PDA

View Full Version : Let us count the misdeeds



omac
11-26-2007, 10:01 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_7557813


Let us count the misdeeds
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/26/2007 01:18:50 AM MST

CHICAGO — The Broncos committed the seven deadly sins of football:

1. Carelessness — 88-yard kickoff return for a touchdown.

2. Stupidity — 75-yard punt return for touchdown.

3. Sloth — blocked punt recovered at their 18.

4. Ineptitude — failure to score touchdowns on two possessions inside the 5-yard line.

5. Folly — interception at their own 18.

6. Clumsiness — a fumble that ended up at their 14.

7. Horrendous judgment — prevent defense at the end of regulation and in overtime.

Greed, gluttony and five peccadilloes would have been preferable to Sunday's amazing disgrace.

The Broncos' overtime loss to the Gummi Bears was a sin. They may go to heaven, but they aren't going to the playoffs as a wild-card team, and probably not as the AFC West winners unless they win five out of five.

The Broncos should have owned this bitter afternoon in Chicago. But they gave the game and the victory to the Don't-Care Bears, and they gave the division back to the San Diego Chargers after toiling so hard to get into it.

A total of 430 net yards and 34 points are not enough when the Broncos make mistake after error after blunder.

When the Bears tied the game at 34 with 28 seconds left in the fourth quarter, everybody knew what the ultimate outcome would be. The Broncos collapsed like a wet cardboard box in overtime. It was over in less than four minutes.

The Broncos also broke about six commandments.

Let's start with: DO NOT KICK TO DEVIN HESTER.

Hester could be the greatest returner since Gale Sayers and a bunch of Target shoppers on Dec. 26. But the Broncos punted to Hester and kicked off to Hester, as if he were some alley mouse.

He burned the Broncos with a punt return to tie the game at 13 in the third quarter, then tied it again at 20 when he scorched them on a kickoff return later in the quarter.

Finally, the Broncos stopped punting and kicking to Hester.

Slow learners.

KEEP THE BALL AWAY FROM CHARLES TILLMAN. He intercepted a Jay Cutler pass and blocked a Todd Sauerbrun punt.

Hester and Tillman almost beat the Broncos by themselves.

Except the Broncos beat themselves.

YOU CAN'T LET REX GROSSMAN WHIP YOU.

Grossman guided Chicago to a pair of fourth-quarter touchdowns and set up the winning field goal in OT with a 37-yard pass. It could have been worse only if Brian Griese had been responsible for the comeback.

YOU MUST SCORE FROM THE 3-, 4- AND 5-YARD LINES.

Loss of 2 yards on run, incomplete, incomplete, field goal; no gain on run, incomplete, incomplete, field goal.

The Broncos should have been up 21-6 at the finish of the second quarter.

The Broncos should have been up 51-13 at the finish of the fourth quarter.

YOU CAN'T TURN THE BALL OVER. When the Broncos have fewer turnovers than the opposition, they usually win. But in this game, the Broncos had three (fumble, interception and blocked punt) to the Bears' four (three fumbles and an interception), and still managed to fall.

YOU CAN'T GO 0-3 VS. THE NFC CENTRAL.

Maybe they can salvage the Minnesota game.

"We had opportunities in the football game to put it away," said coach Mike Shanahan in agreement. "Any time a guy returns two kicks, obviously, you look back and say that wasn't a very good decision."

Champ Bailey said the Broncos "just sort of broke down at the end."

There were good things — a strong effort by third-string running back Andre Hall, a sensational juggling catch by backup tight end Tony Scheffler for a touchdown, a 68-yard connection between Cutler and Brandon Marshall and three sacks and constant pressure applied by the Broncos' defense (until the conclusion).

And Shanahan's challenge on a Grossman non-fumble call that kept the Bears from scoring.

But there were too many bad things — Mike Bell's one carry for one fumble, a defensive holding call in overtime, the botched effort (false start) at the end of regulation and a bad loss to a bad team.

And there were those seven — more like 37 — sins of the Broncos.

Woody Paige: 303-954-1095 or wpaige@denverpost.com

omac
11-26-2007, 10:06 AM
This article has some good points, and some humour, but some points are a bit stretched;

The INT from Cutler was from Marshall slipping to the ground because of the wet field; everyone was slipping, specially early in the game. It was a timing route where Cutler throws the ball to the spot Marshall was supposed to end up. What are they gonna do, stop their passing plays for fear of falling?

Red zone woes; sounds like the hip thing to say, but not for this game. We scored 3 TDs and 2 FGs in the times we got to the red zone; for those who say we can't score rushing TDs, we did twice on those red zone plays, as well as a passing one. So, NO, there was no red zone problem in this game.

Mike
11-26-2007, 10:14 AM
Red zone woes; sounds like the hip thing to say, but not for this game. We scored 3 TDs and 2 FGs in the times we got to the red zone; for those who say we can't score rushing TDs, we did twice on those red zone plays, as well as a passing one. So, NO, there was no red zone problem in this game.

What bothers me about the red-zone is that the Broncos never learn. They suck at running the ball inside the 10. So why keep trying? All they do is waste a down. Do play-action on first down. Put the kid in shotgun and let him survey the field. Stop trying to pound the ball. How many downs have to be wasted and red-zone opportunities lost because our dumb coaches refuse to play to our strengths and insist on playing to our weakness?

I also just want to say that it is more than a little frustrating watching the Chicago Bears put trust in Wrecks Grossman and giving him the ball at the end of the game and in OT...while our coaching staff continues to shy away from putting the ball in Cutler's hands to put games away.

Never in my life have I seen coaches put their team in less position to win than this year's Broncos.

omac
11-26-2007, 10:18 AM
What bothers me about the red-zone is that the Broncos never learn. They suck at running the ball inside the 10. So why keep trying? All they do is waste a down. Do play-action on first down. Put the kid in shotgun and let him survey the field. Stop trying to pound the ball. How many downs have to be wasted and red-zone opportunities lost because our dumb coaches refuse to play to our strengths and insist on playing to our weakness?

I also just want to say that it is more than a little frustrating watching the Chicago Bears put trust in Wrecks Grossman and giving him the ball at the end of the game and in OT...while our coaching staff continues to shy away from putting the ball in Cutler's hands to put games away.

Never in my life have I seen coaches put their team in less position to win than this year's Broncos.

Yep, going all conservative in the playcalling, specially when they had the lead really hurt the Broncos. In hindsight, knowing that Andre Hall's ankle was getting worse and worse as the game progressed, we probably should've taken more chances with Cutler.

The Bears aren't afraid of putting the game on Grossman's hands; they like to roll the dice, hehehe. :D

Lonestar
11-26-2007, 03:41 PM
This article has some good points, and some humour, but some points are a bit stretched;

The INT from Cutler was from Marshall slipping to the ground because of the wet field; everyone was slipping, specially early in the game. It was a timing route where Cutler throws the ball to the spot Marshall was supposed to end up. What are they gonna do, stop their passing plays for fear of falling?

Red zone woes; sounds like the hip thing to say, but not for this game. We scored 3 TDs and 2 FGs in the times we got to the red zone; for those who say we can't score rushing TDs, we did twice on those red zone plays, as well as a passing one. So, NO, there was no red zone problem in this game.

If you are willing to accept that getting FGs instead of TD's that is OK by me but I'll take the TD any time..

In-com-plete
11-26-2007, 04:35 PM
This article has some good points, and some humour, but some points are a bit stretched;

The INT from Cutler was from Marshall slipping to the ground because of the wet field; everyone was slipping, specially early in the game. It was a timing route where Cutler throws the ball to the spot Marshall was supposed to end up. What are they gonna do, stop their passing plays for fear of falling?

Red zone woes; sounds like the hip thing to say, but not for this game. We scored 3 TDs and 2 FGs in the times we got to the red zone; for those who say we can't score rushing TDs, we did twice on those red zone plays, as well as a passing one. So, NO, there was no red zone problem in this game.

Those 2 FGs came from a 1st and goal at the 3 and a 1st and goal at the 4. And it's not like we had a holding penalty or something stupid that backed us up. That's unacceptable man.

I've been saying it for a few years now I think our "red zone woes" are because of our o-line. They're lighter and faster, but they can't get that push. I mean, on those 1st and goals from in side the 5, both times on first down we ran it. For a combined -2 yards. LDB said it best. We never learn. We should put Cutler in the shotgun and throw 75% of the time on our goal to go situations.

Medford Bronco
11-26-2007, 04:42 PM
Those 2 FGs came from a 1st and goal at the 3 and a 1st and goal at the 4. And it's not like we had a holding penalty or something stupid that backed us up. That's unacceptable man.

I've been saying it for a few years now I think our "red zone woes" are because of our o-line. They're lighter and faster, but they can't get that push. I mean, on those 1st and goals from in side the 5, both times on first down we ran it. For a combined -2 yards. LDB said it best. We never learn. We should put Cutler in the shotgun and throw 75% of the time on our goal to go situations.

Amen to that, I agree with you and LDB :beer:

SBboundBRONCOS
11-26-2007, 05:38 PM
If you are willing to accept that getting FGs instead of TD's that is OK by me but I'll take the TD any time..

dude get off of the red zone crap already, yes TD are lovely but the broncos play in the NFL and getting a TD every single time is impossible. we played well enough to kill them on offense only ST failed and the D had a hard time in the end

momentum killed us and thats why we lost, not because of red zone production

Lonestar
11-26-2007, 06:58 PM
dude get off of the red zone crap already, yes TD are lovely but the broncos play in the NFL and getting a TD every single time is impossible. we played well enough to kill them on offense only ST failed and the D had a hard time in the end

momentum killed us and thats why we lost, not because of red zone production
Lets look at the red zone plays.

CHI
1-10-CHI 25 (5:50) 23-A.Hall left end to CHI 14 for 11 yards (95-A.Adams).
1-10-CHI 14 (5:13) 23-A.Hall left end to CHI 11 for 3 yards (33-C.Tillman).
2-7-CHI 11 (4:42) 23-A.Hall left tackle to CHI 3 for 8 yards (20-A.Archuleta, 38-D.Manning).
1-3-CHI 3 (4:09) 23-A.Hall left tackle to CHI 5 for -2 yards (20-A.Archuleta).
2-5-CHI 5 (3:29) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short middle to 89-D.Graham (54-B.Urlacher).
3-5-CHI 5 (3:25) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short middle to 89-D.Graham (55-L.Briggs). 4-5-CHI 5 (3:20) 1-J.Elam 23 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun. DEN 3 CHI 3 Plays: 7 Possession: 2:34

1-10-CHI 16 (14:18) 23-A.Hall right end for 16 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
0-0-CHI 2 1-J.Elam extra point is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun.
DEN 10 CHI 3 Plays: 9 Possession: 3:51


1-4-CHI 4 (:32) 23-A.Hall left guard to CHI 4 for no gain (99-D.Walker, 93-A.Ogunleye). Timeout #1 by DEN at 00:25.
2-4-CHI 4 (:25) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short left to 15-B.Marshall (33-C.Tillman).
3-4-CHI 4 (:22) 6-J.Cutler pass incomplete short right to 89-D.Graham (33-C.Tillman).
4-4-CHI 4 (:17) 1-J.Elam 22 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun. DEN 13 CHI 6 Plays: 5 Possession: 0:35

1-10-CHI 25 (4:08) 23-A.Hall left end to CHI 2 for 23 yards (54-B.Urlacher).
1-2-CHI 2 (3:26) 23-A.Hall right tackle to CHI 5 for -3 yards (55-L.Briggs).
2-5-CHI 5 (2:43) 37-C.Sapp right end for 5 yards, TOUCHDOWN.
1-J.Elam extra point is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun.
DEN 20 CHI 13 Plays: 10 Possession: 6:01

2-5-CHI 20 (12:08) 6-J.Cutler pass short left to 15-B.Marshall to CHI 14 for 6 yards (24-R.Manning).
1-10-CHI 14 (11:27) 23-A.Hall right guard to CHI 14 for no gain (95-A.Adams).

2-10-CHI 14 (10:46) 6-J.Cutler pass short right to 88-T.Scheffler for 14 yards, TOUCHDOWN. PENALTY on CHI-54-B.Urlacher, Un-sportsmanlike Conduct, 15 yards, enforced between downs.
0-0-CHI 2 1-J.Elam extra point is GOOD, Center-83-M.Leach, Holder-10-T.Sauerbrun.


DEN 34 CHI 20 Plays: 10 Possession: 4:22

Total TOP DEN 33:54 CHI 29:47


14 attempts from the red zone 3 TD‘s, 2 FG’s . 21.4% TD 14.3% FG left 8 points on the field..
[COLOR="Red"][SIZE="2"]
We had 9 run attempts and 4 pass attempts 2 FG’s and 4 other plays in the red zone.
1 Passing TD, 2 running.
One by Sapp one on 5 yarder Hall for 14 yards out on the Running TD’s one inside the 5 by a Rb.


We left at at least 8 points on the field on those two red zone FG's..

We dominated that team until 7:14 left in REGULATION then we folded, even Champ made a comment to that effect.

omac
11-26-2007, 10:04 PM
We dominated that team until 7:14 left in REGULATION then we folded, even Champ made a comment to that effect.

You keep mentioning this, but at that point, the Bears started their possesion at our 18 yard line because of the blocked punt ... because of ST. Because of a breakdown in ST, the Bears started in instant scoring possition. Tough to blame the defense on that play, when special teams made it much easier for the Bears offense to score. Instead of an offense having difficulty executing all day trying to sustain an 80 yard drive, they just needed to execute on a few plays from 18 yards out. The defense didn't have the chance to force them to execute properly for several consecutive plays. The defense didn't have as many chances to try and stop them, as they could've if the Bears had to go at least 80 yards. So no, it's very different.

If they started their drive at their own 20 at the 7:14 mark, then it's indicative to say we were up by 14 at the 7:14 mark. But because of the blocked punt, and the resulting lack of field possition and time the Bears needed to score the next TD, it's more indicative of the situation to say we were up by 7 at the 5:00 mark. Now that's what the defense was trying to protect; 1 TD, and they did for almost all of those 5 minutes.

OB
11-26-2007, 10:12 PM
What bothers me about the red-zone is that the Broncos never learn. They suck at running the ball inside the 10. So why keep trying? All they do is waste a down. Do play-action on first down. Put the kid in shotgun and let him survey the field. Stop trying to pound the ball. How many downs have to be wasted and red-zone opportunities lost because our dumb coaches refuse to play to our strengths and insist on playing to our weakness?

I also just want to say that it is more than a little frustrating watching the Chicago Bears put trust in Wrecks Grossman and giving him the ball at the end of the game and in OT...while our coaching staff continues to shy away from putting the ball in Cutler's hands to put games away.

Never in my life have I seen coaches put their team in less position to win than this year's Broncos.

I feel the same - so you are prolly wrong - LOL - but seriously I said people (bears fans) shouldnt boo grossman - but we let him kick our ass up n down the field in the period of 8 minutes out of 68

I seriously want to know who to blame for this - u cant tell me there wasnt major fup'dness during the last minutes of this game - i will never understand ANY team that lets this happen - I dont care if Miami had a 14 pt lead over the pats with the same time - you DONT lose :mad:

Lonestar
11-26-2007, 11:33 PM
You keep mentioning this, but at that point, the Bears started their possesion at our 18 yard line because of the blocked punt ... because of ST. Because of a breakdown in ST, the Bears started in instant scoring possition. Tough to blame the defense on that play, when special teams made it much easier for the Bears offense to score. Instead of an offense having difficulty executing all day trying to sustain an 80 yard drive, they just needed to execute on a few plays from 18 yards out. The defense didn't have the chance to force them to execute properly for several consecutive plays. The defense didn't have as many chances to try and stop them, as they could've if the Bears had to go at least 80 yards. So no, it's very different.

If they started their drive at their own 20 at the 7:14 mark, then it's indicative to say we were up by 14 at the 7:14 mark. But because of the blocked punt, and the resulting lack of field possition and time the Bears needed to score the next TD, it's more indicative of the situation to say we were up by 7 at the 5:00 mark. Now that's what the defense was trying to protect; 1 TD, and they did for almost all of those 5 minutes.

What you fail to understand is. they scored 17 consecutive points on this supposedly good defense..

A offense that had up to that point amassed a whooping 155 total yards on offense in 21:39 minutes.

However in the next possessions they got 138 in 8:08 minutes.

DEN 34 CHI 27 Plays: 4 Yards 18 Possession: 1:57

DEN 34 CHI 34 Plays: 12 Yards 65 Possession: 2:30

DEN 34 CHI 37 Plays: 7 Yards 55 Possession: 3:41

While the ST fubar set up the one cheap score they took the next 120 yards from us..

OUR Defense gave this one up..

We got a score when they fumbled inside their redzone, that just about evens up cheap points..

Although the offense struggled in the first part of the game. They came back strong in the later part of the game until we went into game protect mode when we were up 14 points..

Watchthemiddle
11-26-2007, 11:41 PM
Is there a reason of why we run more inside the 20 then pass? Does Shanny not trust the pass down deep?? :confused:

Lonestar
11-26-2007, 11:46 PM
Is there a reason of why we run more inside the 20 then pass? Does Shanny not trust the pass down deep?? :confused:


Prior to this past week here ins the break down in the redzone for the year..

7 attempts from the red zone ZERO TD‘s, Two FG’s . 0% TD 28.6% FG left 8 points on the field..

We had 42 run attempts and 33 pass attempts 13 FG’s and 4 other plays in the red zone.
9 Passing TD’s, 3 running. One by Sapp one on a QB keeper, on by Young from 20 yards out.
Of the Running TD’s one inside the 5 by a Rb. Pathetic if you ask me..

Medford Bronco
11-27-2007, 12:30 AM
I feel the same - so you are prolly wrong - LOL - but seriously I said people (bears fans) shouldnt boo grossman - but we let him kick our ass up n down the field in the period of 8 minutes out of 68

I seriously want to know who to blame for this - u cant tell me there wasnt major fup'dness during the last minutes of this game - i will never understand ANY team that lets this happen - I dont care if Miami had a 14 pt lead over the pats with the same time - you DONT lose :mad:

I am a huge Rex Grossman critic but even he can make plays when getting all the time in the world on that last tying drive.

Also in OT any Qb with half an arm could hit a wide open by 15 yards Desmonk Clark with that play.

Denver gave this game away IMO and hopefully over time we realize that you can never be up by enough pts. I credit BB for burying opponets when necessary, why give anyone life ever. Case in point is this game.

omac
11-27-2007, 12:49 AM
What you fail to understand is. they scored 17 consecutive points on this supposedly good defense..

A offense that had up to that point amassed a whooping 155 total yards on offense in 21:39 minutes.

However in the next possessions they got 138 in 8:08 minutes.

DEN 34 CHI 27 Plays: 4 Yards 18 Possession: 1:57

DEN 34 CHI 34 Plays: 12 Yards 65 Possession: 2:30

DEN 34 CHI 37 Plays: 7 Yards 55 Possession: 3:41

While the ST fubar set up the one cheap score they took the next 120 yards from us..

OUR Defense gave this one up..

We got a score when they fumbled inside their redzone, that just about evens up cheap points..

Although the offense struggled in the first part of the game. They came back strong in the later part of the game until we went into game protect mode when we were up 14 points..

First of all, I didn't say supposedly good defense. I've acknowledged throughout the season that our defense has problems, and their gambling approach to try to cover up weaknesses is dangerous. It sometimes works, but it can be taken advantage of.

You keep mentioning the 2 TDs the defense has been unable to stop, yet you never acknowledge the extreme situation posed on the defense by the ST, by literally giving the opponent the ball in the red zone.

It's pretty obvious that it's much more difficult for an offense to score the more yards it has to make up for; congruently, it's much more difficult for a defense to have opportunities to make stops the closer an opponent is to their endzone. If Chicago got the ball at their own 20 or so, and had to march 80 yards for a TD, and if they did, then you can say how the defense just couldn't stop that TD. It's a totally different situation when the opponent starts at the red zone. So no, it's not like the defense just gave away 2 TDs; they were severely handicapped in the first one, and failing to acknowledge that is not being objective when assesing how the defense did. It just isn't.

It's difficult for any team to consistently sustain a high level throughout a game, and other factors can boost the performance of a team; that's why there are momentum shifts in games. Throughout most of the game, the Broncos were beating the Bears; the Bears were down, their defense couldn't stop our offense, and their offense couldn't manage a good drive. The great ST play from the Bears, coupled with the poor ST play by the Broncos, kept the Bears in the game. It also provided them with a performance boost from the big plays. With just decent ST play by the Broncos, this could have been avoided. Even with the 2 return TDs, just making the Bears work at least 70 yards could've used up a good amount of time, and would've made the Broncos defense have more chances at stopping the Bears offense, (added) or even could've given the Bears chances to make mistakes; letting the Bears start in the red zone is greatly handicapping the defense.. I'm sure you don't disagree with this statement.

champbronc2
11-27-2007, 07:47 AM
Great article.

Would write a more in depth post but I am at school... hehe

Lonestar
11-27-2007, 01:01 PM
First of all, I didn't say supposedly good defense. I've acknowledged throughout the season that our defense has problems, and their gambling approach to try to cover up weaknesses is dangerous. It sometimes works, but it can be taken advantage of.

You keep mentioning the 2 TDs the defense has been unable to stop, yet you never acknowledge the extreme situation posed on the defense by the ST, by literally giving the opponent the ball in the red zone.

It's pretty obvious that it's much more difficult for an offense to score the more yards it has to make up for; congruently, it's much more difficult for a defense to have opportunities to make stops the closer an opponent is to their endzone. If Chicago got the ball at their own 20 or so, and had to march 80 yards for a TD, and if they did, then you can say how the defense just couldn't stop that TD. It's a totally different situation when the opponent starts at the red zone. So no, it's not like the defense just gave away 2 TDs; they were severely handicapped in the first one, and failing to acknowledge that is not being objective when assesing how the defense did. It just isn't.

It's difficult for any team to consistently sustain a high level throughout a game, and other factors can boost the performance of a team; that's why there are momentum shifts in games. Throughout most of the game, the Broncos were beating the Bears; the Bears were down, their defense couldn't stop our offense, and their offense couldn't manage a good drive. The great ST play from the Bears, coupled with the poor ST play by the Broncos, kept the Bears in the game. It also provided them with a performance boost from the big plays. With just decent ST play by the Broncos, this could have been avoided. Even with the 2 return TDs, just making the Bears work at least 70 yards could've used up a good amount of time, and would've made the Broncos defense have more chances at stopping the Bears offense, (added) or even could've given the Bears chances to make mistakes; letting the Bears start in the red zone is greatly handicapping the defense.. I'm sure you don't disagree with this statement.

Well, had the penalty on ST not been called on the previous play they would have had the ball on their own 10 yard line.. SO if someone ants to blame anyone blame it on.

4-15-CHI 41 (7:37) 10-T.Sauerbrun punts 31 yards to CHI 10, Center-83-M.Leach, downed by DEN-57-J.Beck. PENALTY on DEN, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at CHI 41 - No Play.


that is what opened Pandora's box..

Den21vsBal19
11-27-2007, 03:48 PM
You keep mentioning this, but at that point, the Bears started their possesion at our 18 yard line because of the blocked punt ... because of ST. Because of a breakdown in ST, the Bears started in instant scoring possition. Tough to blame the defense on that play, when special teams made it much easier for the Bears offense to score. Instead of an offense having difficulty executing all day trying to sustain an 80 yard drive, they just needed to execute on a few plays from 18 yards out. The defense didn't have the chance to force them to execute properly for several consecutive plays. The defense didn't have as many chances to try and stop them, as they could've if the Bears had to go at least 80 yards. So no, it's very different.

If they started their drive at their own 20 at the 7:14 mark, then it's indicative to say we were up by 14 at the 7:14 mark. But because of the blocked punt, and the resulting lack of field possition and time the Bears needed to score the next TD, it's more indicative of the situation to say we were up by 7 at the 5:00 mark. Now that's what the defense was trying to protect; 1 TD, and they did for almost all of those 5 minutes.
See that's the difference in the game............

We get a fumble out of Hester at their 23 and only manage a field goal...........


They block a punt and get it at our 18, and punch in for 7


You have to capitalise on that type of opportunity, they did, we didn't, they win.

omac
11-27-2007, 05:31 PM
See that's the difference in the game............

We get a fumble out of Hester at their 23 and only manage a field goal...........


They block a punt and get it at our 18, and punch in for 7

You have to capitalise on that type of opportunity, they did, we didn't, they win.

(post edited: tried to make it tamer sounding ....)

I don't think that's the difference in the game. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

To say we lost because they capitalized on that opportunity and we didn't is a bit off, I think. Different circumstances change the approach to the game. When the Broncos kicked a FG from the redzone, it was a high percentage play, because they were not down by 2 TDs; they were only trying to build a lead early in the game. That's a different situation from being down 2 TDs in the 4th quarter.

The Broncos offense was playing well, the Bears offense wasn't; the Broncos ST gave up points, and worse, they gave up points not forcing the Bears to use up clock.

It was poor Bronco ST play that kept the Bears in the game when they should've been blown out, and it was poor Bronco ST play that handicapped the defense by giving the Bears the ball at the redzone, for all the reasons already mentioned.

(edited) Erased my last statement; I got your post mixed up with Jrwiz'. :cheers:

omac
11-27-2007, 05:35 PM
Well, had the penalty on ST not been called on the previous play they would have had the ball on their own 10 yard line.. SO if someone ants to blame anyone blame it on.

4-15-CHI 41 (7:37) 10-T.Sauerbrun punts 31 yards to CHI 10, Center-83-M.Leach, downed by DEN-57-J.Beck. PENALTY on DEN, Illegal Formation, 5 yards, enforced at CHI 41 - No Play.


that is what opened Pandora's box..

That was a huge penalty. The field possition was good enough in the first kick to make the Bears have to work to move the ball and use up some clock.

Lonestar
11-27-2007, 05:56 PM
That was a huge penalty. The field possition was good enough in the first kick to make the Bears have to work to move the ball and use up some clock.

Frankly it was not gonna happen they up to that point had a whooping 155 yards of total offense. 20 of which where given them in OUR REDZONE with a Bell fumble.

A truly pathetic offense on their part.

That was the turning point of the game.. Where the momentum switched from us to them..

omac
11-27-2007, 06:04 PM
Frankly it was not gonna happen they up to that point had a whooping 155 yards of total offense. 20 of which where given them in OUR REDZONE with a Bell fumble.

A truly pathetic offense on their part.

That was the turning point of the game.. Where the momentum switched from us to them..

Yep ... but this is probably one of those games that maybe the Bears were destined to win. Poor field conditions evened up our offenses, making both slip around; probably a slippery ball too; the fumble recovery that had Abdullah racing to the endzone; the "holding" by Bly on 4th down that negated what would've been the last play of the game; the Bears winning the coin toss. That Rex Grossman must be their lucky charm, for all those situations to happen. :D

Lonestar
11-27-2007, 06:08 PM
Yep ... but this is probably one of those games that maybe the Bears were destined to win. Poor field conditions evened up our offenses, making both slip around; probably a slippery ball too; the fumble recovery that had Abdullah racing to the endzone; the "holding" by Bly on 4th down that negated what would've been the last play of the game; the Bears winning the coin toss. That Rex Grossman must be their lucky charm, for all those situations to happen. :D


When Rex is on he is on how many passes were dropped in the game, and I was really afraid of him getting hot because he has a great long arm not as strong as Jay but good enough to pull a couple of farves out of the fire and burn us with a couple of bombs.

omac
11-27-2007, 06:17 PM
When Rex is on he is on how many passes were dropped in the game, and I was really afraid of him getting hot because he has a great long arm not as strong as Jay but good enough to pull a couple of farves out of the fire and burn us with a couple of bombs.

Definitely a box of chocolates. :D He has been playing a bit more reigned in as since he's come back. And what's with all these Chicago and Tennessee receivers who can't catch a ball thrown right at them? But ofcourse, the low to the outside lunging endzone game-tie-ing drive, he catches. Definitely not the Broncos day to win.

Lonestar
11-27-2007, 06:19 PM
Definitely a box of chocolates. :D He has been playing a bit more reigned in as since he's come back. And what's with all these Chicago and Tennessee receivers who can't catch a ball thrown right at them? But ofcourse, the low to the outside lunging endzone game-tie-ing drive, he catches. Definitely not the Broncos day to win.

I had stated way back this would be a loss, then this past week changed my mind and predicted a win. They lost for entirely different reasons than I thought they would..

omac
11-27-2007, 06:25 PM
I had stated way back this would be a loss, then this past week changed my mind and predicted a win. They lost for entirely different reasons than I thought they would..

I'm pissed off at the result, because the way it was playing out, this should've been one of our easiest wins this season, and we haven't had easy wins. Up by 2 TDs, I could almost see the impending doom when the kick was blocked. Then with the Bly penalty at 4th down, I could almost see the TD. Then when the coin flip came, I'm pretty sure everyone sensed we were going to lose the coin flip, and that would be the game. Impending doom.

That's it, offense should always try to score more and more, forget trying to use up clock, and the defense shouldn't play prevent at all.

Ricky
11-27-2007, 06:30 PM
I'm pissed off at the result, because the way it was playing out, this should've been one of our easiest wins this season, and we haven't had easy wins. Up by 2 TDs, I could almost see the impending doom when the kick was blocked. Then with the Bly penalty at 4th down, I could almost see the TD. Then when the coin flip came, I'm pretty sure everyone sensed we were going to lose the coin flip, and that would be the game. Impending doom.

That's it, offense should always try to score more and more, forget trying to use up clock, and the defense shouldn't play prevent at all.

The prevent dee is good for preventing a win.

Lonestar
11-27-2007, 06:33 PM
I'm pissed off at the result, because the way it was playing out, this should've been one of our easiest wins this season, and we haven't had easy wins. Up by 2 TDs, I could almost see the impending doom when the kick was blocked. Then with the Bly penalty at 4th down, I could almost see the TD. Then when the coin flip came, I'm pretty sure everyone sensed we were going to lose the coin flip, and that would be the game. Impending doom.

That's it, offense should always try to score more and more, forget trying to use up clock, and the defense shouldn't play prevent at all.


Denver had this in its pocket after going up by 14 period. Everyone relaxed and it got sloppy. The mighty MO went with it..


We lost a game we should have won handily..
430 yard total offense.
With 8% 3rd down efficiency
60% red zone
33% goal to go
TOP was over 4 minute even with them having the last almost 4 minute in OT would have been by more than 7 minutes without that.

All because of a penalty on a punt..

Den21vsBal19
11-27-2007, 09:28 PM
(post edited: tried to make it tamer sounding ....)

I don't think that's the difference in the game. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

To say we lost because they capitalized on that opportunity and we didn't is a bit off, I think. Different circumstances change the approach to the game. When the Broncos kicked a FG from the redzone, it was a high percentage play, because they were not down by 2 TDs; they were only trying to build a lead early in the game. That's a different situation from being down 2 TDs in the 4th quarter.

The Broncos offense was playing well, the Bears offense wasn't; the Broncos ST gave up points, and worse, they gave up points not forcing the Bears to use up clock.

It was poor Bronco ST play that kept the Bears in the game when they should've been blown out, and it was poor Bronco ST play that handicapped the defense by giving the Bears the ball at the redzone, for all the reasons already mentioned.

(edited) Erased my last statement; I got your post mixed up with Jrwiz'. :cheers:

No worries ;)

Certainly the missed opportunity wasn't the sole reason, poor kick coverage, spotty D, crappy calls all played their part, but certainly that early in the game, the fact that we only got three is like giving the Bears a get out of jail free card, unfortunately they weren't so obliging...........

I guess I was just annoyed at the time, both at leaving points on the field, and (acknowledging that we didn't do too bad on the night) at us not being as effective in the RZ as we're used to..............that's how I felt at the time, and I ain't going to change my mind after the fact..................if we'd won it in OT, I'd have still being pointing at that as one of the reasons that we'd had to play the 5th period :laugh:

omac
11-28-2007, 03:16 AM
Denver had this in its pocket after going up by 14 period. Everyone relaxed and it got sloppy. The mighty MO went with it..


We lost a game we should have won handily..
430 yard total offense.
With 8% 3rd down efficiency
60% red zone
33% goal to go
TOP was over 4 minute even with them having the last almost 4 minute in OT would have been by more than 7 minutes without that.

All because of a penalty on a punt..

Hopefully this will get them pissed off enough to run off 5 straight wins on route to winning the division title.

omac
11-28-2007, 03:18 AM
No worries ;)

Certainly the missed opportunity wasn't the sole reason, poor kick coverage, spotty D, crappy calls all played their part, but certainly that early in the game, the fact that we only got three is like giving the Bears a get out of jail free card, unfortunately they weren't so obliging...........

I guess I was just annoyed at the time, both at leaving points on the field, and (acknowledging that we didn't do too bad on the night) at us not being as effective in the RZ as we're used to..............that's how I felt at the time, and I ain't going to change my mind after the fact..................if we'd won it in OT, I'd have still being pointing at that as one of the reasons that we'd had to play the 5th period :laugh:

Yeah, overall, it was a team effort that contributed to the meltdown. Glad to see they're working as a team. :D