I assume the talking heads would rather do what it takes to win, than suffer an embarrassing season which is the road we're headed on now.

Everyone is expecting a big change in players next year, but I'd expect some coaching and personnel changes to changes too. Wabbit on the Mane reported that there have been rumblings (as there have been for some years people have said) that Denver needs to hit "reboot" on the coaching list, and that Sundquist as the GM would be one of them. It sounded like from what he has heard (just a rumor, but he's a very reliable source) that the draft selections over his time as GM (until recently) and FA suggestions / acquisitions have been just laughable at best. I'm not sure where Shanahan came into play with this, and probably didn't during the talks since it's pretty much consensus that he's untouchable.

I'm not sure how well Bates/Slowik and Dennison/Heimerdinger are going to fair going into the off-season either. Maybe it's just all "doom and gloom" now since the Broncos are 2-3 and coming off a shellacking like no other in recent memory - but it's hard to believe that there isn't any substance to these rumors.

As for the defense, if they cannot handle what Bates' is doing - just go back to what you can do - if they even remember. It's clear as day that the defensive tackles and linebackers (in particular all the front seven) on a regular basis cannot do their jobs right, so the adjustments have to be made. I'm not worried about our secondary, I think they've played well given the porous performances on the defensive front seven.

It's just unfortunate that things had to turn out like this, but adjustments do need to be made. So when you are all watching the game tonight, if you see some different looks and disguises than usual, this FOX bit would probably prove to be spot on, which I assume it is - because the Broncos cannot go on forever with performances like two Sunday's ago.

lex
10-21-2007, 02:44 PM
Yeah, it just really puts on full display how pathetic some of our players have been. I almost wish they would ride it out though and not cover up guys like Gold or Gordon. The only thing that sucks about that though is that professionals like Lynch and Bailey deserve better. I guess too though, they deserve more from their teammates but unfortunately its just not there.

SBboundBRONCOS
10-21-2007, 03:14 PM
Original rumor was that they fired Bates, but I'd agree with this assessment. We'll see more blitzes and cover-ups than we have all year long. Disguising our defenses would actually be nice for a change. Despite drafting three defensive lineman and making some changes in the secondary and some other additions, we just don't have the players to run the defense.

In reality, it's really sad. Bates' defense is about as simple as they come and our players on the defensive side of the ball cannot even execute it. Remember that Litton cartoon the "one gap in the Broncos two gap defense" that pointed to the players brain? Well that's it.

When you watch our games over and over again, you can just see the weak minded mentality of this defense as it pans out over the course of the game. Players looking at each other shrugging shoulders, looking confused and consistently missing assignments. Our players can't win their assignments and it's absolutely frustrating. Green Bay let things play out, but I think there's just too much pride here in Denver for us to ever ride such a travesty on defense out and hope it gets better. I assume the talking heads would rather do what it takes to win, than suffer an embarrassing season which is the road we're headed on now.

Everyone is expecting a big change in players next year, but I'd expect some coaching and personnel changes to changes too. Wabbit on the Mane reported that there have been rumblings (as there have been for some years people have said) that Denver needs to hit "reboot" on the coaching list, and that Sundquist as the GM would be one of them. It sounded like from what he has heard (just a rumor, but he's a very reliable source) that the draft selections over his time as GM (until recently) and FA suggestions / acquisitions have been just laughable at best. I'm not sure where Shanahan came into play with this, and probably didn't during the talks since it's pretty much consensus that he's untouchable.

I'm not sure how well Bates/Slowik and Dennison/Heimerdinger are going to fair going into the off-season either. Maybe it's just all "doom and gloom" now since the Broncos are 2-3 and coming off a shellacking like no other in recent memory - but it's hard to believe that there isn't any substance to these rumors.

As for the defense, if they cannot handle what Bates' is doing - just go back to what you can do - if they even remember. It's clear as day that the defensive tackles and linebackers (in particular all the front seven) on a regular basis cannot do their jobs right, so the adjustments have to be made. I'm not worried about our secondary, I think they've played well given the porous performances on the defensive front seven.

It's just unfortunate that things had to turn out like this, but adjustments do need to be made. So when you are all watching the game tonight, if you see some different looks and disguises than usual, this FOX bit would probably prove to be spot on, which I assume it is - because the Broncos cannot go on forever with performances like two Sunday's ago.

ive always wanted to see a little more surprise from the D, the last couple years they would pretty much line up na dhit the guys in fron of them,i want to see the line stunt and switch gaps, i watch bears and they have there DT run around the DE and still make the sack, i know we have bad tackles but i think thomas could be very good at stuff like that

TXBRONC
10-21-2007, 03:19 PM
ive always wanted to see a little more surprise from the D, the last couple years they would pretty much line up na dhit the guys in fron of them,i want to see the line stunt and switch gaps, i watch bears and they have there DT run around the DE and still make the sack, i know we have bad tackles but i think thomas could be very good at stuff like that

From what I have read Thomas is a natural one gap DT but because athleticism Shanahan and Bates felt he could make the transition to a two gap DT.

dogfish
10-21-2007, 03:27 PM
as far as i'm concerned, the only thing they can do that has much chance of making this defense better is going back to what we were doing in '05, not '06. . . just crowd the LOS, stack backers and/or safeties in the gaps, and come with the heavy blitz. . . bring as many guys as possible to attack the run and get after the QB-- let our excellent corners play on the island. . . sure they'll get beat some times, but it's almost better than dying a slow death while our offense sits on their hands. . . at least that way we've got a chance to get some stuffs and force some turnovers-- our front seven is so bad right now, heavy blitzing is about the only thing that can make them look any better. . . you don't have to bring the punt rush blitz every time, but the more blitzes the btter IMO. . .

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 03:32 PM
Thomas has some versatility, but he's a guy who can get into his gap, shoot up the field and make plays in the backfield. He's a three technique guy. I was a little up in arms about how he'd fit into Bates' defense, but the coaching staff is pleased with is play so far. Someone put out an article the other day saying that Thomas is seeing 70 to 80 percent of the plays. That's actually really impressive. Hasn't had the kind of production I'd like to see out of a player, averaging only like 1.5 tackles a game, but - hopefully it'll come in time. It's not easy adjusting to that position from college to the NFL.

TXBRONC
10-21-2007, 03:35 PM
Where our defense has gotten gashed the most are on runs between the guard and tackle. I thought for awhile that if the just brought the defensive ends a step towards the defensive tackles that they might be able control that gap a little better.

Skinny
10-21-2007, 03:41 PM
Where our defense has gotten gashed the most are on runs between the guard and tackle. I thought for awhile that if the just brought the defensive ends a step towards the defensive tackles that they might be able control that gap a little better.Or to help protect the LB's.

evendelae
10-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Original rumor was that they fired Bates, but I'd agree with this assessment. We'll see more blitzes and cover-ups than we have all year long. Disguising our defenses would actually be nice for a change. Despite drafting three defensive lineman and making some changes in the secondary and some other additions, we just don't have the players to run the defense.

In reality, it's really sad. Bates' defense is about as simple as they come and our players on the defensive side of the ball cannot even execute it. Remember that Litton cartoon the "one gap in the Broncos two gap defense" that pointed to the players brain? Well that's it.

When you watch our games over and over again, you can just see the weak minded mentality of this defense as it pans out over the course of the game. Players looking at each other shrugging shoulders, looking confused and consistently missing assignments. Our players can't win their assignments and it's absolutely frustrating. Green Bay let things play out, but I think there's just too much pride here in Denver for us to ever ride such a travesty on defense out and hope it gets better. I assume the talking heads would rather do what it takes to win, than suffer an embarrassing season which is the road we're headed on now.

Everyone is expecting a big change in players next year, but I'd expect some coaching and personnel changes to changes too. Wabbit on the Mane reported that there have been rumblings (as there have been for some years people have said) that Denver needs to hit "reboot" on the coaching list, and that Sundquist as the GM would be one of them. It sounded like from what he has heard (just a rumor, but he's a very reliable source) that the draft selections over his time as GM (until recently) and FA suggestions / acquisitions have been just laughable at best. I'm not sure where Shanahan came into play with this, and probably didn't during the talks since it's pretty much consensus that he's untouchable.

I'm not sure how well Bates/Slowik and Dennison/Heimerdinger are going to fair going into the off-season either. Maybe it's just all "doom and gloom" now since the Broncos are 2-3 and coming off a shellacking like no other in recent memory - but it's hard to believe that there isn't any substance to these rumors.

As for the defense, if they cannot handle what Bates' is doing - just go back to what you can do - if they even remember. It's clear as day that the defensive tackles and linebackers (in particular all the front seven) on a regular basis cannot do their jobs right, so the adjustments have to be made. I'm not worried about our secondary, I think they've played well given the porous performances on the defensive front seven.

It's just unfortunate that things had to turn out like this, but adjustments do need to be made. So when you are all watching the game tonight, if you see some different looks and disguises than usual, this FOX bit would probably prove to be spot on, which I assume it is - because the Broncos cannot go on forever with performances like two Sunday's ago.

You know, I'm always one to support the coaching brass, but I am getting so incredibly sick of this current regime, and that includes Shanahan. I think a change of scenery would do both Shanny and the team good. I'm hoping for Jason Garrett. I think that if we had a "real" GM like Pioli, it would do a world of good.

Ultimately, as far as I can tell, we have a team that's too young to do anything this season. There's a foundation, but it'll take a couple years and I think a coaching change could "ring in the new era", so to speak.

I think the situation with the amount of power Shanny has is out of control. A new team for him, maybe a team like Carolina or St. Louis, would do him good.

Basically, I'm all for a nuking.

Tned
10-21-2007, 04:14 PM
Thomas has some versatility, but he's a guy who can get into his gap, shoot up the field and make plays in the backfield. He's a three technique guy. I was a little up in arms about how he'd fit into Bates' defense, but the coaching staff is pleased with is play so far. Someone put out an article the other day saying that Thomas is seeing 70 to 80 percent of the plays. That's actually really impressive. Hasn't had the kind of production I'd like to see out of a player, averaging only like 1.5 tackles a game, but - hopefully it'll come in time. It's not easy adjusting to that position from college to the NFL.

Has to be even harder after missing basically his whole senior season.

ChampWJ
10-21-2007, 06:32 PM
Are there any other teams that have changed defensive schemes mid-season? I am sure there are, but I was real surprised to read this. This could be a big turning point for the Broncos. Although without Champ in there tonight we'll probably still lose badly.

topscribe
10-21-2007, 06:53 PM
Very interesting if this is true.



http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7358452

Fox's assessment is real, except for their comment about "no wide receiver
opposite Brandon Marshall." I guess they missed Martinez' six receptions in
the last game, and they must not have heard of Stokley..

Is Martinez a one-game wonder? Maybe. But right now, six receptions in a
game does not constitute "no wide receiver."

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 06:55 PM
What does it constitute as? Like those receptions meant anything in the first place. When you're up by 30+ - your defense isn't exactly out there running full throttle. Stokley is legitimate and has been a pleasant surprise and has experience, but Martinez? No.

lex
10-21-2007, 06:59 PM
What does it constitute as? Like those receptions meant anything in the first place. When you're up by 30+ - your defense isn't exactly out there running full throttle. Stokley is legitimate and has been a pleasant surprise and has experience, but Martinez? No.

Martinez is the real deal...just like Mike Bell.

topscribe
10-21-2007, 07:00 PM
What does it constitute as? Like those receptions meant anything in the first place. When you're up by 30+ - your defense isn't exactly out there running full throttle. Stokley is legitimate and has been a pleasant surprise and has experience, but Martinez? No.

Could be. But six receptions are six receptions.

I think all we can say is, we'll see?

-----

Medford Bronco
10-21-2007, 07:00 PM
Bleh. I guess that just means the DEs' upfield pass rush will be toned down and they will blitz more. Hopefully they stick with it though beyond this year. Our underbelly is so soft this year. We really need to bolster our defense up the middle.

and also at LB as well as the missing of Al Wilson has changed everything IMO

Tned
10-21-2007, 07:02 PM
and also at LB as well as the missing of Al Wilson has changed everything IMO

Losing Al creates a domino effect. Besides him being the defensive captain, and making the calls, with him gone and DJ moving over, we are downgraded at two positions. MLB and OLB.

broncofanatic1987
10-21-2007, 07:18 PM
If it is true that they have scrapped the scheme, I hope they plan on getting the right personnel next year. The scheme works. Get the players that can run it. Given the simplicity of the scheme and the Broncos inability to run it, it shows a real lack of physical talent on the defensive side of the ball.

eessydo
10-21-2007, 07:28 PM
If this is true it is a stupid move. If anything they should tweak the system slightly to adapt to current personnel, but scrapping it because our front 4 is incompetent, well that is ridiculous.

I would like to see the same scheme with some increased blitzing.

Oh, wait a second, just saw the pass from Rothlisberger to the Pitt receiver on the first drive. Hmmmmm, looks like they found our other weakness, our safeties are not great in coverage.

Watch the steelers throw over the middle all night long.

eessydo
10-21-2007, 07:36 PM
BTW, if we are going back to the old scheme, why did we get rid of Gerard Warren. He was the only bright spot that I saw on the line last year.

Other than all of those Elvis "I only play one down in 4" Dumervil lovers (of which I am not one), everyone can agree he was the only one worth a paycheck.

It's the cart leading the horse here, defensive players calling the shots because they can't adapt to a proven system.

They have a word for individuals with this attitude.......

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 07:38 PM
If Warren was the best player on the defensive line you saw last year, you must have watched sixteen different games than the coaches and the rest of us did.

broncofanatic1987
10-21-2007, 08:00 PM
BTW, if we are going back to the old scheme, why did we get rid of Gerard Warren. He was the only bright spot that I saw on the line last year.

Other than all of those Elvis "I only play one down in 4" Dumervil lovers (of which I am not one), everyone can agree he was the only one worth a paycheck.

It's the cart leading the horse here, defensive players calling the shots because they can't adapt to a proven system.

They have a word for individuals with this attitude.......

They got rid of Warren because he refused to adapt to the new scheme. They weren't planning on going back to the old scheme at the time.

I'm not a big Dumervil fan, but he did lead the team in sacks with limited playing time last year. He also leads the team this year.

I don't like the idea of scrapping a proven scheme but when your players can't execute a scheme designed to be simple, what else can you do?

topscribe
10-21-2007, 09:02 PM
If Warren was the best player on the defensive line you saw last year, you must have watched sixteen different games than the coaches and the rest of us did.

Why, who did the coaches and the rest of us think was the best player on the
defensive line last year?

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 09:12 PM
Why, who did the coaches and the rest of us think was the best player on the
defensive line last year?

Obviously not Warren, but I won't go there anymore because I've already been proven right since he's not on the team anymore.

topscribe
10-21-2007, 09:31 PM
Obviously not Warren, but I won't go there anymore because I've already been proven right since he's not on the team anymore.

I'm just curious as to who you think was.

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 09:40 PM
Ekuban without a doubt. He had a career year.

silkamilkamonico
10-21-2007, 10:36 PM
So after the game tonight, I'm curious.

Where does Denver go from hear on out defensively? I'm understanding that they are abandoning the Bates scheme for this year, but do they go back into the offseason re-implementing it, or do they go in another direction?

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 10:37 PM
I don't think it was a complete abandon of what he did, there were numerous times where you saw the classic defensive line up, guys wide - outside a TE playing a 9-technique and go towards the QB. . . there will be changes, more blitzes, zone blitzes, etc. - but I think the defense did pretty good overall. Put into some bad field position on several occasions, but we still won.

Ferguson played terrible.

Skinny
10-21-2007, 10:41 PM
The big diffrence i saw on defense was all the guys that were up in the box. They were playing alot closer to the LOS. The D-line pretty much played their usual role.

topscribe
10-21-2007, 10:43 PM
Ekuban without a doubt. He had a career year.

Can't argue with that. Forgot about him. He was a beast, especially the last
few games of the year. I'll tell you, the Broncos may need another DT or
three, but with what they have, and especially if Ekuban comes back healthy
next year, they have a monster roster at DE, IMO.

-----

broncofanatic1987
10-21-2007, 10:47 PM
So after the game tonight, I'm curious.

Where does Denver go from hear on out defensively? I'm understanding that they are abandoning the Bates scheme for this year, but do they go back into the offseason re-implementing it, or do they go in another direction?

I think if Bates remains the defensive boss next year, they will try to find the right players to run his scheme. If he resigns or gets fired, obviously that means they go in a different direction.

I would like to see them get the right players to run the scheme. I know they only had two weeks to adjust the defense and they did a good job of getting pressure on Roethlisberger in the first half, but they gave up a lot of points and didn't hold a two touchdown lead. Bates' scheme is a proven success. It's ridiculous that they couldn't adapt to it. Bates' has produced top ten defenses in his first year in two cities. Give him the right players!!

dogfish
10-21-2007, 10:55 PM
BTW, if we are going back to the old scheme, why did we get rid of Gerard Warren. He was the only bright spot that I saw on the line last year.


obviously, we got rid of warren about six weeks before we decided to switch up defensive schemes. . .




Other than all of those Elvis "I only play one down in 4" Dumervil lovers (of which I am not one), everyone can agree he was the only one worth a paycheck.


what, there are people around here who like defensive playmakers. . . ??? what the hell are they thinking?? personally, i hate guys who collect sacks in bunches and have a penchant for forcing turnovers. . . .

Stargazer
10-21-2007, 10:59 PM
Ferguson played terrible.

Surprised?

DenBronx
10-21-2007, 11:00 PM
looks like the reports were dead on and switching up the scheme helped. the current players we have now are not all fit for the bates scheme and this couldnt of happened soon enough. im just glad that shanny didnt ride it out the whole year and made a decision.

and the reports that dj might have trouble if they switched bates scheme was bogus b/c he was a monster tonight. im pretty sure we will beat green bay with the way we played tonight....and after that the rest of the year looks pretty soft. *except for kc in arrowhead and san diego)

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 11:01 PM
Can't argue with that. Forgot about him. He was a beast, especially the last
few games of the year. I'll tell you, the Broncos may need another DT or
three, but with what they have, and especially if Ekuban comes back healthy
next year, they have a monster roster at DE, IMO.

-----

This was Ekuban's last year and at his age and with his injury, I don't know if we bring him back.

With Jarvis Moss, Tim Crowder and Elvis Dumervil - there has to be plenty of time to play them all, and it's pretty much a given they are our future. Engelberger will likely be around since has has another year and I'm not sure what else we'll do, but I'm not concerned about the position at all. We have four quality guys right there (the younger ones will keep improving) and we can find someone else to sign to a one year deal to fill the void. It's nice that we won't have to worry about anything but one depth player there.

I thought that our defensive tackles played solid tonight, but I do think we need another guy or two. They seemed to play much better than they have all year, and the adjustments were probably key in that. McKinley had that sack and was in on some other hurries and running plays. McKinley and Thomas are the only guys I see being here next season.

We'll see though. A lot of football left to play, but we have a lot of ammo to get whoever we need.

Stargazer
10-21-2007, 11:01 PM
The big diffrence i saw on defense was all the guys that were up in the box. They were playing alot closer to the LOS. The D-line pretty much played their usual role.

Facing a team that likes to run the ball. Yay, an adjustment.

DenBronx
10-21-2007, 11:06 PM
This was Ekuban's last year and at his age and with his injury, I don't know if we bring him back.

With Jarvis Moss, Tim Crowder and Elvis Dumervil - there has to be plenty of time to play them all, and it's pretty much a given they are our future. Engelberger will likely be around since has has another year and I'm not sure what else we'll do, but I'm not concerned about the position at all. We have four quality guys right there (the younger ones will keep improving) and we can find someone else to sign to a one year deal to fill the void. It's nice that we won't have to worry about anything but one depth player there.

I thought that our defensive tackles played solid tonight, but I do think we need another guy or two. They seemed to play much better than they have all year, and the adjustments were probably key in that. McKinley had that sack and was in on some other hurries and running plays. McKinley and Thomas are the only guys I see being here next season.

We'll see though. A lot of football left to play, but we have a lot of ammo to get whoever we need.


id say bringing back ekuban over engelberger is a priority.

would you rather them bring back rice?

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 11:07 PM
John is under contract, so he'll stay and round out the group to make it four. I'd prefer Denver to take back Ekuban as well, as long as he proves he's healthy enough to play. Yeah, him over Rice.

lex
10-21-2007, 11:08 PM
I thought DJ played a lot better and there definitely seems to be a difference when Marcus Thomas is in there along with closing down the gaps by the DLine. Even without our DEs fanned out so much, it seems like we were still able to get pressure.

And, btw, what did everyone think of Foxworth at CB?

underrated29
10-21-2007, 11:19 PM
sorry,i'm a little behind conversation here, but top i agree, we are set at de. Elvis,jarvis,tim(wherever he lines up/rde),and rice if healthy and not whining.

we need some dt. I for now would prefer rice over engel only if healthy for nest year.

I also think that we will add some players next year that fit bates scheme a lil better, But both will be an adjustment. By that i mean we will keep bates and he will keep his scheme, but it will be slightley adjusted. We still need to bring in some personal that fit his scheme better, which i think we will. And we will run something of the combined schemes of his new and our old.

The biggest problem i have with bates traditional scheme is that our guys lined up in there 1 gap (or 2 or whatever you want to call it) formations really in my mind give the rb full view of the holes that are going to open, when doing his presnap reads. THerefore allowing him to say ok i will go left and if he goes this way then i got a lane here, and if he goes that way then i got the lane there. And if that lane is gone i can always cut it back to this guys lanes and find the open one.JMO

ok gotta go, see yalls tomorrow.

ChampWJ
10-21-2007, 11:34 PM
I thought DJ played a lot better and there definitely seems to be a difference when Marcus Thomas is in there along with closing down the gaps by the DLine. Even without our DEs fanned out so much, it seems like we were still able to get pressure.

And, btw, what did everyone think of Foxworth at CB?

I thought Foxy did a good job considering the circumstances. He was more physical than I expected and made some nice hits and tackles. Nice game, but I didn't think Paymah or Shoate played particularly well filling in for Foxworth.

omac
10-21-2007, 11:43 PM
I thought Foxy did a good job considering the circumstances. He was more physical than I expected and made some nice hits and tackles. Nice game, but I didn't think Paymah or Shoate played particularly well filling in for Foxworth.

Foxy's stepped up for this game; I remember thinking how "un-physical" he was in prior games, doing some really weak tackles.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-21-2007, 11:53 PM
I thought DJ played a lot better and there definitely seems to be a difference when Marcus Thomas is in there along with closing down the gaps by the DLine. Even without our DEs fanned out so much, it seems like we were still able to get pressure.

And, btw, what did everyone think of Foxworth at CB?

I think this was one of DJ's better career games. He had a few TFL, that interception and was making most of his assignments. A few close sacks, but Ben was able to get away. I thought Thomas, although he may not have even registered a tackle on the stat sheet played well too. He was causing some havoc with some nice pressures, and did a nice job at allowing our linebackers to make some plays.

Foxworth did a pretty good job. He allowed some underneath stuff and over the middle completions, but that will happen when you blitz your linebackers and allow the center of the field to be there. No deep beats, and he was physical more than usual.

Didn't think Paymah was that bad, but Shoate is just a terrible option at a corner position, even if it's a dime guy or depth. He's just not good at all.

Didn't like the play of Ferguson tonight outside a few nice blitzes and run support tackles (getting Parker for a few behind the LOS was nice) because he allowed two TE touchdowns, and he actually might have been in there on the Holmes score, but that was more Bly getting beat than anything.

When you stack your box like we did, the passing game will go a little crazy. A lot of Ben's plays were nice throw ups to the middle of the field when he evaded pressure, but overall I was pleased with our performance. Still need to improve on the defense, but as the games go by - I think we'll see things mesh. They improved with the zone blitzes, disguises and stacked box looks today - and our front four did a solid job too. Moss, Thomas and Crowder just weren't able to finish off the sacks.

Couldn't be more pleased with Elvis.

I just hope Scheffler and Bly are okay, and I think Henry got dinged a little too. Let's cross our fingers for them.

Also, this was a Denver offense that was the first to put up points against the Steelers in the second quarter all year long. Kudos to us on that.

Also, I questioned whether or not Brandon S. would be able to be effective this year, but the guy has been clutch for us. I might have to agree with those who have said he's our most underrated off-season acquisition. 17 receptions for about 250 yards and two touchdowns. Can't ask for more when you're a #2/#3 guy. Definitely picked it up when we needed it. Also, Scheffler looked good when he was in there, definitely adds some dimension to our passing game.

In-com-plete
10-22-2007, 12:01 AM
I didn't read any of the 47 reply's. But if they did abandon it, that explains things.

And in that case......bring back Coyer and dump Bates.

DenBronx
10-22-2007, 12:21 AM
crowder looked pretty fast on that run back. also i think there would have been at least 3 more sacks tonight but big ben was pretty weasilish. he can scramble a round fairly well for his size.

lex
10-22-2007, 12:25 AM
crowder looked pretty fast on that run back. also i think there would have been at least 3 more sacks tonight but big ben was pretty weasilish. he can scramble a round fairly well for his size.

I dont know if anyone else noticed this but Marcus Thomas started spying Roethlisberger.

Retired_Member_001
10-22-2007, 04:22 AM
We should stick to whatever we did this game.

This was much better. We should play Jarvis Moss and Tim Crowder more as well, they are good players.

Tned
10-22-2007, 07:18 AM
So, what's the concensus after last night? Was that an abandonment of Bates system? The same system, with some twists? Or, the same bates system as the rest of the year, but the players executed better?

I will admit to not really being a student of the defensive game, but to my un-skilled eye, the defens seemed quite different. Many more blitzes (probably more last night than the previous 5 games or close to that), 8 or 9 guys near the line. A much more aggressive defense, which would have benefitted greatly if Champ had been playing.

Mike
10-22-2007, 08:14 AM
So, what's the concensus after last night? Was that an abandonment of Bates system? The same system, with some twists? Or, the same bates system as the rest of the year, but the players executed better?

I will admit to not really being a student of the defensive game, but to my un-skilled eye, the defens seemed quite different. Many more blitzes (probably more last night than the previous 5 games or close to that), 8 or 9 guys near the line. A much more aggressive defense, which would have benefitted greatly if Champ had been playing.

I was wondering the same thing. Would be interested in knowing the answer.

I was a little disappointed when the team started laying off late in the second quarter though. That is something that I have noticed about Denver over the last few years. When something is working, they abandon it and play it safe instead of keeping it floored.

But if that was the real Denver defense...I might have to re-evaluate my season predictions. What a wonderful win! :salute:

underrated29
10-22-2007, 08:20 AM
id say we still used it, i am no expert or a defensive line person, but it seemed to me on obvious passing downs we had our de lined way out there, like bates likes to do.

maybe not but please no coyer!Bates with bad persoanla is better then coyer with anything.

Skinny
10-22-2007, 08:23 AM
So, what's the concensus after last night? Was that an abandonment of Bates system? The same system, with some twists? Or, the same bates system as the rest of the year, but the players executed better?

I will admit to not really being a student of the defensive game, but to my un-skilled eye, the defens seemed quite different. Many more blitzes (probably more last night than the previous 5 games or close to that), 8 or 9 guys near the line. A much more aggressive defense, which would have benefitted greatly if Champ had been playing.I did'nt see a abandonment as much as i did the adjustment. Especially along the D-line and the DTs. And that was according to the personel that lined up up front.

In the previous 5 games the LBs were 10 yards off the LOS. This game they were 5 yards off the LOS and clearly 'in the box' along with a Safety.

There seemed to be alot more zone coverage too. I think that had largely to do with Champ being out. Speaking of which, Dre Bly played like a true #1 Corner last night. Big props to him.

I was scratching my head on a couple of 3rd down calls when we had the sticks in our favor like we wanted. Yet Bates did'nt bring the heat and sat back in zone coverage giving Ben too much time to hit his TE's and kept some drives alive. That really suprised me. . .

:2cents:

DenBronx
10-22-2007, 09:57 AM
they still scored 28 points though. so its not like we completely shut them down. i think the main differance here was the offense. they didnt just get yards but they ate up the clock and actually scored in the redzone. this causes our team to kickoff instead of punt or field goal. a couple of punts and a couple of field goals and we lose the game. the one touchdown was by the defense....but a win is a win.

Lonestar
10-22-2007, 11:18 AM
From what I saw in the game and I did not dwell on it was:
Once PIT adjusted to the defense that obviously was a new and improved version they pretty much did what they needed to.

They started to run the ball with authority and we really never shut down their passing game.

Sorry but without the fumble recovery and TD this most likely would have been a loss. (BTW the new guy can really truck for a big guy)

We still suck inside the 10 yard line on offense and without the passing game we would have been sunk.

Jay made some great throws and then some not so great ones.
Not sure how many rushing yards we got but I'd guess about half of what they did.

Better defense but I suspect once other OCs see the film it will not take long to plan for it. Remember that DEN had two weeks to plan and implement it.

topscribe
10-22-2007, 12:19 PM
From what I saw in the game and I did not dwell on it was:
Once PIT adjusted to the defense that obviously was a new and improved version they pretty much did what they needed to.

They started to run the ball with authority and we really never shut down their passing game.

Sorry but without the fumble recovery and TD this most likely would have been a loss. (BTW the new guy can really truck for a big guy)

We still suck inside the 10 yard line on offense and without the passing game we would have been sunk.

Jay made some great throws and then some not so great ones.
Not sure how many rushing yards we got but I'd guess about half of what they did.

Better defense but I suspect once other OCs see the film it will not take long to plan for it. Remember that DEN had two weeks to plan and implement it.

I really don't think it's a viable argument, that the Broncos would not have
won had Crowder not had that TD. Had Cutler not passed for one of his
TDs, the Broncos would not have won. Had Elam not made the FG, the
Broncos would not have won, in regulation, anyway.

Don't overlook that the returned fumble was a result of the Broncos
outplaying the Steelers, resulting in the sack and the fumble itself by
Dumervil.

The difference right now between the Steelers and Patriots is Randy Moss,
and maybe Tom Brady, although Ben had a very good game. What Denver
beat was not Oakland or Jacksonville. It was Pittsburgh, a top five team.
Denver altered their defensive scheme, and the talent took over. They
still need a DT or two, and for Champ to come back, but they showed that,
without doubt, they can hang with the best.

And Cutler, with a 106 rating, despite the two INTs, is flat amazing. This
guy is a stud, a star.

I'm optimistic about the rest of the season. Not Super Bowl optimistic, but
I believe we will enjoy competitiveness as they continue to form into the
juggernaut we may see next year.

-----

eessydo
10-22-2007, 12:40 PM
I did not see much out of the Defensive line this evening. Only real play I saw made was dumervil splitting to OL's on that sack. All the rest of the pressures and sacks were generated by good coverage down field.

I was not too impressed. Anyone can get a sack if the quarterback has nowhere to throw the ball.

I think the gameball should go to our secondary, all this junk about our defensive line being our strength in last nights game is horse poo.

omac
10-22-2007, 01:58 PM
I agree with topscribe.

Things that happen in the game are part of the game. Ben didn't just fumble that; he was pressured a lot during the game, and those lead to opportunities. Hey, if Cutler didn't throw that INT, Pittsburgh wouldn't have scored that TD either. Just like in the previous games, where if their kickers didn't miss, we'd lose; but Elam missed too during those games. It's all part of the game.

Beating this Steeler team is no easy feat, and it wasn't luck either. This team not only has a strong rushing offense, and a strong rush and pass defense, but they're the 8th highest scoring team in the league (26 ppg), and the 2nd best in points allowed (13 ppg). All their wins were by margins of 3 or more TDs. Prior to Denver, only 1 opponent has scored more than 20 points against them.

Our rush defense is not elite, but it has forced them to respect it and pass more. A lot of their yardage came from great improvisation by Roethlisburger on broken plays. The success they had at moving the ball was mainly through passing, not their real strength, rushing.

Some commentators say we could be 0-6; by that thinking, Buffalo and Oakland could be 4-2. Hey, Brady's NE could be 0-3 in the Superbowl, as they never won by more than a fieldgoal. If only the Panthers kicker didn't muff that last kickoff that caused a penalty and the ensuing ridiculously short field possition.

The defense was the biggest part of this win, and it goes beyond the score; the defense established that Pittsburgh would not run wild any time they wanted, and that equated to a much more confident offense. This was not a lucky win.

omac
10-22-2007, 02:00 PM
I did not see much out of the Defensive line this evening. Only real play I saw made was dumervil splitting to OL's on that sack. All the rest of the pressures and sacks were generated by good coverage down field.

I was not too impressed. Anyone can get a sack if the quarterback has nowhere to throw the ball.

I think the gameball should go to our secondary, all this junk about our defensive line being our strength in last nights game is horse poo.

So when their rushes were stuffed for short yardage, the line had nothing to do with it either?

Lonestar
10-22-2007, 03:48 PM
I really don't think it's a viable argument, that the Broncos would not have
won had Crowder not had that TD. Had Cutler not passed for one of his
TDs, the Broncos would not have won. Had Elam not made the FG, the
Broncos would not have won, in regulation, anyway.

Don't overlook that the returned fumble was a result of the Broncos
outplaying the Steelers, resulting in the sack and the fumble itself by
Dumervil.

The difference right now between the Steelers and Patriots is Randy Moss,
and maybe Tom Brady, although Ben had a very good game. What Denver
beat was not Oakland or Jacksonville. It was Pittsburgh, a top five team.
Denver altered their defensive scheme, and the talent took over. They
still need a DT or two, and for Champ to come back, but they showed that,
without doubt, they can hang with the best.

And Cutler, with a 106 rating, despite the two INTs, is flat amazing. This
guy is a stud, a star.

I'm optimistic about the rest of the season. Not Super Bowl optimistic, but
I believe we will enjoy competitiveness as they continue to form into the
juggernaut we may see next year.

-----


As I said I did not replay the tape and only had a cursory look at the game. DEN played IMO above their heads and once they had a lead PIT seemed to be deflated. and after the fumble recovery and TD they went flat.

But after half time and mostly in the third quarter and beyond it was PITs game to win.

Before their final drive to tie we had a three and out.. when we most needed to keep the ball and keep them from scoring

prior to that they scored

Take Jays 31 yard run out of our 90 yards and folks we sucked at running the ball.

Once again we lucked out on another last minute FG when we had the on the ropes 21-7

Y'all can dream of Superbowl sugar plums dancing around in your heads but mikey skated again. IMO JAY won the game in spite of the interceptions, considering the play from the second tier WR that played in the game, our total ineptitude in our running game, yep Jay caused that win.

underrated29
10-22-2007, 04:19 PM
As I said I did not replay the tape and only had a cursory look at the game. DEN played IMO above their heads and once they had a lead PIT seemed to be deflated. and after the fumble recovery and TD they went flat.

But after half time and mostly in the third quarter and beyond it was PITs game to win.

Before their final drive to tie we had a three and out.. when we most needed to keep the ball and keep them from scoring

prior to that they scored

Take Jays 31 yard run out of our 90 yards and folks we sucked at running the ball.

Once again we lucked out on another last minute FG when we had the on the ropes 21-7

Y'all can dream of Superbowl sugar plums dancing around in your heads but mikey skated again. IMO JAY won the game in spite of the interceptions, considering the play from the second tier WR that played in the game, our total ineptitude in our running game, yep Jay caused that win.


jr, i can go with most of what you said, but get real man, we didnt get lucky. take away jays 30 yrd run, take away elams field goal, take away the dtd by crowder. seriously..

ok take away bens td pass. Take away bens 17 yard scramble to keep their last drive alive. Take away the blown coverage by the broncos when hines ward scored a td...

you can take away all you want but the fact is that they happened. They happened because the players on the field made the play. They didnt happen because some magical force came in and knocked ben down and made him fumble. They happened because we played that way. Thats why you play the game of football, because players make some great plays.

let me guess we should be 0-6, right. Why are you so afraid to get let down, or so afraid to actually get excited about a good thing. These things happened because we the team played better then they did. You can say well they didnt do this, or they did do this but the fact of the matter is we won. We won. There is nothing else.

We leave with a win, and they leave with a loss.Period.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-22-2007, 04:28 PM
I am absolutely thrilled that we looked and played as good as we did last night against a quality team, and we WON. :salute:

Much better than in the previous first three games.

BigBroncLove
10-22-2007, 05:18 PM
Well after watching the game, the Broncos did seem to abandon Bates scheme, at least for the majority of the plays. The DT's did play a true one gap system (and not the hybrid one gap/two gap they've been playing through the season), and they did their jobs in this capacity. Thomas did very well at NT takign on double teams and created pressure. Sam Adams did his part as well, creating a slow rumbling pressure on the first TD pass by Pittsburgh which rushed Roethlisberger.

The DE's seem to be creating pressure in the normal one gap 4-3 scheme as well. As usual Dumerville is impressive, but so was Moss and Crowder. Even Engleberger did a good job. The play looks much improved with the players trying to beat the opponenets in front of them isntead of adhering to a ssytem which doesn't play to their talents.

DJ's instincts are back to! In the Bates scheme he was over pursuing and runing himself out of the play about 50% of the time, but last night when he was able to play with what he knows, he was every where he needed to be at the right time (well most of the time).

Still a little to much zero cover for my taste, and there were a few blitzes that made me worry and cost the Broncos, but it is nice to see some aggressive play calling as well. Through the first stertch I didn't feel we blitzed often enough. Last year, we almost never did. The front 7 look revitalized returning to a "vanilla" 4-3 against a solid Steelers team, lets hope they can build on it :beer: . None the less, I expect the Broncos to work on reimplementing Bates system through the offseason and next years TC. I don't think they'll give up on Bates bread and butter quite yet.

TXBRONC
10-22-2007, 06:12 PM
As I said I did not replay the tape and only had a cursory look at the game. DEN played IMO above their heads and once they had a lead PIT seemed to be deflated. and after the fumble recovery and TD they went flat.

Then maybe you should hold off with negative comments until you have actually watched the game.


But after half time and mostly in the third quarter and beyond it was PITs game to win.

Really? Pittsburgh had the lead after the opening kick off and after that they never led again. Their game to win? UMMM NO.


Before their final drive to tie we had a three and out.. when we most needed to keep the ball and keep them from scoring

prior to that they scored

Ok is there honestly point here? So what the momentum had shifted but they still were not able to take the lead back.


Take Jays 31 yard run out of our 90 yards and folks we sucked at running the ball.

And take Roethlisberger 20 yards out of the game and Denver's defense hold the Steelers rushing attack to under 100 yards.


Once again we lucked out on another last minute FG when we had the on the ropes 21-7

First off a win is a win. Second get real, it was tie game in last minute Jay drove the offense from the Broncos 20 into field goal range. This without the benefit of blown coverage or whatever. And by the way it was against the number one ranked defense in the League. So that blows your luck criticism right out of the water.


Y'all can dream of Superbowl sugar plums dancing around in your heads but mikey skated again. IMO JAY won the game in spite of the interceptions, considering the play from the second tier WR that played in the game, our total ineptitude in our running game, yep Jay caused that win.

Exactly who are you addressing? I have yet to see anyone talk about us going to the Super Bowl in this thread. :screwy:

Yea Jay threw two interceptions but so did Ben. Ben also fumbled the ball and it was returned for touchdown.

Total ineptitude in the running game? Hardly, only if someone wants to find reason so complain will say something like that.

Tned
10-22-2007, 06:49 PM
And, adding to what some others have said our running back was on the sidelines with bruised ribs in the fourth quarter (and maybe some of the third).

TXBRONC
10-22-2007, 08:58 PM
And, adding to what some others have said our running back was on the sidelines with bruised ribs in the fourth quarter (and maybe some of the third).

Well it sure goes a long way in explaining why our ground game "sucked". (That really isn't my take on it.)

omac
10-23-2007, 12:25 AM
jr, i can go with most of what you said, but get real man, we didnt get lucky. take away jays 30 yrd run, take away elams field goal, take away the dtd by crowder. seriously..

ok take away bens td pass. Take away bens 17 yard scramble to keep their last drive alive. Take away the blown coverage by the broncos when hines ward scored a td...

you can take away all you want but the fact is that they happened. They happened because the players on the field made the play. They didnt happen because some magical force came in and knocked ben down and made him fumble. They happened because we played that way. Thats why you play the game of football, because players make some great plays.

let me guess we should be 0-6, right. Why are you so afraid to get let down, or so afraid to actually get excited about a good thing. These things happened because we the team played better then they did. You can say well they didnt do this, or they did do this but the fact of the matter is we won. We won. There is nothing else.

We leave with a win, and they leave with a loss.Period.

Very nice post! :salute:

omac
10-23-2007, 12:30 AM
Also, very spot on with each assesment, TXBRONC! :salute:

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 02:40 AM
Then maybe you should hold off with negative comments until you have actually watched the game.



Really? Pittsburgh had the lead after the opening kick off and after that they never led again. Their game to win? UMMM NO.



Ok is there honestly point here? So what the momentum had shifted but they still were not able to take the lead back.



And take Roethlisberger 20 yards out of the game and Denver's defense hold the Steelers rushing attack to under 100 yards.



First off a win is a win. Second get real, it was tie game in last minute Jay drove the offense from the Broncos 20 into field goal range. This without the benefit of blown coverage or whatever. And by the way it was against the number one ranked defense in the League. So that blows your luck criticism right out of the water.



Exactly who are you addressing? I have yet to see anyone talk about us going to the Super Bowl in this thread. :screwy:

Yea Jay threw two interceptions but so did Ben. Ben also fumbled the ball and it was returned for touchdown.

Total ineptitude in the running game? Hardly, only if someone wants to find reason so complain will say something like that.

I watched the game I did not study it, unlike some I'm not obsessed with this team this year.

Jay pulled out the win after PIT came roaring back to tie the game. They had the momentum and had it went into OT I suspect they would have won it.

Everyone raved about the running game I do not think it was any thing special.
We have won three games this year folks with last second heroic s from a kicker folks that while is a win is nothing to be PROUD of. This team has a alot of talent on it or at least did when the season started. Many things have gone wrong so far IF they manage to eek out a win again next week I just might jump back on the everything is rosy bandwagon.

Now that they have game tape on the changes made in the off week. We will not have two weeks to heal and prepare for Farve. I suspect that GB will bring our broncos back to earth. Out of the last second FG orbit everyone thinks is so wonderful.

We won that game yesterday only because we had the ball last. Had PIT had another chance on it, it would most likely been another story..another loss

DenBronx
10-23-2007, 11:21 AM
Then maybe you should hold off with negative comments until you have actually watched the game.


*burned* :boxing:


I watched the game I did not study it, unlike some I'm not obsessed with this team this year.


how can you watch the game yet not observe what happened? no one is obsessed but your on a bronco board discussing bronco football...yet somehow your not keeping up with the team this year.

Requiem / The Dagda
10-23-2007, 12:16 PM
Also, re watching "tape" would be watching the game from multiple shots, such as sideline, endzone, etc. I'm more than certain you don't have that. Ah, the semantics of scouting.

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 12:39 PM
*burned* :boxing:

how can you watch the game yet not observe what happened? no one is obsessed but your on a bronco board discussing bronco football...yet somehow your not keeping up with the team this year.

I watched the game, but I did not spend alot off time replaying the individuals plays. I saw what I saw and moved on I can be a fan and a MOD without being obsessive about it. In fact that probably makes me more objective than most fan antics on forums.

I have continually said this team is about a year away from being a really good team. I could care less if this team gets a playoff spot, this year if it means they succeed the next 3 years.

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 01:56 PM
I watched the game, but I did not spend alot off time replaying the individuals plays. I saw what I saw and moved on I can be a fan and a MOD without being obsessive about it. In fact that probably makes me more objective than most fan antics on forums.

I have continually said this team is about a year away from being a really good team. I could care less if this team gets a playoff spot, this year if it means they succeed the next 3 years.

Jr you are light years away from being objective. :laugh:

Saying this team is year away maybe a total of three times doesn't constitute continually.

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 02:04 PM
*burned* :boxing:



how can you watch the game yet not observe what happened? no one is obsessed but your on a bronco board discussing bronco football...yet somehow your not keeping up with the team this year.


If you carry a negative attitude about everything that all you will see.

omac
10-23-2007, 02:20 PM
I watched the game, but I did not spend alot off time replaying the individuals plays. I saw what I saw and moved on I can be a fan and a MOD without being obsessive about it. In fact that probably makes me more objective than most fan antics on forums.

I have continually said this team is about a year away from being a really good team. I could care less if this team gets a playoff spot, this year if it means they succeed the next 3 years.

Getting a playoff spot this year and succeeding the next 3 years need not be mutually exclussive. I wouldn't want Denver to get stronger through the draft at the cost of a season.

Also, though leaning on the overly-optimistic side is not being objective, neither is leaning on the overly-pessimistic or critical side. We all have biases, whether we know it or not.

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 02:27 PM
Getting a playoff spot this year and succeeding the next 3 years need not be mutually exclussive. I wouldn't want Denver to get stronger through the draft at the cost of a season.

Also, though leaning on the overly-optimistic side is not being objective, neither is leaning on the overly-pessimistic or critical side. We all have biases, whether we know it or not.


Absolutely, being realistic (at least the way I have always precieved it) means you don't get overly optimistic or pessimistic.

omac
10-23-2007, 03:00 PM
Absolutely, being realistic (at least the way I have always precieved it) means you don't don't get overly optimistic or pessimistic.

Yep, and it's always easier said than done, hehehe. I know I err on the overly-optimistic side with regards to the Broncos. :D

But I "think" I'm objective when I say that we can compete with any team in the league if our defense plays at least as well as it did against Pittsburgh. That's why I still think we can win the Superbowl, but getting a wild-card will be tough.

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 03:11 PM
Yep, and it's always easier said than done, hehehe. I know I err on the overly-optimistic side with regards to the Broncos. :D

But I "think" I'm objective when I say that we can compete with any team in the league if our defense plays at least as well as it did against Pittsburgh. That's why I still think we can win the Superbowl, but getting a wild-card will be tough.

I agree if the defense can continue to play like did Sunday night this team should be able to compete. I don't know if we have enough horse to get all the way to the Super Bowl, however at this point a playoff run isn't out of the question.

Let me add if the team were healthier I would feel a little more confident in a deep playoff run.

omac
10-23-2007, 03:34 PM
I agree if the defense can continue to play like did Sunday night this team should be able to compete. I don't know if we have enough horse to get all the way to the Super Bowl, however at this point a playoff run isn't out of the question.

Let me add if the team were healthier I would feel a little more confident in a deep playoff run.

Yeah I agree. Good thing for us, a whole lot of other teams are also experiencing a lot of injuries. That should balance the playing field somewhat. :cheers:

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 04:56 PM
Yeah I agree. Good thing for us, a whole lot of other teams are also experiencing a lot of injuries. That should balance the playing field somewhat. :cheers:


Since the Packers are up first I wonder what their injury situation is?

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 05:15 PM
Getting a playoff spot this year and succeeding the next 3 years need not be mutually exclussive. I wouldn't want Denver to get stronger through the draft at the cost of a season.

Also, though leaning on the overly-optimistic side is not being objective, neither is leaning on the overly-pessimistic or critical side. We all have biases, whether we know it or not.

We are not wasting a season unless of course we forfeit the rest of the games.

Any experience these kiddies get this year will go a long ways to making them stronger for next year.

DO you really think this team can win a Playoff game on the road against IND NE or for that matter SAN in its present state?

I'd rather have a top 5-8 pick and be able to get perhaps 3 picks in the top 100 players this year. Would make a really big difference for the future of this team. Or would you rather have the #20 choice again and be one and done AGAIN in the playoffs?

I have always been realistic in my view of this team, something that many are not. But that comes from watching 47 years of Bronco ball.

Now this year I did let the enthusiasm of all the new kids and the hype from the coach's momentarily get the better of my judgment. For awhile I thought it would all come together and actually had those sugar plum fairies looking glasses on and thought they just might have a shot at it. Then the preseason followed training camp. Gone were the illusions of Super bowl and the realistic prognostication came as being 7-9 now it looks more like 6-10 at best.

I feel that many good things are coming next year IF we can get that monster DT to swap time with Adams and another big DT to play along side of them.

Almost all of the pieces are under contract for the next severals years and unless injuries destroy the team like this year this will be a contender next year and for several years thereafter. But we will still need some help getting past SAN, IND, and NE before we get a taste of Super bowl koolade again.

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 05:19 PM
Jr you are light years away from being objective. :laugh:

Saying this team is year away maybe a total of three times doesn't constitute continually.


Perhaps I should have said consistently instead of

"I have continually/consistently said this team is about a year away from being a really good team. I could care less if this team gets a playoff spot, this year if it means they succeed the next 3 years"



EDIT In RED

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 09:17 PM
Perhaps I should have said consistently instead of

"I have continually/consistently said this team is about a year away from being a really good team. I could care less if this team gets a playoff spot, this year if it means they succeed the next 3 years"



EDIT In RED

Why did you ignore more important part? Jr you really do lack any sort of objectivity.

eessydo
10-23-2007, 10:08 PM
So when their rushes were stuffed for short yardage, the line had nothing to do with it either?

Omac, what are you talking about?

Go read the play by play and show me what short run we stuffed? Had one third down run we closed down then Rothlisberger got the first on a sneak.

That was about it. Pittsburgh didn't run, that is why they lost. Because when they did run, they put up a 4.6 yard per rush average on us.

Here is the play by play so you can verify what I stated is true. Can view the box score on that one too. Hopefully you have it on DVR and you can watch it again, because I am not sure we were watching the same thing.

Pittsburgh vs. Denver Week 7 (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29296&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=REG7)

TXBRONC
10-23-2007, 10:12 PM
Omac, what are you talking about?

Go read the play by play and show me what short run we stuffed? Had one third down run we closed down then Rothlisberger got the first on a sneak.

That was about it. Pittsburgh didn't run, that is why they lost. Because when they did run, they put up a 4.6 yard per rush average on us.

Here is the play by play so you can verify what I stated is true. Can view the box score on that one too. Hopefully you have it on DVR and you can watch it again, because I am not sure we were watching the same thing.

Pittsburgh vs. Denver Week 7 (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29296&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2007&week=REG7)


I don't agree. They did try to run. However Denver got up on them by 14 and somewhat forced them to pass a little more.

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 10:33 PM
Why did you ignore more important part? Jr you really do lack any sort of objectivity.

Pray tell which important part did I ignore?

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 10:42 PM
I don't agree. They did try to run. However Denver got up on them by 14 and somewhat forced them to pass a little more.

What they did was panic and started to pass then they came to their senses and started to run again in the third quarter. and did well with it grinding the clock and scoring.

They forgot what got them a 4-1 record the remembered at half time and got back on track..

1-10-DEN 41 (12:21) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 40 for 1 yard (22-D.Foxworth).
2-9-DEN 40 (11:38) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 39 for 1 yard (55-D.Williams).
3-8-DEN 39 (10:57) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger scrambles up the middle to DEN 28 for 11 yards (28-J.Shoate).
1-10-DEN 28 (10:19) 39-W.Parker up the middle pushed ob at DEN 13 for 15 yards (47-J.Lynch).
1-10-DEN 13 (9:47) 39-W.Parker up the middle to DEN 9 for 4 yards (25-N.Ferguson).
2-6-DEN 9 (9:01) 39-W.Parker up the middle to DEN 13 for -4 yards (25-N.Ferguson).

next series
1-10-PIT 6 (14:57) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 86-H.Ward to PIT 9 for 3 yards (52-I.Gold).
2-7-PIT 9 (14:16) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short left to 10-S.Holmes to PIT 19 for 10 yards (47-J.Lynch). PENALTY on DEN-47-J.Lynch, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at PIT 19.
1-10-PIT 34 (13:57) 39-W.Parker left tackle to PIT 31 for -3 yards (60-J.Engelberger; 58-N.Webster).
2-13-PIT 31 (13:14) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short left to 39-W.Parker to DEN 47 for 22 yards (32-D.Bly).
1-10-DEN 47 (12:24) 39-W.Parker right tackle to DEN 23 for 24 yards (22-D.Foxworth).
1-10-DEN 23 (11:56) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass incomplete short left to 86-H.Ward.
Timeout #1 by PIT at 11:53.
2-10-DEN 23 (11:53) 7-B.Roethlisberger scrambles up the middle to DEN 15 for 8 yards (92-E.Dumervil).
3-2-DEN 15 (11:10) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 14 for 1 yard (55-D.Williams, 22-D.Foxworth).
4-1-DEN 14 (10:40) 7-B.Roethlisberger up the middle to DEN 13 for 1 yard (52-I.Gold).
now that the run is established they decide to pass

1-10-PIT 22 (7:47) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short left to 10-S.Holmes pushed ob at PIT 31 for 9 yards (58-N.Webster).
2-1-PIT 31 (7:19) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 10-S.Holmes to PIT 33 for 2 yards (32-D.Bly).
1-10-PIT 33 (6:36) 39-W.Parker up the middle to PIT 34 for 1 yard (52-I.Gold, 55-D.Williams).
2-9-PIT 34 (5:56) 39-W.Parker up the middle to PIT 35 for 1 yard (52-I.Gold).
3-8-PIT 35 (5:13) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short middle to 86-H.Ward to DEN 49 for 16 yards (55-D.Williams).
1-10-DEN 49 (4:29) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short left to 39-W.Parker to DEN 37 for 12 yards (22-D.Foxworth).
1-10-DEN 37 (3:39) 7-B.Roethlisberger sacked at DEN 45 for -8 yards (60-J.Engelberger). Penalty on PIT-73-K.Simmons, Offensive Holding, declined.
2-18-DEN 45 (3:30) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short middle to 86-H.Ward to DEN 37 for 8 yards (22-D.Foxworth).
3-10-DEN 37 (2:46) (Shotgun) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 80-C.Wilson to DEN 25 for 12 yards (25-N.Ferguson; 22-D.Foxworth).
1-10-DEN 25 (2:07) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 21 for 4 yards (58-N.Webster).
Two-Minute Warning
2-6-DEN 21 (2:00) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 38-C.Davis to DEN 12 for 9 yards (22-D.Foxworth).
1-10-DEN 12 (1:16) 7-B.Roethlisberger pass short right to 83-H.Miller for 12 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

sorry but they ran tha ball with authority when they decied to..

omac
10-23-2007, 11:24 PM
1-10-DEN 41 (12:21) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 40 for 1 yard (22-D.Foxworth).
2-9-DEN 40 (11:38) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 39 for 1 yard (55-D.Williams).
1-10-DEN 28 (10:19) 39-W.Parker up the middle pushed ob at DEN 13 for 15 yards (47-J.Lynch).
1-10-DEN 13 (9:47) 39-W.Parker up the middle to DEN 9 for 4 yards (25-N.Ferguson).
2-6-DEN 9 (9:01) 39-W.Parker up the middle to DEN 13 for -4 yards (25-N.Ferguson).

1-10-PIT 34 (13:57) 39-W.Parker left tackle to PIT 31 for -3 yards(60-J.Engelberger; 58-N.Webster).
1-10-DEN 47 (12:24) [COLOR="red"]39-W.Parker right tackle to DEN 23 for 24 yards (22-D.Foxworth).

3-2-DEN 15 (11:10) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 14 for 1 yard (55-D.Williams, 22-D.Foxworth).

1-10-PIT 33 (6:36) 39-W.Parker up the middle to PIT 34 for 1 yard (52-I.Gold, 55-D.Williams).
2-9-PIT 34 (5:56) 39-W.Parker up the middle to PIT 35 for 1 yard (52-I.Gold).

1-10-DEN 25 (2:07) 39-W.Parker left tackle to DEN 21 for 4 yards (58-N.Webster).

Actually, you just proved that they didn't run the ball well consistently; Roethlessburger's rushing came primarily from broken pass plays, like Jay's rushing, and that's very different from attempting to rush. So by your stats, when they attempted to run ....

1, 1, 15, 4, -4, -3, 24, 1, 1, 1, 4

They were extremely unsuccessful 7 times, extremely successful 2 times, and got good yardage 2 times.

So based on your stats, no, they didn't consistently run the ball well when they attempted to, and that's why they had to make a decision; either continue to work the run game and hope to have better success later, or adjust and try to win with the pass, and that's what they did. It's the pass game that got them back in the game.

Call it like it is; those multiple 1 yard or less stops were excellent rush defensive efforts, and the 4 yarders were at least solid. They weren't having great success running the ball, so they continued with the pass and gave themselves a chance to win.

(edit) oops, I guess I did get it right the first time. I thought I missed a stat somewhere ...

Lonestar
10-23-2007, 11:29 PM
Actually, you just proved that they didn't run the ball well consistently; Roethlessburger's rushing came primarily from broken pass plays, like Jay's rushing, and that's very different from attempting to rush. So by your stats, when they attempted to run ....

1, 1, 15, 4, -4, -3, 24, 1, 1, 1, 4

They were extremely unsuccessful 7 times, extremely successful 2 times, and got good yardage 2 times.

So based on your stats, no, they didn't consistently run the ball well when they attempted to, and that's why they had to make a decision; either continue to work the run game and hope to have better success later, or adjust and try to win with the pass, and that's what they did. It's the pass game that got them back in the game.

Call it like it is; those multiple 1 yard or less stops were excellent rush defensive efforts, and the 4 yarders were at least solid. They weren't having great success running the ball, so they continued with the pass and gave themselves a chance to win.


You missed the point the continued to pound the ball regardless of its success and in the first possession in the second half ran the ball down to the red zone where they finally passed it.

They got back to there roots and did what got them a 4-1 record. Once they established the running game they almost passed at will.

omac
10-23-2007, 11:40 PM
You missed the point the continued to pound the ball regardless of its success and in the first possession in the second half ran the ball down to the red zone where they finally passed it.

They got back to there roots and did what got them a 4-1 record. Once they established the running game they almost passed at will.

Nah, the point was they weren't having success at rushing the ball, so they had to make a decision. Also, different factors affect the way a defense responds; sometimes, a defense plays differently when they have a lead as opposed to when they don't. Sometimes, they start to be less agressive and try to manage the clock. The offense did the same thing.

The reason for a lot of their success is the great improvisational play by Roethlisburger, not their designed rushing game. He's made crazy passes and crazy rushes where most other QBs in the league would've gotten sacked, or would've had to throw away the ball.

It's Denver who made Pittsburgh think twice about running the ball; they did not successfully set up the pass through the run. In order to do that, they'd have to have consistent success with the run, and that's something they didn't have during the game.

(added) Denver's defense was set up to stop the run, and dare Pittsburgh to pass. They were willing to get burned by the pass, by overplaying the run. So Pittsburgh's rush didn't set up the pass; the pass was there the whole game, as Denver was willing to gamble their pass defense to augment their run defense.

eessydo
10-24-2007, 08:41 AM
Willie Parker had a 4.4 yard per rush average, only .2 under the team average. Last I checked, parker was the running back not Ben. He put up a 7 yard average on 3 rushing plays.

Say what you want, 4.4 yards per rush average for their running back against our "stout" running defense is not exactly what I want to see.

Ideally it would be floating around 3.0.

We got gashed for 27, 15 and 24 yard runs, one of which I know we had 8 men in the box. How is that stout?

They used the run to set up their play action pass in the 4th quarter and they came back

Lonestar
10-24-2007, 11:44 AM
Willie Parker had a 4.4 yard per rush average, only .2 under the team average. Last I checked, parker was the running back not Ben. He put up a 7 yard average on 3 rushing plays.

Say what you want, 4.4 yards per rush average for their running back against our "stout" running defense is not exactly what I want to see.

Ideally it would be floating around 3.0.

We got gashed for 27, 15 and 24 yard runs, one of which I know we had 8 men in the box. How is that stout?

They used the run to set up their play action pass in the 4th quarter and they came back


You are correct in this are many fans do not wish to see their Broncos in anything but orange colored glasses. That is OK nothing wrong with that but those that do not wish to believe that mikey is not the greatest thing since slice bread should not be skewered for having less faith in the organization.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 12:33 PM
Willie Parker had a 4.4 yard per rush average, only .2 under the team average. Last I checked, parker was the running back not Ben. He put up a 7 yard average on 3 rushing plays.

Say what you want, 4.4 yards per rush average for their running back against our "stout" running defense is not exactly what I want to see.

Ideally it would be floating around 3.0.

We got gashed for 27, 15 and 24 yard runs, one of which I know we had 8 men in the box. How is that stout?

They used the run to set up their play action pass in the 4th quarter and they came back


Ah but they did hold Parker to under 100 yards rushing. One the reason they were able to do that is that we got up on them by two scores. So while it wasn't a perfect effort they were by and larger better than they had been in the previous five games.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 12:35 PM
You are correct in this are many fans do not wish to see their Broncos in anything but orange colored glasses. That is OK nothing wrong with that but those that do not wish to believe that mikey is not the greatest thing since slice bread should not be skewered for having less faith in the organization.


Nor should those who see things in more positive light as being pollyanic just because they don't want take on a sour attitude.

Tned
10-24-2007, 01:24 PM
You are correct in this are many fans do not wish to see their Broncos in anything but orange colored glasses. That is OK nothing wrong with that but those that do not wish to believe that mikey is not the greatest thing since slice bread should not be skewered for having less faith in the organization.

And then the flip side are those that see the doomsday in every situation and in every season (see every gameday thread). Then, there are the majority of us that fall in between the orange colored glasses and the sky is falling crowd.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 01:49 PM
And then the flip side are those that see the doomsday in every situation and in every season (see every gameday thread). Then, there are the majority of us that fall in between the orange colored glasses and the sky is falling crowd.

My thoughts exactly. It's good to talk about about things that are concerns but its also good talk about the things that are good.

For instance the run defense this past Sunday, the ypc given up was high
(4.4 ypc I think) yet the defense still held Parker to under 100 yards rushing.

Other positives, the red zone offense, the fact we scored over 30 points, and that are still very young qb has now led this team to three come from behind victories. Being able to praise those things shouldn't be considered pollyanic.

broncofanatic1987
10-24-2007, 02:46 PM
Ah but they did hold Parker to under 100 yards rushing. One the reason they were able to do that is that we got up on them by two scores. So while it wasn't a perfect effort they were by and larger better than they had been in the previous five games.

It's great that Parker was held under 100 yards, but there are two major factors that made that possible.


The Steelers came out passing instead of trying to run the ball down the Broncos' throats.

The Broncos got out to a 14 point lead causing the Steelers to have to play catch up.


If the Steelers came out with the game plan that most probably thought they would use, Parker would probably have had over 100 yards.

The defense did play better against the run than they did in previous games, but there is still a lot of improvement needed when it comes to run defense.

There is need to improve the passing defense as well considering the Steelers were able to score a touchdown on their opening drive despite not relying on the run during that drive and the fact that they were able to erase a 14 point deficit by throwing to wide open running backs and tight ends.

I'm glad the Broncos won the game and it doesn't matter how they did it. The team did a good job as a whole. As long as the offense can continue to score 30 points per game, it doesn't matter if the defense continues to give up 28 points per game. I would like to see the defense improve though. They certainly showed signs of improvement. Let's hope they keep improving.

underrated29
10-24-2007, 02:48 PM
i have yet to look at how many times pits ran the ball but i would expect it to be lower than their average. Can anyone back me up on that?

If thats the case their 4.4 ypc isnt accurate. It becomes another tatum bell syndrome. where you have many short 1 yarders and then 1 big one, all when only rushing a few times it skewes everything.

if they did rush it their normal time of lets say 35-45 times then they did do a great job with the 4.4ypc, but i think they probably did it more like 25 times. Thus the lesser amount you rush for, the better your ypc looks, even though you werent running it all that well.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 04:51 PM
It's great that Parker was held under 100 yards, but there are two major factors that made that possible.


The Steelers came out passing instead of trying to run the ball down the Broncos' throats.

The Broncos got out to a 14 point lead causing the Steelers to have to play catch up.


If the Steelers came out with the game plan that most probably thought they would use, Parker would probably have had over 100 yards.

The defense did play better against the run than they did in previous games, but there is still a lot of improvement needed when it comes to run defense.

There is need to improve the passing defense as well considering the Steelers were able to score a touchdown on their opening drive despite not relying on the run during that drive and the fact that they were able to erase a 14 point deficit by throwing to wide open running backs and tight ends.

I'm glad the Broncos won the game and it doesn't matter how they did it. The team did a good job as a whole. As long as the offense can continue to score 30 points per game, it doesn't matter if the defense continues to give up 28 points per game. I would like to see the defense improve though. They certainly showed signs of improvement. Let's hope they keep improving.


I have not said that there isn't still a lot to work on, I agree they do there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I don't think really matters that they started off throwing the ball because Parker still had 21 carries.

And yes we did jump out to 14 point lead and certainly helped. Pull out in front of any team by two scores that not going hurt. We also won the turnover battle if I'm not mistaken those are all things that contribute to a win.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 04:57 PM
i have yet to look at how many times pits ran the ball but i would expect it to be lower than their average. Can anyone back me up on that?

If thats the case their 4.4 ypc isnt accurate. It becomes another tatum bell syndrome. where you have many short 1 yarders and then 1 big one, all when only rushing a few times it skewes everything.

if they did rush it their normal time of lets say 35-45 times then they did do a great job with the 4.4ypc, but i think they probably did it more like 25 times. Thus the lesser amount you rush for, the better your ypc looks, even though you werent running it all that well.


They rushed the ball 26. 21 for Parker, 3 for Ben, and 2 for Davenport. I would guess that is below their norm. And yes Parker had like three or four runs of 10 or more yards and Ben had two scrambles of 10 plus yards and qb sneak.

Lonestar
10-24-2007, 07:22 PM
And then the flip side are those that see the doomsday in every situation and in every season (see every gameday thread). Then, there are the majority of us that fall in between the orange colored glasses and the sky is falling crowd.

I have not yet issued that sky is falling alarm yet.

Nor do I get involved in game day threads

While I tend to be realistic in my views I can see light at the end of the tunnel..

So I guess I'm in between somewhere..

Lonestar
10-24-2007, 07:26 PM
I have not said that there isn't still a lot to work on, I agree they do there is still a lot of room for improvement.

I don't think really matters that they started off throwing the ball because Parker still had 21 carries.

And yes we did jump out to 14 point lead and certainly helped. Pull out in front of any team by two scores that not going hurt. We also won the turnover battle if I'm not mistaken those are all things that contribute to a win.


Yet they had enough confidence in their running game to go back to it when down by 14. Or perhaps they had more confidence in our run defense to do so.

I guess we will never know for sure..

omac
10-24-2007, 07:47 PM
Willie Parker had a 4.4 yard per rush average, only .2 under the team average. Last I checked, parker was the running back not Ben. He put up a 7 yard average on 3 rushing plays.

But the game of football is not played on averages; it's played per down, and most of the time, they were not successful at running the ball. Their success did not come from the run at all, but from the pass. And Ben's rushing came from broken pass plays, not designed run plays. That is not about stopping the run.


Say what you want, 4.4 yards per rush average for their running back against our "stout" running defense is not exactly what I want to see.

Ideally it would be floating around 3.0.

Okay, let's see. What other lousy rush defense gives up an average of 4.4 yards per rush? ... oh, the New England Patriots.

There are 13 teams that give up an average of less than 4 yards per rush.

There are only 2 teams that are currently allowing an average of 3 or less yards per rush; Baltimore and Minnesota.

Since when were the Broncos a defensive juggernaught? Someone mentioned the early 90's. They sure weren't when Elway won the Superbowl.


We got gashed for 27, 15 and 24 yard runs, one of which I know we had 8 men in the box. How is that stout?

A lot of teams get gashed for runs. What you fail to mention is that we've also held them to 1 yard gains or less on quite a few occasions.


They used the run to set up their play action pass in the 4th quarter and they came back

Actually, no. Watch the game again.

When teams use the run to set up the pass, what they're trying to do is make you respect their run game so that their pass game opens up when you overcommit your defense to the run.

The thing is, Denver at the onset of the game already committed their defense to the run, like you said putting 8 men on the box. So Denver gambled since the start of the game by leaving the pass defense much more vulnerable while gearing up to stop the run. The pass game was there for them from the very start; there was no need to establish the run to set up the pass.

And that's why almost all of their success in moving the ball and scoring came from passing; it's what our defense gave them.

Watch the game again and you'll see sequences where Pittsburgh tries to run against this 8 man front and gets stuffed, sometimes for 2 consecutive downs, leading to a few 3rd and longs.

Their success, even in the 4th quarter, came from the pass, and the pass was not set up by the run. It's what the defense gave them. If anything, it's the pass that helped them set up the run.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 08:36 PM
Yet they had enough confidence in their running game to go back to it when down by 14. Or perhaps they had more confidence in our run defense to do so.

I guess we will never know for sure..

Perhaps not or at least I would say that after having watched the game.

omac
10-24-2007, 09:12 PM
Okay, here are all the designed rush plays against Denver, so here is where Pittsburgh really tried to run the ball, not got runs through broken plays. These are the times they wanted to run the ball.


Q1

1st and 10: 1

1st and goal: 2

1st and 10: 7

Q2

1st and 10: 5
2nd and 5: 26

1st and 10: 3
2nd and 7: -1

1st and 10: -1
2nd and 11: -3

2nd and 10: 1

1st and 10: 7

3rd and 1: 2

Q3

1st and 10: 1
2nd and 9: 2

1st and 10: 15

1st and 10: 4
2nd and 6: -4

Q4

1st and 10: -3

1st and 10: 23

3rd and 2: 1+
4th and inches: 1

1st and 10: 1
2nd and 9: 1

1st and 10: 4

As you all can see, though there were a few instances where Pittsburgh was able to get a few long runs, most of the runs were short, and some were consecutively short or even consecutively negative on 1st and 2nd downs.

In the 4th quarter, they had 1 breakout run, and 1 average run. All others were quite below average. They made big plays and scored through their passing game, not their running game. All this talk about how we weren't able to stop their running game in the 4th quarter when they got it going is just not true.

So Denver did indeed play the run pretty well for themselves this game, but they made sacrifices on the pass defense for it.

Whether Pittsburgh would've been more successful if they dedicated themselves to running the ball more is purely speculation, as they did not have much success with it.

TXBRONC
10-24-2007, 09:27 PM
Okay, here are all the designed rush plays against Denver, so here is where Pittsburgh really tried to run the ball, not got runs through broken plays. These are the times they wanted to run the ball.



As you all can see, though there were a few instances where Pittsburgh was able to get a few long runs, most of the runs were short, and some were consecutively short or even consecutively negative on 1st and 2nd downs.

In the 4th quarter, they had 1 breakout run, and 1 average run. All others were quite below average. They made big plays and scored through their passing game, not their running game. All this talk about how we weren't able to stop their running game in the 4th quarter when they got it going is just not true.

So Denver did indeed play the run pretty well for themselves this game, but they made sacrifices on the pass defense for it.

Whether Pittsburgh would've been more successful if they dedicated themselves to running the ball more is purely speculation, as they did not have much success with it.

Nice work Omac. :beer:

Tned
10-24-2007, 09:48 PM
I have not yet issued that sky is falling alarm yet.

Nor do I get involved in game day threads

While I tend to be realistic in my views I can see light at the end of the tunnel..

So I guess I'm in between somewhere..

Yep, I was not singling you out alone in my thread on the doomsday side, but you certainly have tendencies in that direction, such as your belief that we are likely to finish 2-14 or 3-13.

I don't personally agree with the realistic aspect, since clearly I think I am being realistic and did not feel after the San Diego game that we would loose10 or 11 of our remaining games, as you did.

omac
10-24-2007, 09:58 PM
Nice work Omac. :beer:

Thanks man. :cheers:

eessydo
10-25-2007, 08:29 AM
A lot of teams get gashed for runs. What you fail to mention is that we've also held them to 1 yard gains or less on quite a few occasions.

Have to disagree with this one. Other than the Bengals we have given up more 20+ yard rushes per game than any other team, 9 and counting.

75% of the teams in the league fall below the 1 - 20+ yard rush allowed per game average and while you say that games are not won on averages, they are a good indicator of consistent play from week to week.

Let me list all of the ones that don't fall below the 1 20+ yrd rush allowed per game:

Bengals 10
Broncos 9
Browns 8
Raiders 8
Falcons 7
Bears 7
Texans 7
Rams 7

Not one winning record up there on that list. We are also only one of eight teams that have allowed more that 1 40+ yard run.

We got gashed for 2 - 20+ yard runs in that game and almost a 3rd, a lot of teams DON'T get gashed for more than 1 of those a game. Not sure how there is any bright side to stopping a couple of 1rst and 2nd down running plays with 8 men in the box then allowing them to convert 66% of their third down plays. The fact that we even need to stick 8 men in the box on 1rst and 2nd down is disconcerting enough. It just shows we are soft and lack confidence in our ability to stop the run. Most defenses go to that scheme only as a means of stopping a run first ball club, it looks like we are going to it because we don't have a choice. It won't be long until someone does exploit our commitment to stopping the run, and trust me when I say it is going to be ugly.

While I am glad you are an optimist, I don't believe anything until it is repeated time and time again. And I personally did not see anything that was worth repeating. I am hopeful this will change, but while you see platinum improvement in stopping the run, I still just see lead.

I guess we must agree to disagree here.

Lonestar
10-25-2007, 10:04 AM
Yep, I was not singling you out alone in my thread on the doomsday side, but you certainly have tendencies in that direction, such as your belief that we are likely to finish 2-14 or 3-13.

I don't personally agree with the realistic aspect, since clearly I think I am being realistic and did not feel after the San Diego game that we would loose10 or 11 of our remaining games, as you did.

I just brought up the scenario that it could happen to be prepared for it.

Most of my pre-season guesses were 7-9 and 8-8 After the performances so far to date even those seem to be optimistic considering the number of IR visits this year.

They took a step to respectability last week beating PIT is a sign of things to come or merely having two weeks to plan for a great team and having the ball bounce our direction for a change.


Time will tell

omac
10-25-2007, 10:57 AM
Have to disagree with this one. Other than the Bengals we have given up more 20+ yard rushes per game than any other team, 9 and counting.

Well, I can't find those stats, but I don't doubt your facts. We may well have given up a lot of 20+ yard rushes in the 6 games we've played.

This last game against Pittsburgh, however, has shown that we can be good against the run. There were a few big yardage gains, but there were much more instances of stops and containment. Considering the Steelers are ranked #2 in rushing, I'd say that was a pretty good job.

Even elite teams let some big runs get away from them; NE allowed at least a run of 25 yards against the Cowboys, who are a 10th ranked rushing team. NE has also at least given up a run of 30 yards to Miami.

So even the good defensive teams give up a few big runs.


75% of the teams in the league fall below the 1 - 20+ yard rush allowed per game average and while you say that games are not won on averages, they are a good indicator of consistent play from week to week.

Let me list all of the ones that don't fall below the 1 20+ yrd rush allowed per game:

Bengals 10
Broncos 9
Browns 8
Raiders 8
Falcons 7
Bears 7
Texans 7
Rams 7

Not one winning record up there on that list. We are also only one of eight teams that have allowed more that 1 40+ yard run.

We got gashed for 2 - 20+ yard runs in that game and almost a 3rd, a lot of teams DON'T get gashed for more than 1 of those a game. Not sure how there is any bright side to stopping a couple of 1rst and 2nd down running plays with 8 men in the box then allowing them to convert 66% of their third down plays. The fact that we even need to stick 8 men in the box on 1rst and 2nd down is disconcerting enough. It just shows we are soft and lack confidence in our ability to stop the run. Most defenses go to that scheme only as a means of stopping a run first ball club, it looks like we are going to it because we don't have a choice. It won't be long until someone does exploit our commitment to stopping the run, and trust me when I say it is going to be ugly.

See here's the difference in our thinking; I'm not looking for Denver to suddenly have an elite rush defense, nor an elite defense either; I wanted Denver to have at least an average to even slightly below average rush defense; just enough to make teams have a little respect for our rush defense.

You add the stats of the previous games to show your point on how other teams have gashed us; clearly, the defensive effort put by the Broncos in their Steelers game was much improved. Again, and this is the point you haven't addressed ... their success came from passing the ball, not from rushing. They were stuffed on multiple occasions when they ran, so they adjusted and passed. Their little rushing successes were change-ups; their passing success came from them taking what the defense gave them, instead of forcing the run. When they did force the run, they were often stuffed.


While I am glad you are an optimist, I don't believe anything until it is repeated time and time again. And I personally did not see anything that was worth repeating. I am hopeful this will change, but while you see platinum improvement in stopping the run, I still just see lead.

I guess we must agree to disagree here.

I didn't say we've suddenly become a great run defense. I did list the instances when the Steelers tried to run, and the success or failure they had when they did. And as I said, they had some big runs, they had few average runs, and they had quite a few poor runs too.

When Denver was trying to stop the run against SD, they couldn't, even when they knew it was coming and they were overplaying it. Against Pittsburgh, they stuffed the run on quite a few occasions, sacked the quarterback, and got some picks and turnovers, and helped keep the game close enough to give the offense a chance to win, yet you don't see anything worth repeating? :confused:

The Broncos obviously have some weaknesses on defense, and they've been getting burned bad because of these. Now, they've made adjustments to strengthen their rush defense at some cost to their pass defense. For this game against the Steelers, the adjustment worked. The defense was able to contain the opponent just enough for the offense to have a chance to win the game. That same statement could not be said about the SD, Colts, or maybe even the Jaguars game.

Will other teams take advantage of our overplaying the run? They surely will try, but at least we'll be getting them to adjust, instead of them just running the ball at will.

If you really didn't see much improvement on how our defense attacked the run compared to our previous games, then we really have to agree to disagree. :cheers:

Lonestar
10-25-2007, 11:05 AM
There was a dramatic difference with PIT but it was a change of pace that caught PIT off guard DO you think that anyone from this point on will take a half of the game to adjust to it?


We do not have the bodies at DT to do the job as we speak. and have to adjust to that like we have since forever..Having your safeties being the leading tackler is not necessarily a great thing.

TXBRONC
10-25-2007, 11:12 AM
I just brought up the scenario that it could happen to be prepared for it.

Most of my pre-season guesses were 7-9 and 8-8 After the performances so far to date even those seem to be optimistic considering the number of IR visits this year.

They took a step to respectability last week beating PIT is a sign of things to come or merely having two weeks to plan for a great team and having the ball bounce our direction for a change.


Time will tell

I didn't think you presenting a possible scenario, in fact I thought I remembered you saying you had changed your guesses from 7-9 and 8-8 to
2-14 or 3-13. I'm fair sure you said count the game as a loss before the game was played.

I do agree only time will tell how this team will do.

omac
10-25-2007, 11:17 AM
There was a dramatic difference with PIT but it was a change of pace that caught PIT off guard DO you think that anyone from this point on will take a half of the game to adjust to it?


We do not have the bodies at DT to do the job as we speak. and have to adjust to that like we have since forever..Having your safeties being the leading tackler is not necessarily a great thing.

That's a serious cause for concern, but let's see first how we do in the coming games.

Some teams, like the Vikings, are so poor at passing that they can't have a good passing game even when their opponent is seriously overplaying the run, as was the case their last game. Their are also other teams that don't have confidence in their rushing game.

No matter, come game day, we'll see how well this team plays against "prepared" opponents.

TXBRONC
10-25-2007, 12:39 PM
There was a dramatic difference with PIT but it was a change of pace that caught PIT off guard DO you think that anyone from this point on will take a half of the game to adjust to it?


We do not have the bodies at DT to do the job as we speak. and have to adjust to that like we have since forever..Having your safeties being the leading tackler is not necessarily a great thing.


Are you saying Denver won because they caught Pitt off guard? Jr it more than just catching them off guard, that defense pressured Roethelisberg all night long.

Lonestar
10-25-2007, 02:48 PM
I didn't think you presenting a possible scenario, in fact I thought I remembered you saying you had changed your guesses from 7-9 and 8-8 to
2-14 or 3-13. I'm fair sure you said count the game as a loss before the game was played.

I do agree only time will tell how this team will do.

I said it could happen unless they figured out a way to stop the run.. and get something done in the red zone.

Yes I said that PIT was a loss I had zero faith in Mikey's ability to stop the bleeding, considering the OLINE was gone for all intents and purposes..

I made some changes that caught PITs new coach off guard, the new question is will the next few coaches get wise and learn from the tapes. And further more can DEN adapt to continue the winning.

While this team has won 3 games all were because of last second FG and while it is a win it is unlikely that we can get 7 more like them this year.

This team is going to have to get much better in read zone zone running the ball, they will have to stop LJ, LT and the group in OAK consistently before anyone can claim this to be a good team. And that IMHO is not going to happen this year.

Lonestar
10-25-2007, 02:52 PM
Are you saying Denver won because they caught Pitt off guard? Jr it more than just catching them off guard, that defense pressured Roethelisberg all night long..

I think that was a big part of it they changed there defense competely as far as the league was concerned. The game tapes they studied were invalid.

I think that PIT was overconfident coming in here and were mostly outplayed.

Den will not be able to commit 8 in the box and not get burnt. So until the safety stops playing LB or DL we are skating on thin ice..

TXBRONC
10-25-2007, 08:55 PM
I said it could happen unless they figured out a way to stop the run.. and get something done in the red zone.

Yes I said that PIT was a loss I had zero faith in Mikey's ability to stop the bleeding, considering the OLINE was gone for all intents and purposes..

I made some changes that caught PITs new coach off guard, the new question is will the next few coaches get wise and learn from the tapes. And further more can DEN adapt to continue the winning.

While this team has won 3 games all were because of last second FG and while it is a win it is unlikely that we can get 7 more like them this year.

This team is going to have to get much better in read zone zone running the ball, they will have to stop LJ, LT and the group in OAK consistently before anyone can claim this to be a good team. And that IMHO is not going to happen this year.


Hello who the heck would expect to win 10 games on last minute field goals? What is the point in saying that? Should Dener do the miraculous and defy what you have spoken and win more games they're not all going to be by last minute field goals.

And I don't recall you saying anything about it could happen that we go 2-14 or 3-13. You came across as though it was far gone conclusion that we would end up with two or three wins.

Jr you have no business telling people the can and can not claim. Most especially when you're saying we are a 2-14/3-13 team it just a matter of going through the formalities. As Med pointed games are played on the field not on paper.

Lonestar
10-25-2007, 10:46 PM
Hello who the heck would expect to win 10 games on last minute field goals? What is the point in saying that? Should Dener do the miraculous and defy what you have spoken and win more games they're not all going to be by last minute field goals.

And I don't recall you saying anything about it could happen that we go 2-14 or 3-13. You came across as though it was far gone conclusion that we would end up with two or three wins.

Jr you have no business telling people the can and can not claim. Most especially when you're saying we are a 2-14/3-13 team it just a matter of going through the formalities. As Med pointed games are played on the field not on paper.

Wow I did not realize that I thought the bookies just posted the point spread in Vegas and the actual games were simulations on Madden that were simulcasted on CBS. Thanks for the insight.

As for my foregone conclusion I said they were done for th year I have not totally altered that conclusion. They are not going the super bowl this year other than as spectators.

Can they finish 8-8 at this point I do not think so unless divine intervention occurs.

TXBRONC
10-26-2007, 01:16 PM
Wow I did not realize that I thought the bookies just posted the point spread in Vegas and the actual games were simulations on Madden that were simulcasted on CBS. Thanks for the insight.

As for my foregone conclusion I said they were done for th year I have not totally altered that conclusion. They are not going the super bowl this year other than as spectators.

Can they finish 8-8 at this point I do not think so unless divine intervention occurs.

The first paragraph is a wee bit assine Jr.

Secondly there are two things we can agree on in your post. First, no duh we all know you're not going altered your conclusions. You never have even when you are wrong. Second, I don't think to the Super Bowl either, however unlike you and your consistantly dark posts I'm not about to judge a season over until it actually happens.

rcsodak
10-27-2007, 10:48 AM
Nah, the point was they weren't having success at rushing the ball, so they had to make a decision. Also, different factors affect the way a defense responds; sometimes, a defense plays differently when they have a lead as opposed to when they don't. Sometimes, they start to be less agressive and try to manage the clock. The offense did the same thing.

The reason for a lot of their success is the great improvisational play by Roethlisburger, not their designed rushing game. He's made crazy passes and crazy rushes where most other QBs in the league would've gotten sacked, or would've had to throw away the ball.

It's Denver who made Pittsburgh think twice about running the ball; they did not successfully set up the pass through the run. In order to do that, they'd have to have consistent success with the run, and that's something they didn't have during the game.

(added) Denver's defense was set up to stop the run, and dare Pittsburgh to pass. They were willing to get burned by the pass, by overplaying the run. So Pittsburgh's rush didn't set up the pass; the pass was there the whole game, as Denver was willing to gamble their pass defense to augment their run defense.

A team doesn't have to have a high ypc average, in the initial throws of the game, for their running game to be considered a success. Far from it.

A team can have an average of 2ypc, and throw for short 1st downs, and eat up MORE than enough clock.

Look at what Jax did. They weren't eating up 5yds every time they ran the ball, but that didn't stop them. Didn't they have an 11minute drive? That's from short runs, keeping the clock running, and then making key 3rd down completions.

Just by sticking to the run, a team can be considered 'successful' in that aspect, yards or not.

rcsodak
10-27-2007, 10:52 AM
Ah but they did hold Parker to under 100 yards rushing. One the reason they were able to do that is that we got up on them by two scores. So while it wasn't a perfect effort they were by and larger better than they had been in the previous five games.

Yes, and if you listen to the 'pros', or pitt fans, THAT is the reason they lost!!!!

Tomlin outsmarted himself.

He tried to score quick, hoping to get a 2score lead, and THEN run out the clock. He evidently didn't think denver could move the ball on his defense.

What got his team to 4-1, was running the ball. If he had started the game off by running, by the 3rd quarter, denver's D would have been beat to a pulp, and the lights would been "turned out".

Maybe Tomlin should have won the 'stupid coach' of the week award.

Lonestar
10-27-2007, 11:36 AM
Yes, and if you listen to the 'pros', or pitt fans, THAT is the reason they lost!!!!

Tomlin outsmarted himself.

He tried to score quick, hoping to get a 2score lead, and THEN run out the clock. He evidently didn't think denver could move the ball on his defense.

What got his team to 4-1, was running the ball. If he had started the game off by running, by the 3rd quarter, denver's D would have been beat to a pulp, and the lights would been "turned out".

Maybe Tomlin should have won the 'stupid coach' of the week award.


I think your correct here he got out coached, more than we were that good..
Thye moved the ball and then the turn over caught them off guard. When they started playing PIT ball again they scored almost at will..

Time will tell which it was. Now DEN has a bit more confidence it might make the difference then again it may not..

omac
10-27-2007, 12:38 PM
A team doesn't have to have a high ypc average, in the initial throws of the game, for their running game to be considered a success. Far from it.

A team can have an average of 2ypc, and throw for short 1st downs, and eat up MORE than enough clock.

It wasn't just in the initial throws of the game where Pittsburgh's lack of success running the ball was costing them; these are the 3rd and longs, not 3rd and shorts, that they had to face because of poor production on the previous rush attempts:

Q2: 3rd and 8, 3rd and 14, 3rd and 7
Q3: 3rd and 7, 3rd and 10
Q4: 3rd and 7

Unless they try to surprise Denver by running for long yardage, these are obvious passing downs, and it's here where they can try to get pressure on the quarterback.

When Denver forces Pittsburgh into a 3rd and 7 or more, it's to Denver's advantage. If Pittsburgh is able to get a 3rd and 3 or less, it's to Pittsburgh's advantage. 4 is about even.

So when Pittsburgh tries to run and are consequently left with 3rd and long, Denver's done a pretty good job on run defense. This is where the offense is under pressure to complete a pass, and the best opportunity to get sacks and INTs.

Whether or not they were using Bates' scheme, it's Bates' philosophy to stop the run in order to force 3rd and longs, because this is where the defense attacks the QB.


Look at what Jax did. They weren't eating up 5yds every time they ran the ball, but that didn't stop them. Didn't they have an 11minute drive? That's from short runs, keeping the clock running, and then making key 3rd down completions.

Just by sticking to the run, a team can be considered 'successful' in that aspect, yards or not.

Actually, not just from short runs. Watch the game again and you'll see that they were mixing it up pretty well, not just running but passing, doing a lot bootlegs and misdirections that kept Denver's defense guessing all day. They did a Denver on Denver.

That's very different from how Denver approached the game against Pittsburgh, and how Pittsburgh reacted in the game.

Denver set out to prevent Pittsburgh from running wild, as SD and Indy had against them the previous weeks. Because Denver could not stop the run even when they saw it coming, there was very little pressure on the opposing offenses; they could run whenever they wanted, and their success from that would also allow them to pass anytime they wanted.

What Denver did against Pittsburgh was gamble, overplaying the run, but doing it well this time. If Pittsburgh still forced the run, they could get some good yardage, but most of the time, they didn't. So Pittsburgh would have to decide whether to force the run all game, or take what the defense gave them, which was the pass. They opted for the latter and were pretty successful, but at the same time, it gave Denver's defense an opportunity to make plays, like interceptions and sacks. It also allowed Denver to stay close in the game.

Denver forced Pittsburgh to beat them through the air, and Pittsburgh fell short.

omac
10-27-2007, 12:49 PM
Just to add, it's easy to say that Pittsburgh should've still forced the run, and that they would've eventually succeeded in beating Denver's overplaying run defense, but that's pure speculation.

Dallas forced Minnesota to pass, but the Vikings still forced the run, mainly because their passing game was pretty inept. Despite an overplaying run defense, the Vikings who are the top rushing team in the league, put up respectable rushing numbers, but they lost. They wouldn't (or couldn't?) take what the defense gave them; when teams overplay the run, it's supposed to be difficult to run.

The same thing could've also happened to the Steelers had they not taken what the defense gave them.

TXBRONC
10-27-2007, 02:37 PM
Yes, and if you listen to the 'pros', or pitt fans, THAT is the reason they lost!!!!

Tomlin outsmarted himself.

He tried to score quick, hoping to get a 2score lead, and THEN run out the clock. He evidently didn't think denver could move the ball on his defense.

What got his team to 4-1, was running the ball. If he had started the game off by running, by the 3rd quarter, denver's D would have been beat to a pulp, and the lights would been "turned out".

Maybe Tomlin should have won the 'stupid coach' of the week award.

They lost because they got out played, I don't give crap what the 'pros' or Pitt fans say.

They did try to run the ball and they were having problems that's a fact.

omac
10-27-2007, 11:25 PM
They lost because they got out played, I don't give crap what the 'pros' or Pitt fans say.

They did try to run the ball and they were having problems that's a fact.

Yes, that is a fact; saying Pittsburgh would've won if they continued to run the ball, despite their lack of success at it, and that Denver's run D would eventually yield is pure speculation.

TXBRONC
10-28-2007, 08:23 PM
Yes, that is a fact; saying Pittsburgh would've won if they continued to run the ball, despite their lack of success at it, and that Denver's run D would eventually yield is pure speculation.


It's like that old saying "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have merry Christmas."