PDA

View Full Version : Denver Just Didn't/Doesn't Have the Horses



NightTrainLayne
02-05-2014, 10:44 PM
This is a very painful loss. It's been 25 years since the organization and it's fans have been so thoroughly humbled worldwide.

Now, a few days out, I have recovered from the shock, and the empty, hollowed-out feeling from the day after, and am trying to make sense of it all.

Throughout the season, I was scared of playing Seattle for all the marbles. They didn't just beat us on the scoreboard in that pre-season game, but they literally beat us up. Champ missed most of the season after that game. Derek Wolfe suffered a horrible injury, and never seemed to recover. We were really banged up.

Then throughout the season, I kept seeing that playing Seattle meant two losses for a lot of teams. They didn't just lose to Seattle, teams lost the next week as well trying to fight off a beat down hangover. Seattle is just a big, badass team of physical maulers, and they take their toll.

The Broncos are a good team, with a great offense. But we don't have the pieces to stand up to Seattle. Hardly anyone does.

Yesterday afternoon Shannon Sharpe was on "Moving the Chains" with Pat Kirwin and Jim Miller on Sirius/XM NFL radio. We all know Shannon is a Broncos homer. I guess no one else was listening, because no one has posted it that I've seen. Care to know what Shannon's concise analysis of the game is?

"Only five players from the Broncos could start for Seattle. The quarterback, the wide receivers, and Pot Roast. That's it. Maybe the kickers. But out of the starting 22 only 5 would start for Seattle."

He continued, and I'm paraphrasing here, "It doesn't matter if they play again next week, or Wednesday, or next month, the Broncos aren't winning. It ain't about the noise. It ain't about the gameplan. The Broncos aren't winning. They don't have the players."

Shannon said he watched the game in a suite with Rod Smith. He said he told Rod, "I told Rod, when the game was 8-0, 'Seattle's winning this game. No way they lose. The Broncos cannot come back from down 8-0. Seattle is too physical for them.' "

I've spent the last 24 hours mulling that over, and it rings absolutely true. Seattle has put together a tremendous roster, and we (and most of the NFL along with us) is completely outclassed by them right now. It helps that it seems they have hit the lottery jackpot several times over drafting outstanding players all over the field in the late rounds, but they have, and they've developed them. They get the credit for that.

We've got the offseason to get better, and I think John Elway is putting together a great culture and organization for us to continue to improve and get better. Seattle has shown us how far we have to go yet. It's a hell of a lot farther than we thought or hoped for, but we know exactly how we stack up.

Looking back, it was a great season. I had a lot of fun watching these guys, and I'm not going to let one game completely overshadow the season. It will somewhat overshadow, but not completely.

Here's to bigger and better seasons to come. We are going in the right direction. Next year, we will be battle tested against the NFC West by the time the playoffs roll around. We'll be much more ready to fight back against a team like Seattle.

Go Broncos!!!!!

chazoe60
02-05-2014, 10:50 PM
Vasquez would also start for them but yes I get the point.

Also if we include injured players Von and Clady would start.

MasterShake
02-05-2014, 10:57 PM
I firmly believe you are never as bad or as good as you look as a football team on any given day. The good news is the Broncos will get a chance to prove themselves against the toughest division in football next year in the NFC West and hopefully learn HOW they need to play to beat teams like that.

Dreadnought
02-05-2014, 11:06 PM
A beating like we took will incline fans and everyone else to overreact. I think if we play them ten times we win four. What we watched Sunday was every sports fans living waking nightmare, and it started with Man Ram's snap. Some games it doesn't go your way, plain and simple. We are no where near that bad, and they aren't that much better. Every season every team will lay an egg or two. You hope like Hell it isn't in the playoffs, much less the SB, but it is what it is.

The worst part is listening to post mortem sports talk bullshit clichés like "we didn't want it enough" or "The Broncos are soft" or any other variety of idiotic drivel generated by a loss like this. Shit just went south, right off the bat, and it kept going that way. There have been calls for Fox to go fer crissakes, an idea so stupid and reactive I want to pound my head against a cement wall.

The Broncos were an excellent team in 2013. We all wondered if perhaps they were great. They were merely excellent in the end.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-05-2014, 11:12 PM
DRC and Julius Thomas would start too.

CrazyHorse
02-05-2014, 11:14 PM
I don't buy it. If our receivers get accustomed to play more physical and if we improve the offensive line we can compete with them. Give Manning time in the pocket and this is a different game.

NightTrainLayne
02-05-2014, 11:14 PM
A beating like we took will incline fans and everyone else to overreact. I think if we play them ten times we win four. What we watched Sunday was every sports fans living waking nightmare, and it started with Man Ram's snap. Some games it doesn't go your way, plain and simple. We are no where near that bad, and they aren't that much better. Every season every team will lay an egg or two. You hope like Hell it isn't in the playoffs, much less the SB, but it is what it is.

The worst part is listening to post mortem sports talk bullshit clichés like "we didn't want it enough" or "The Broncos are soft" or any other variety of idiotic drivel generated by a loss like this. Shit just went south, right off the bat, and it kept going that way. There have been calls for Fox to go fer crissakes, an idea so stupid and reactive I want to pound my head against a cement wall.

The Broncos were an excellent team in 2013. We all wondered if perhaps they were great. They were merely excellent in the end.

Well said. Although I don't think we'd even sniff four out of ten. But firing Fox ain't gonna fix that. Hiring Pete Carroll wouldn't fix that, at least not in the short term.

The only way to fix it is to improve our roster where we need to, and keep our fingers crossed that those players stay healthy... And when they don't have depth, depth and more depth, developing each and every guy on the roster.

silkamilkamonico
02-05-2014, 11:36 PM
Some serious player development going on in Seattle. I bet if you paired up all the starters from the SuperBowl, Denver would have a significant advantage in players drafted higher than Seattle too. Not even close.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-05-2014, 11:41 PM
Some serious player development going on in Seattle. I bet if you paired up all the starters from the SuperBowl, Denver would have a significant advantage in players drafted higher than Seattle too. Not even close.

They've got a great dietitian.

MOtorboat
02-05-2014, 11:55 PM
I'm assuming Sharpe meant the players available...and I still disagree.

Denver players that would start for Seattle:
QB - Peyton Manning
TE - Julius Thomas
WR - Demaryius Thomas
WR - Eric Decker
WR - Wes Welker
LT - Ryan Clady
RG - Louis Vasquez
DT - Terrance Knighton
OLB - Von Miller
CB - Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie

That's 10 by my count. I'm not saying Seattle isn't better or wasn't better on that Sunday, but it's not dire. It's not THAT bad.

Seattle lost to Indianapolis. They went 2-1 against San Francisco.

Denver has even more guys that would start on a team comprised of those teams too.

I don't know what it was. I don't know if it's "they have Denver's number" principle, but this isn't a college football scenario where Alabama is flat out better at every position than, say, Colorado.

aberdien
02-06-2014, 12:24 AM
The loss was bad enough, why you gotta throw in a bad pun too?

Buff
02-06-2014, 01:23 AM
This team will live and die by the finesse game as long as Manning is here. It's been good enough to make us the best team in the AFC for two years running - the only problem is that the NFC has two teams that are built to destroy us. We've gotta get better on defense next year and hope to stay healthier... But without Chris Harris or Von Miller at full speed, there will be a lot of holes to fill on that side of the ball. It's a shame both of them went down so late in the year, especially as we are coming up on the end of Manning's window.

I think it will basically be the exact same blueprint next year with a patchwork defense and a Manning-led passing attack carrying us. I'm just afraid that might not be enough anymore. Seattle and San Fran have built rosters that can just go in and match up with anybody toe to toe. Whereas we were very one-dimensional this year being propped up by our all-world QB.

I think on a neutral field we beat Seattle 2-3 times out of 10 tops. With San Fran maybe we win 4-5, but I give them the edge. At some point you can only gameplan around so many holes in the roster. Hopefully we draft really well and Elway has another free agent haul like he did last year.

dogfish
02-06-2014, 01:28 AM
i'm afraid we all know the real problem here, layne. . .


the football gods clearly did not accept the sacrifice of your ACL as sufficient. . . looks like we'll need to offer them the other one, as well. . . go team!

ShaneFalco
02-06-2014, 01:32 AM
such bull about not having the players and only "5 bronco" players would start on Seattle. Every team in the NFC west can beat in the Seahawks.

Dzone
02-06-2014, 02:43 AM
I loved the play with Unrein at fullback leading the way for M Ball. Ball sprung for a long run. Several games ago. I dont think the play was ever used again. Maybe

7DnBrnc53
02-06-2014, 05:47 AM
I think it will basically be the exact same blueprint next year with a patchwork defense and a Manning-led passing attack carrying us. I'm just afraid that might not be enough anymore. Seattle and San Fran have built rosters that can just go in and match up with anybody toe to toe. Whereas we were very one-dimensional this year being propped up by our all-world QB.

If you think that we are going to have a patchwork defense next year, you are out of your f***ing mind. This team will be twice as good next season as it was this season, especially on defense.

Elway knows what happened in the 80's. He lived through it. What happened on Sunday was a reminder. He won't let it happen again.

Northman
02-06-2014, 06:27 AM
Funny thing about me was i was over the loss literally 5 minutes after the game, hell i was probably already over it before the 4th quarter started. Perhaps it was the loss to Wash and SF so many years ago that prepared me for something like that i dont know but it just didnt affect me as bad this time. Another part of the reason it was easy to get over was despite some of the great things stats wise this team did it never had the same swagger as the late 90's championship teams. From Fox on down i never got the feeling that they had the mental fortitude to get the job done if things started to fall apart in the game. I never got the sense of a true team unity that i did with guys like Elway, TD, Sharpe, and Neil Smith. It was kind of like this team just going through the motions and probably a good part of that was because i believe (as does my wife surprisingly) the team really relied to heavily on Manning. Its like the rest of the team expected Peyton to have to be the one to carry them to the promise land by himself and all they had to do was show up.

Yea, i do think we have some very soft players, especially on offense. They couldnt withstand getting punched in the mouth by a more physical team in the Seahawks and it showed to me. Defensively we might of been able to hang with that team despite the injuries but with the costly turnovers and lack of scoring it would do any defense in eventually. Im still happy we made it to the big game and am a bit surprised the best we could muster was 8 pts but knowing that this Bronco team doesnt have a swagger about them i kind of knew deep down they werent a complete team to win a championship. But, it was good to at least get back to the dance despite the horrible outcome.

DenBronx
02-06-2014, 07:11 AM
It's not that their players are better than ours but I believe they were better prepared.

The majority of the nation thought Denver was going to win this game. If not win at least it was supposed to be a close game. THAT is why losing 43-8 was so shocking. This is now the most shocking loss I have ever seen from the Broncos.


I really believe we arent that bad. No way was that the Broncos we saw this year. Our team just mentally checked out and that was so disturbing to see. It's like we got punched in the mouth and didnt know what to do. We got beat up.


Now, moving forward, if we lose games like this against the NFCW next year then something is very wrong. I know this team is better than this and fully expect us to be a complete team by the time next season starts. 2 solid shots to win a SB during this Manning era just got wasted. He has 3 years left on his contract and each year the light is fading out. It will only get tougher as time goes on and I have to think next season is his best shot to win it all, actually this year was but we blew it.


It's tough seeing Seattle celebrate. Can't even go to ESPN or NFL dot com without seeing the score at the top. 10 years later this game is still going to be talked about. We are still talking about the butt whooping we took against SF.


We did have the horses. Time for these horses to get some bigger balls though.

pnbronco
02-06-2014, 08:16 AM
It was their bad game.....bad timing too for it.

This is the first time since Manning has been here that they have gone through that type of game, when they just got punched in the jaw and hard.

I believe the team will take a hard look of what went wrong see what they need to do to compete with the NFC. IMO a solid running game is not a bad place to start. Elway just hates to loose at anything so I'm thinking he will be burning the midnight oil to find a way to punch back. I know I'm a homer but I think many of our players will do the same.

BroncoWave
02-06-2014, 08:35 AM
I'm assuming Sharpe meant the players available...and I still disagree.

Denver players that would start for Seattle:
QB - Peyton Manning
TE - Julius Thomas
WR - Demaryius Thomas
WR - Eric Decker
WR - Wes Welker
LT - Ryan Clady
RG - Louis Vasquez
DT - Terrance Knighton
OLB - Von Miller
CB - Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie

That's 10 by my count. I'm not saying Seattle isn't better or wasn't better on that Sunday, but it's not dire. It's not THAT bad.

Seattle lost to Indianapolis. They went 2-1 against San Francisco.

Denver has even more guys that would start on a team comprised of those teams too.

I don't know what it was. I don't know if it's "they have Denver's number" principle, but this isn't a college football scenario where Alabama is flat out better at every position than, say, Colorado.

I know they don't really play the same WR position, but if it's about having your best players on the field, Percy Harvin EASILY starts over Decker.

Joel
02-06-2014, 08:41 AM
If you think that we are going to have a patchwork defense next year, you are out of your f***ing mind. This team will be twice as good next season as it was this season, especially on defense.

Elway knows what happened in the 80's. He lived through it. What happened on Sunday was a reminder. He won't let it happen again.
What happened in the '80s was a HoF QB and great D got destroyed in multiple SBs because the OTHER D spent most of its time in our backfield, and a versatile if unexceptional RB and good WRs couldn't stop that. So we went out and got a great offensive line and solid coaching for them, and a decade later won repeat SBs, had a 6th round pick run for >2000 yds and revolutionized NFL run blocking so completely the league had to repeatedly change the rules. Here's hoping Elway remembers EXACTLY what happened.

It's funny though, I've spent two years saying we didn't have the horses (often with just that phrase; you'll be hearing from my lawyer, NFL :tongue:) while everyone told me we were an UNSTOPPABLE JUGGERNAUT; now many are saying, "Seattle was just a lot better," like they're resigned to more beatdowns, but I think MOST of our roster is championship caliber.

The only place we got completely dominated was on our offensive line; unfortunately, that and the defensive line are the two worst "only" places to be dominated. If we get Vickerson and Wolfe back 100% and re-sign Phillips we have a fine defensive line as physical as anyone; if Big Vick or Wolfe CAN'T return at their prior level, we will have to replace them, but otherwise we're good.

It's not that easy on the other side of the ball, because our offensive line was only missing one starter and the other four still got owned the whole game. At this point it does look like we'd be better off with someone like Boldin rather than Decker, but the real problem was Franklin and Beadles getting blown up while Ramirez was just confused and scared. Those are big problems, and no SB team wants to be looking at replacing 2-3 linemen in addition to all their FA/retirement losses, but IF we do that, we can exact unholy vengeance in next years SB.

We'll have the regular season against all those physical NFCW teams to test how far we came. The notion we just had a bad night in a flukey game though should be put to bed now; Seattle dominated us just as thoroughly in the preseason game, and dismissing Sunday as "just another in a series of flukes; it's no sign of a real deep problem" makes no more sense than when people blew off KCs 9-0 start as luck. A steady pattern of uniform results isn't luck, it's a steady pattern of uniform results.

Northman
02-06-2014, 08:55 AM
I know they don't really play the same WR position, but if it's about having your best players on the field, Percy Harvin EASILY starts over Decker.

I dont think it was really about whether BOTH Deck and Harvin on that team only that some of the starters MO listed could play and succeed on that Seahawk team.

BroncoWave
02-06-2014, 08:58 AM
I dont think it was really about whether BOTH Deck and Harvin on that team only that some of the starters MO listed could play and succeed on that Seahawk team.

I think his post was about which Broncos would start on Seattle if they somehow merged teams. If I'm wrong though, he can correct me. Since you can only have 5 eligible receivers on a play, if it's about putting the best 5 guys out there, I would line up Lynch, DT, Harvin, Welker, and JT.

Tned
02-06-2014, 09:06 AM
Well said. Although I don't think we'd even sniff four out of ten. But firing Fox ain't gonna fix that. Hiring Pete Carroll wouldn't fix that, at least not in the short term.

The only way to fix it is to improve our roster where we need to, and keep our fingers crossed that those players stay healthy... And when they don't have depth, depth and more depth, developing each and every guy on the roster.

Like Dread, I think the Broncos would win four, maybe three, out of ten. Look at how it started. With pretty much everything that could go wrong, going wrong, most of which were unforced errors, the Broncos were only down 8-0. If Sharpe is right, and he probably is, about the five players (as pointed out, maybe it's a few more) not being able to start on Seattle, then there is a good bet that the same could be said about virtually every other team in the NFL and their roster.

If that's the case, then as you said, through luck and drafting skill, they hit the jackpot and for all intents and purposes, are running an "all star" team. It happens VERY rarely in the NFL, but every once in a while a team manages to make all the right moves, which often involves some major luck (drafting Tom Brady) and becomes a very short lived dynasty -- everything in NFL is short lived, unlike some other sports. It's possible that Seattle is just that good, and if so, they will probably stay that good for another year or two, before they start losing some of those very cheap mid/late round starters, or sign them, and have to dump their higher priced players.

Seattle has guys like Sherman and Wilson playing for 500/600k, but were only outspent by five or six teams, so that means they have a LOT of money going out. They are less healthy cap wise than the Broncos, but some of their key players aren't free agents until next year, when they will get the big pay days.

Tned
02-06-2014, 09:08 AM
P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 09:17 AM
P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).

I have very time believing that Shannon Sharpe is correct that there are only five players on Denver's roster that could play for Seattle. I think fully healthy Broncos team could beat the Seahawks at least 5 out 10 times.

Tned
02-06-2014, 09:37 AM
I have very time believing that Shannon Sharpe is correct that there are only five players on Denver's roster that could play for Seattle. I think fully healthy Broncos team could beat the Seahawks at least 5 out 10 times.

It's really hard to say, because Seattle's D is so fast and physical. I think defensively, the broncos (especially within injured starters back), and pretty much hold Seattle down, as they have had no problem against great runners, and have held running QBs in check. They struggle against guys like Romo, Brees and other slingers.

Offensively then, the only question is without making all those self inflicted errors, can the Broncos offense score more than their D allows Seattle to play.

Remember what most analysts said, if the Broncos can stop Lynch, they win, if they can't, and Seattle can run the ball and keep Manning on the sideline, they lose. Nobody expected the Broncos to be nearly shutout, but instead score 15-28 range (depending on who was predicting, and whether or not Lynch gave Seattle huge time of possession advantage). Everyone assume that the Broncos would be able to move the ball and score against Seattle, just nowhere near as well as they have done against lesser defenses.

That's why it's so hard to, especially after the blowout loss, honestly guess (and that's all it is) whether they could win 3 out of 10, 4 out of 10, 6 out of 10 or what.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 10:01 AM
We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

MasterShake
02-06-2014, 10:09 AM
P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).

I have a hard time (in the NFL anyway) believing that there is some great way to raise talent. Denver did it this year with Free Agency and Seattle did it with young players. This year the team with the competitive edge won, last year Baltimore did the same thing and then missed the playoffs this year.

I keep thinking back to when Green Bay won the Super Bowl a few years ago. All the analysts on ESPN and NFL Network were touting how Green Bay was able to harvest talent in the draft and cultivate it. They said Aaron Rodgers grew the right way by riding the bench under a veteran for a few years. Ever since then Green Bay has more or less floundered in the playoffs despite being a great team. Based on what I have seen in my lifetime in the NFL, talent will get you to the big dance but confidence gets you the Lombardi.

Seattle won and deserved to win, but I don't think they are 35 points better than the Broncos most of the time. I feel that the gap on that particular Sunday between Denver and Seattle was smaller than it looked, but all the mistakes and mental breakdowns broke it wide open. Denver thrived on being cool, calm, and collected all season and when that blew up so did the game.

Buff
02-06-2014, 10:10 AM
We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

I just don't see us winning 5/10 - to me Seattle is the clearly superior team. It wasn't like the game in New England where the mistakes obviously cost us a chance at winning. We just got manhandled by them.

Joel
02-06-2014, 10:13 AM
Like Dread, I think the Broncos would win four, maybe three, out of ten. Look at how it started. With pretty much everything that could go wrong, going wrong, most of which were unforced errors, the Broncos were only down 8-0. If Sharpe is right, and he probably is, about the five players (as pointed out, maybe it's a few more) not being able to start on Seattle, then there is a good bet that the same could be said about virtually every other team in the NFL and their roster.
Yet it was only that close because our much maligned D KEPT it that way despite our much vaunted offenses first 3 "drives" consisted of 7 plays. Without a huge stand—twice—by a D missing half its starters 8-0 would've been 16-0 when a pick returned to our 37 put a gassd half-strength D out there yet again. Even then, Seattle needed end zone PI on Carter for their first TD; with Harris, it's a third FG for 11-0, and throwing a TD for the right team on our last drive would've made it a competitive 11-7 halftime instead of 22-0.


If that's the case, then as you said, through luck and drafting skill, they hit the jackpot and for all intents and purposes, are running an "all star" team. It happens VERY rarely in the NFL, but every once in a while a team manages to make all the right moves, which often involves some major luck (drafting Tom Brady) and becomes a very short lived dynasty -- everything in NFL is short lived, unlike some other sports. It's possible that Seattle is just that good, and if so, they will probably stay that good for another year or two, before they start losing some of those very cheap mid/late round starters, or sign them, and have to dump their higher priced players.

Seattle has guys like Sherman and Wilson playing for 500/600k, but were only outspent by five or six teams, so that means they have a LOT of money going out. They are less healthy cap wise than the Broncos, but some of their key players aren't free agents until next year, when they will get the big pay days.
Kind of tangential, but: Yeah, I'm sorry, dumb luck didn't turn Seattles team of rejects into All Pros overnight. Those guys went in late rounds (or none) for a reason, and it wasn't because they're all stronger AND faster than the whole NFL. It's also not why they had 7 drug suspensions in just 3 years, even after talking their way out of 3-4 more.

32 NFL scout teams don't pass on a dozen HoFers/year: We all know what invariably explains a whole TEAM getting a lot bigger AND faster overnight; the test results are the smoking gun.


P.S. The point of my post above was not that we somehow have to get the horses to compete with Seattle, because if their roster truly is that much better than the Broncos, then it's impossible, but instead keep a competitive team and wait until Seattle comes back to the field, or gets knocked out when they have a bad game (which they do, as they lost three times).
It's good Seattle's not THAT much better, because that sounds defeatist even to ME. Sadly, they are that much better than our offensive line; if we replayed that SB 10X we'd be lucky to win >2.

It's certainly troubling though that analysts and everyone else expected the challenge to be slowing Lynch and taking our shots against Seattles great D, yet we were all so badly wrong: Denver DID shut down Lynch, but historys best offense had NO shot against that D. Our line MUST get MUCH better; then we'll have the horses, otherwise, we'll still have no shot.

chazoe60
02-06-2014, 10:14 AM
Where we need the most improvement IMHO is at Safety, OL, and we need a true 3 down MLB.

Our safeties are terrible IMO. Even when Rahim is healthy they're terrible. Moore is a FS who I can't remember once making a play on the ball. How many INTs does he have. Nacho was a neat story in preseason but I'm trying to remember a play he made after preseason and I'm coming up empty. I like Mike Adams as a veteran backup and situational guy and to be honest he probably played the best out of all of our safeties, but he shouldn't be a starter.

A lot of our OL issues will be fixed if Clay comes back healthy. I think we found out that Clark can play. We need some better run blocking and I am finally on board with Jaded that Beadles should go.

As far as MLB, how long have Bronco fans been pleading for a true 3 down MLB to lead this defense? I hope we draft Skov. I think he's going to be better than the draftniks believe.

Other than that we need to beat some toughness into Decker if we end up keeping him. He is very soft. DT is a stud as is JT and Welker. If we play Seattle in the SB next year Fox needs to have a long talk with the refs about Defensive Holding and our WRs need to get a little dirty. I'd straight up cracked back those ******s a few times and take the penalties.

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 10:14 AM
It's really hard to say, because Seattle's D is so fast and physical. I think defensively, the broncos (especially within injured starters back), and pretty much hold Seattle down, as they have had no problem against great runners, and have held running QBs in check. They struggle against guys like Romo, Brees and other slingers.

Offensively then, the only question is without making all those self inflicted errors, can the Broncos offense score more than their D allows Seattle to play.

Remember what most analysts said, if the Broncos can stop Lynch, they win, if they can't, and Seattle can run the ball and keep Manning on the sideline, they lose. Nobody expected the Broncos to be nearly shutout, but instead score 15-28 range (depending on who was predicting, and whether or not Lynch gave Seattle huge time of possession advantage). Everyone assume that the Broncos would be able to move the ball and score against Seattle, just nowhere near as well as they have done against lesser defenses.

That's why it's so hard to, especially after the blowout loss, honestly guess (and that's all it is) whether they could win 3 out of 10, 4 out of 10, 6 out of 10 or what.

Agreed it is hard to guess. I say that we could split it 50/50 if we don't have the mistakes.

BroncoNut
02-06-2014, 10:19 AM
I just don't see us winning 5/10 - to me Seattle is the clearly superior team. It wasn't like the game in New England where the mistakes obviously cost us a chance at winning. We just got manhandled by them.

they played us so well that they should be fined or something.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 10:22 AM
I just don't see us winning 5/10 - to me Seattle is the clearly superior team. It wasn't like the game in New England where the mistakes obviously cost us a chance at winning. We just got manhandled by them.

For one game. Their defense is real (obviously) but we also had a historic offense. I think those pretty much cancel each other out if the game was replayed. There's just no way we make that many mistakes on a consistent basis. I do think our defense is slightly better than their offense - again especially if we played them multiple times.

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 10:22 AM
We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

That's my thinking as well. Seattle's offense scored 21 points not because they dominated Denver's defense.

Buff
02-06-2014, 10:25 AM
For one game. Their defense is real (obviously) but we also had a historic offense. I think those pretty much cancel each other out if the game was replayed. There's just no way we make that many mistakes on a consistent basis. I do think our defense is slightly better than their offense - again especially if we played them multiple times.

I think you're wearing orange colored glasses. We got absolutely dominated in every phase of the game - it wasn't about mistakes. It was about our swiss cheese roster finally being exposed by a team with great depth and talent.

chazoe60
02-06-2014, 10:27 AM
I think you're wearing orange colored glasses. We got absolutely dominated in every phase of the game - it wasn't about mistakes. It was about our swiss cheese roster finally being exposed by a team with great depth and talent.
This




Seattle beat our asses in preseason too. I know preseason doesn't count but fool me once......

We have to get tougher.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 10:27 AM
I think you're wearing orange colored glasses. We got absolutely dominated in every phase of the game - it wasn't about mistakes. It was about our swiss cheese roster finally being exposed by a team with great depth and talent.

LOL - I was just going to post that I'm known for my orange glasses. And I'm damn proud of it. :)

That said, you do realize that 19 of their 22 first half points came off turnovers, right? There's no way (in my mind) that happens on a regular basis. Clearly we were dominated but that was not the norm for us.

BroncoNut
02-06-2014, 10:32 AM
LOL - I was just going to post that I'm known for my orange glasses. And I'm damn proud of it. :)

That said, you do realize that 19 of their 22 first half points came off turnovers, right? There's no way (in my mind) that happens on a regular basis. Clearly we were dominated but that was not the norm for us.

Joe,. ummm. ....... boy. How should I put this?

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 10:33 AM
For one game. Their defense is real (obviously) but we also had a historic offense. I think those pretty much cancel each other out if the game was replayed. There's just no way we make that many mistakes on a consistent basis. I do think our defense is slightly better than their offense - again especially if we played them multiple times.

Seattles offense didn't dominate Denver's defense. It had more to do with their defense keeping the field position in their favor and Denver's mistakes. Lynch was held to 39 yards rushing. Havin 45 off of trick plays. Wilson had 206 yards passing.

Buff
02-06-2014, 10:38 AM
Seattles offense didn't dominate Denver's defense. It had more to do with their defense keeping the field position in their favor and Denver's mistakes. Lynch was held to 39 yards rushing. Havin 45 off of trick plays. Wilson had 206 yards passing.

But that's how they win. That will always be their formula. They dominate on defense and keep pace on offense.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 10:40 AM
But that's how they win. That will always be their formula. They dominate on defense and keep pace on offense.

I get it, but it's not like they're not beatable. Last time I checked they had three losses. They can be beat. I think we'd make a lot more adjustments on offense if we played them more than once. I wasn't real pleased with our play calling.

BroncoWave
02-06-2014, 10:41 AM
I get it, but it's not like they're not beatable. Last time I checked they had three losses. They can be beat. I think we'd make a lot more adjustments on offense if we played them more than once. I wasn't real pleased with our play calling.

No one is saying that they are unbeatable. Just that it would be a little unrealistic to expect to beat them 5/10 times. Sure we maybe could win 2 or 3, but the team we put out on the field for the Super Bowl ain't winning 5 of 10 against that Seahawks team. Not in a million years.

WARHORSE
02-06-2014, 10:43 AM
Seattle is good. Real good.

But Denver just had the wrong mindset for one thing. Seattle came in hungry, licking their chops. They wanted to punish us and they did. Our mindset was to 'execute'.

Thats a good mindset to have but when you get punched in the mouth, you gotta punch them back harder. San Fran plays that way. St. Louis. Arizona.

They didnt just tackle us. They were physical about it.

Not us.

What we need on this team is some mean LBers and a change in mindset.

Execute.....but play physical.

Our offensive weapons especially.

Play mean.

Buff
02-06-2014, 10:43 AM
I get it, but it's not like they're not beatable. Last time I checked they had three losses. They can be beat. I think we'd make a lot more adjustments on offense if we played them more than once. I wasn't real pleased with our play calling.

All NFL teams are beatable on any given Sunday. But we are not on par with them. They have a superior roster. We are fooling ourselves if we think we lost just because we had a bad day.

I do agree that they aren't 35 points better than us... Nor are we as bad as we looked on Sunday. But we've got work to do to close the talent gap.

CrazyHorse
02-06-2014, 10:47 AM
All NFL teams are beatable on any given Sunday. But we are not on par with them. They have a superior roster. We are fooling ourselves if we think we lost just because we had a bad day.

I do agree that they aren't 35 points better than us... Nor are we as bad as we looked on Sunday. But we've got work to do to close the talent gap.

I don't think we're that far behind. Our biggest issue in that game was protecting Manning. We were simply unable to do that. Our defense did okay considering they're missing 5 starters. The biggest issue they had was getting off the field on 3rd downs and forcing a punt.

BroncoNut
02-06-2014, 10:49 AM
All NFL teams are beatable on any given Sunday. But we are not on par with them. They have a superior roster. We are fooling ourselves if we think we lost just because we had a bad day.

I do agree that they aren't 35 points better than us... Nor are we as bad as we looked on Sunday. But we've got work to do to close the talent gap.

saluted, but almost did not because of the last sentence not so sure of the talent gap assessment. review Wars post above, and please post with a little more restraint.

thanks :hi:

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 10:50 AM
All NFL teams are beatable on any given Sunday. But we are not on par with them. They have a superior roster. We are fooling ourselves if we think we lost just because we had a bad day.

I do agree that they aren't 35 points better than us... Nor are we as bad as we looked on Sunday. But we've got work to do to close the talent gap.

http://www.migravent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/1480478-p-2x.jpg

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 11:08 AM
But that's how they win. That will always be their formula. They dominate on defense and keep pace on offense.

Wait a minute you said earlier that our roster is swiss cheese compared to their roster. If that's the case their offense should be able to hold it's own even if Seattle's defense has an off day. When their defense has had an off day they've lost. I don't think that before they come back to the field.

Ravage!!!
02-06-2014, 11:19 AM
I HATE using injuries as an "excuse"...but lets be realistic here. How many players did we lose at CRUCIAL positions this season? Safeties, corners, 2 DTs, 2 Centers, an LT, and our premeire pass rusher/OLB. This team went through SIGNIFICANT injuries and still made it to the Super Bowl based on an offense that was incredible. We can't blame the "play calling" in the Super Bowl when it ALLLLL came down to execution. The playcalling was NOT a problem, it was being out-gunned.

Momentum took a HUGE turn against us, and the ball couldn't get stopped. Seattle had SO many fans at that stadium,that it was like a home field advantage for them, and it showed.

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 11:37 AM
I HATE using injuries as an "excuse"...but lets be realistic here. How many players did we lose at CRUCIAL positions this season? Safeties, corners, 2 DTs, 2 Centers, an LT, and our premeire pass rusher/OLB. This team went through SIGNIFICANT injuries and still made it to the Super Bowl based on an offense that was incredible. We can't blame the "play calling" in the Super Bowl when it ALLLLL came down to execution. The playcalling was NOT a problem, it was being out-gunned.

Momentum took a HUGE turn against us, and the ball couldn't get stopped. Seattle had SO many fans at that stadium,that it was like a home field advantage for them, and it showed.

Yeah Denver was out gunned but it doesn't mean Denver's roster is a piece of shit from top to bottom. No team can set those kind of records offensively with only average to below average talent.

BroncoWave
02-06-2014, 11:38 AM
Yeah Denver was out gunned but doesn't mean Denver's roster is a piece of shit from top to bottom. No team can set those kind of records offensive record with only average to below average talent.

Who exactly is saying this???

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 11:53 AM
All NFL teams are beatable on any given Sunday. But we are not on par with them. They have a superior roster. We are fooling ourselves if we think we lost just because we had a bad day.

I do agree that they aren't 35 points better than us... Nor are we as bad as we looked on Sunday. But we've got work to do to close the talent gap.

Bull even really good teams can have a bad day. What you saying sounds like a knee jerk reaction.

Joel
02-06-2014, 12:00 PM
LOL - I was just going to post that I'm known for my orange glasses. And I'm damn proud of it. :)

That said, you do realize that 19 of their 22 first half points came off turnovers, right? There's no way (in my mind) that happens on a regular basis. Clearly we were dominated but that was not the norm for us.
Yeah, because three-and-outs and tons of turnovers is totally unprecedented for us. We live off big plays from stars at the "skill" positions because, against good defenses, our line doesn't dominate to sustain drives, it GETS dominated to prematurely end them. I haven't checked tape, but bet 90% of Mannings fumbles and Ints this year were a direct result of a blown block.

Until/unless we fix that Seattle will crush us every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.

Buff
02-06-2014, 12:00 PM
Bull even really good teams can have a bad day. What you saying sounds like a knee jerk reaction.

We played them twice this year and got dominated both times. Granted one was a preseason game, but I just don't see how you could objectively make the case that our current roster makeup is as good as Seattle's. They are better and proved it when it counts.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 12:01 PM
Yeah, because three-and-outs and tons of turnovers is totally unprecedented for us. We live off big plays from stars at the "skill" positions because, against good defenses, our line doesn't dominate to sustain drives, it GETS dominated to prematurely end them. I haven't checked tape, but bet 90% of Mannings fumbles and Ints this year were a direct result of a blown block.

Until/unless we fix that Seattle will crush us every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.

Do you even watch the games Joel? Or do you just watch the highlights (or in your case, lowlights)?

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 12:04 PM
We played them twice this year and got dominated both times. Granted one was a preseason game, but I just don't see how you could objectively make the case that our current roster makeup is as good as Seattle's. They are better and proved it when it counts.

One was a preseason so why bring it up it's useless. Also was Denver missing players from their roster or not?

Buff
02-06-2014, 12:06 PM
One was a preseason so why bring it up it's useless. Also was Denver missing players from their roster or not?

I don't know what you're arguing. We got killed. I don't know what else to tell you.

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 12:13 PM
I don't know what you're arguing. We got killed. I don't know what else to tell you.

It's quite simple did we or did we not have several starters on injured reserve?

Buff
02-06-2014, 12:17 PM
It's quite simple did we or did we not have several starters on injured reserve?

Yes - of course we did - which is part of the reason we simply cannot match up with that team in our current state. Not only that, but Miller and Harris will be rehabbing their injuries well into next season... So I'm just saying that Seattle is the better team. Every team has injuries. We had more than most - but we don't get to put an asterisk next to their Championship because we had some guys hurt.

Northman
02-06-2014, 12:19 PM
One was a preseason so why bring it up it's useless. Also was Denver missing players from their roster or not?

For the most part yes, but the score of the preseason game was 33-7 at the half and a lot of the issues that went wrong for us in the SB happened in that preseason game as well. We had 4 or 5 turnovers and we also allowed a KR for a TD in the preaseason game as well. So either we didnt learn anything from the preseason game or the Hawks are just that much better than us. Take that for what its worth.

CrazyHorse
02-06-2014, 12:20 PM
I don't know what you're arguing. We got killed. I don't know what else to tell you.

Like I've been saying, their 4 d-linemen dominated our 5 o-linemen. It's as simple as that and resulted in 3 turnovers. You don't think if Manning has more time our receivers can get open and he can find them?

Joel
02-06-2014, 12:27 PM
Do you even watch the games Joel? Or do you just watch the highlights (or in your case, lowlights)?
We didn't have a 7 minute drive until the playoffs, when we had the good fortune to play defenses VASTLY inferior to Seattles. Manning, Welker, DT and Moreno made a lot of huge PLAYS that either got us TD or at least into FG range, and Decker had a good game here and there, but there's a reason Manning had BOTH ankles taped by midseason.

Let's be real though: How often did it happen on 3rd and long because the offense did NOTHING the first two downs? And how often was it three-and-out because that third and long pass was juuust a bit off target thanks to the rush? How many TDs on quick screens where DT or Moreno just outran everyone or Beadles got to block a safety instead of a fellow lineman?

That's practically our signature play, but while marveling at its execution maybe we should take a moment to ask why we're calling blitz-beaters so often.

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 12:32 PM
Lol. The lucky Denver offense.

:rolleyes:

Hawgdriver
02-06-2014, 12:35 PM
I just don't see us winning 5/10 - to me Seattle is the clearly superior team. It wasn't like the game in New England where the mistakes obviously cost us a chance at winning. We just got manhandled by them.

As long as Kam is detonating dudes like he did DT, Seattle wins. Seattle has speed and tackling that deny Denver YAC, and pressure that forces mistakes. Denver has to stop the pressure at the line and make some adjustments.

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 12:37 PM
Yes - of course we did - which is part of the reason we simply cannot match up with that team in our current state. Not only that, but Miller and Harris will be rehabbing their injuries well into next season... So I'm just saying that Seattle is the better team. Every team has injuries. We had more than most - but we don't get to put an asterisk next to their Championship because we had some guys hurt.

Agreed there is not asterisk next their Championship but you have basically our roster is crap. I think that's overreaction.

Joel
02-06-2014, 12:39 PM
It's quite simple did we or did we not have several starters on injured reserve?
On our curbstomped offense? No, we did not; you're right: That IS simple. The ONE starter on IR wasn't even at the most dominated position, or even the second most dominated.

The point would be valid had our DEFENSE collapsed, but IT played well, amazingly, for lacking half its starters. Get everyone healthy and our D just needs a real MLB and some secondary depth.

Yet to fix our OFFENSE (which lost the game) we don't just need to get Clady healthy, we need to CLONE him, twice (at least.)

Ravage!!!
02-06-2014, 12:46 PM
We didn't have a 7 minute drive until the playoffs,

Stop right there for a moment. How often did we actually TRY for a 7 minute drive? When your QB throws for 55 TDs, and you are the most prolific scoring team in NFL history, its not a offense that tries to simply HOLD onto the ball. THey are going all out, scoring, a LOT and very often scoring very quickly. To try and say that this offense didn't "have a 7 minute drive" was purely because we weren't TRYING to have 7 minute drives. Then, there are offense in the NFL that are/were VASTLY inferior to Denver's offense....yet they had better production against Seattle than we did on Sunday. Sometimes bad games happen and the momentum takes a bad swing, but lets stop with this "we only performed well against bad teams" junk where it lies and walk away.

Joel
02-06-2014, 12:50 PM
Lol. The lucky Denver offense.

:rolleyes:
Where did I say any of it was luck? We're "lucky" to have Manning, DT, Welker, JT and Moreno, but they're not here by accident, so it's not really luck. Their TALENT and SKILL overcame a MANY offensive line failings, but if our line were a lot better we wouldn't have to swing for the fences so often.

Why do you think our games were ROUTINELY either close till we blew it open late or blowouts till we "took our foot off the gas"? We never took our foot off the gas, we just don't have the blocking to consistently produce against good defenses: We count on our playmakers delivering ANYWAY more than they don't. Yet it's hard for them to do it 6-7 plays IN A ROW with our blocking.

How does a good team salt away a narrow 4th quarter lead, football experts? With 20 yd 3rd down passes? Because that's how historys greatest offense usually does it. We need blockers.

Mike
02-06-2014, 12:51 PM
We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

No way, Joe. I would say winning 2 would be an accomplishment...I don't think Denver wins 1 against them. Denver is just not on the same level. I am not in a hurry to see Seattle again.

As far as mistakes, mistakes is what has plagued this team. Fumbles, false starts, holdings, illegal procedures, etc. It is a common problem. Denver (or Manning) is just good enough to overcome it against inferior teams. Special Teams has been a problem all year, so it is not out of place to see kick returns for TDs. Outside of the botched snap, none of the other mistakes were uncommon to Denver this year. They are just undisciplined and sloppy.

Denver should focus on fixing the defensive backfield, mlb, de, and finding upgrades to Beadles and Ramirez. If that means letting Decker and Knowshon go and cutting Champ if he isn't willing to restructure, then so be it. I also think they should ask Colquit to either take a cut or cut him. He is getting paid too much for far too little production.

Upgrading on the o-line is a must IMO to get more from the run game, because the offense needs to be more balanced. It can't all be Manning if Denver wants to win the SB.

Joel
02-06-2014, 12:53 PM
Stop right there for a moment. How often did we actually TRY for a 7 minute drive? When your QB throws for 55 TDs, and you are the most prolific scoring team in NFL history, its not a offense that tries to simply HOLD onto the ball. THey are going all out, scoring, a LOT and very often scoring very quickly. To try and say that this offense didn't "have a 7 minute drive" was purely because we weren't TRYING to have 7 minute drives. Then, there are offense in the NFL that are/were VASTLY inferior to Denver's offense....yet they had better production against Seattle than we did on Sunday. Sometimes bad games happen and the momentum takes a bad swing, but lets stop with this "we only performed well against bad teams" junk where it lies and walk away.
We'd have long drives if we could, especially once our defensive starters started heading to IR; that's how we rest the ones left and reduce chances to get hurt.

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 01:03 PM
Scoring plays = BAD!

LOL.

Manning rarely gets sacked or hit. OFFENSIVE LINE SUCKS! LOL.

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 01:05 PM
Hey Joel,

Explain that 6 points is better than 7 mantra for us.

Ravage!!!
02-06-2014, 01:06 PM
We had FAR too many things go completely wrong in that game. If we really played them 10 times, I'd guess we'd split the games 5/5. There's no way we continue to make that many mistakes, and I also believe our offense would put up more than 8 points.

I agree with this to a degree. I think that if we were healthy, we could keep up 50-50 with them. As it is right now, I just don't know. I DO agre that there is just no way that we could play again and only score 8 points.....or have them return a TD with a INT, and KO and everything else that happened. It was just a perfect storm against us that Sunday, and it made us look worse off than we actually are.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 01:07 PM
I think you guys are too focused on the ONE game we struggled. There's no way we lose 7+ games out of 10 to them.

JMO, obviously.

BroncoNut
02-06-2014, 01:13 PM
I think you guys are too focused on the ONE game we struggled. There's no way we lose 7+ games out of 10 to them.

JMO, obviously.

yeah, and do us a favor and keep it that way. thanks :hi:

NightTrainLayne
02-06-2014, 01:15 PM
I think you guys are too focused on the ONE game we struggled. There's no way we lose 7+ games out of 10 to them.

JMO, obviously.

Two games we struggled.

They dismantled our starters each time we lined up against them. The half-time scores from both games reflect how superior their roster is to ours.

Does that mean ours is terrible? No. It just means we don't match up with them at all.

slim
02-06-2014, 01:19 PM
You can't put any stock in a preseason game. I wish you guys would stop bringing it up.

Also, **** the seahawks.

NightTrainLayne
02-06-2014, 01:20 PM
You can't put any stock in a preseason game. I wish you guys would stop bringing it up.

Also, **** the seahawks.

That's what I kept telling myself leading up to the SB.

I wish our team would have put some more stock in it.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 01:20 PM
Two games we struggled.

They dismantled our starters each time we lined up against them. The half-time scores from both games reflect how superior their roster is to ours.

Does that mean ours is terrible? No. It just means we don't match up with them at all.


You can't put any stock in a preseason game. I wish you guys would stop bringing it up.

Also, **** the seahawks.

This.

Joel
02-06-2014, 01:21 PM
Scoring plays = BAD!

LOL.

Manning rarely gets sacked or hit. OFFENSIVE LINE SUCKS! LOL.
Manning gets the ball out so fast he's rarely sacked, yes. Seattle sacked him all of ONCE in the Super Bowl: So our pass blocking was awesome?

slim
02-06-2014, 01:21 PM
That's what I kept telling myself leading up to the SB.

I wish our team would have put some more stock in it.

They laid an egg. It happens.

Joel
02-06-2014, 01:22 PM
I think you guys are too focused on the ONE game we struggled. There's no way we lose 7+ games out of 10 to them.

JMO, obviously.
Well, round three is just months away, with a very similar SF to follow, so we'll know soon.

Buff
02-06-2014, 01:22 PM
You can't put any stock in a preseason game. I wish you guys would stop bringing it up.

Also, **** the seahawks.

I would normally agree - if the Super Bowl wouldn't have played our exactly like the preseason game. It was obviously more representative that we'd like to admit.

slim
02-06-2014, 01:26 PM
I would normally agree - if the Super Bowl wouldn't have played our exactly like the preseason game. It was obviously more representative that we'd like to admit.

But they didn't play out exactly the same. That is revisionist BS. Peyton actually had time and some success throwing the ball in the preseason game (he had 163 yards, a TD and rating of 122.7 in the first half of that game).

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 01:31 PM
Manning gets the ball out so fast he's rarely sacked, yes. Seattle sacked him all of ONCE in the Super Bowl: So our pass blocking was awesome?

One bad game doesn't make the line bad. That's reactionary bullshit.

And please don't respond with the "Manning's ankle crap." That was just as flukey.

Tned
02-06-2014, 01:32 PM
Do you even watch the games Joel? Or do you just watch the highlights (or in your case, lowlights)?

I'm guessing neither, since he just talked about Broncos winning with a bunch of three and outs and then big scoring plays, which is the exact opposite of how the Broncos have been winning. Broncos had the fourth fewest punts in the league, while being the NFL leader in the number of offensive plays. The Broncos haven't been winning with a bunch of big plays, but instead long, sustained drives. They are far and away the leader in 1st downs a game.

I hate when people pull things out of their butt just to try and support some opinion they have.

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 01:34 PM
I'm guessing neither, since he just talked about Broncos winning with a bunch of three and outs and then big scoring plays, which is the exact opposite of how the Broncos have been winning. Broncos had the fourth fewest punts in the league, while being the NFL leader in the number of offensive plays. The Broncos haven't been winning with a bunch of big plays, but instead long, sustained drives. They are far and away the leader in 1st downs a game.

I hate when people pull things out of their butt just to try and support some opinion they have.

Yeah but TOP > Points.

I hear Goodell is going to change the basic rules of the game so that the team with more TOP wins the game.

7DnBrnc53
02-06-2014, 01:48 PM
What happened in the '80s was a HoF QB and great D got destroyed in multiple SBs because the OTHER D spent most of its time in our backfield, and a versatile if unexceptional RB and good WRs couldn't stop that. So we went out and got a great offensive line and solid coaching for them, and a decade later won repeat SBs, had a 6th round pick run for >2000 yds and revolutionized NFL run blocking so completely the league had to repeatedly change the rules. Here's hoping Elway remembers EXACTLY what happened.

It's funny though, I've spent two years saying we didn't have the horses (often with just that phrase; you'll be hearing from my lawyer, NFL :tongue:) while everyone told me we were an UNSTOPPABLE JUGGERNAUT; now many are saying, "Seattle was just a lot better," like they're resigned to more beatdowns, but I think MOST of our roster is championship caliber.

The only place we got completely dominated was on our offensive line; unfortunately, that and the defensive line are the two worst "only" places to be dominated. If we get Vickerson and Wolfe back 100% and re-sign Phillips we have a fine defensive line as physical as anyone; if Big Vick or Wolfe CAN'T return at their prior level, we will have to replace them, but otherwise we're good.

It's not that easy on the other side of the ball, because our offensive line was only missing one starter and the other four still got owned the whole game. At this point it does look like we'd be better off with someone like Boldin rather than Decker, but the real problem was Franklin and Beadles getting blown up while Ramirez was just confused and scared. Those are big problems, and no SB team wants to be looking at replacing 2-3 linemen in addition to all their FA/retirement losses, but IF we do that, we can exact unholy vengeance in next years SB.

We'll have the regular season against all those physical NFCW teams to test how far we came. The notion we just had a bad night in a flukey game though should be put to bed now; Seattle dominated us just as thoroughly in the preseason game, and dismissing Sunday as "just another in a series of flukes; it's no sign of a real deep problem" makes no more sense than when people blew off KCs 9-0 start as luck. A steady pattern of uniform results isn't luck, it's a steady pattern of uniform results.

Good points, Joel, except that in the 80's, our D wasn't great, especially in 1986 and 87. Those two years, it was smoke and mirrors. Someone I know told me that, in 86, the Broncos got a lot of sacks earlier in the year through stunting, but then they tried to play straight up later in the year, and they were exposed.

I also agree that most of our roster is good enough to win titles, and that the O-line does need changes. Clady's return will help, but I think that Beadles needs to go, Orlando Franklin should move inside to replace him, and a new RT is needed in the draft or FA.

Tned
02-06-2014, 01:57 PM
We didn't have a 7 minute drive until the playoffs, when we had the good fortune to play defenses VASTLY inferior to Seattles. Manning, Welker, DT and Moreno made a lot of huge PLAYS that either got us TD or at least into FG range, and Decker had a good game here and there, but there's a reason Manning had BOTH ankles taped by midseason.

Let's be real though: How often did it happen on 3rd and long because the offense did NOTHING the first two downs? And how often was it three-and-out because that third and long pass was juuust a bit off target thanks to the rush? How many TDs on quick screens where DT or Moreno just outran everyone or Beadles got to block a safety instead of a fellow lineman?

That's practically our signature play, but while marveling at its execution maybe we should take a moment to ask why we're calling blitz-beaters so often.

Joel, you need to invest in Sunday Ticket and actually start watching the games, or at least looking at the stats. Here's some comparisons of run/pass play results by down:

First Down


Den -- 273 rushing plays (3.95 average yards per rush), 283 passing plays (8.4 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 247 rushing plays (4.06 average yards per rush), 192 passing plays (7.83 average yards per passing play)


Second Down


Den -- 151 rushing plays (4.48 average yards per rush), 235 passing plays (8.17 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 169 rushing plays (4.04 average yards per rush), 150 passing plays (7.9 average yards per passing play)


Third Down


Den -- 32 rushing plays (2.22 average yards per rush), 173 passing plays (6.54 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 37 rushing plays (2.57 average yards per rush), 166 passing plays (5.81 average yards per passing play)

As you can see, Den and Sea are very comparable.

Joel
02-06-2014, 01:57 PM
One bad game doesn't make the line bad. That's reactionary bullshit.

And please don't respond with the "Manning's ankle crap." That was just as flukey.
How many bad games does it take then? Remember the Indy game lost on a forced Int and a strip-sack-safety? Or the Washington game where they led 21-7 early in the third and Manning had to chase down his own strip-sack? San Diego got to him in BOTH regular season game; not many sacks, because he sees it coming and gets the ball out FAST, but still another strip-sack that sparked a SD comeback in the first game, nearly forcing OT.

I'm tired of EVERY loss to a decent team being dismissed as "one bad game." One bad game is all it takes in the playoffs, but we're past "one bad game." Enough excuses for failure.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 02:00 PM
How many bad games does it take then? Remember the Indy game lost on a forced Int and a strip-sack-safety? Or the Washington game where they led 21-7 early in the third and Manning had to chase down his own strip-sack? San Diego got to him in BOTH regular season game; not many sacks, because he sees it coming and gets the ball out FAST, but still another strip-sack that sparked a SD come back that nearly forced OT the first game.

I'm tired of EVERY loss to a decent team being dismissed as "one bad game." One bad game is all it takes in the playoffs, but we're past "one bad game." Enough excuses for failure.

I think I read somewhere that only happened to Manning. No other QB was strip-sacked all year. In fact, no other QB was ever pressured, threw an INT or injured all year except Manning.

Good lord, Joel. I think you need a break.

Tned
02-06-2014, 02:06 PM
Also, further to how bad Broncos were with three and outs and how poorly they did on 1st and 2nd down, forcing 3rd and longs. Another Den/Sea comparison:

Third down stats:

To Go Plays Percent
1 to 2 37 18.0%
3 to 5 56 27.3%
6 to 10 84 41.0%
11 to 15 21 10.2%
16+ 7 3.4%
205

To Go Plays Percent
1 to 2 42 20.7%
3 to 5 55 27.1%
6 to 10 58 28.6%
11 to 15 33 16.3%
16+ 15 7.4%
203

The Broncos were in 3rd and 6+ 54% of the time, Seattle 52% of the time. Seattle was in 3rd and 11+ more than Denver, 24% for Seattle to 14% for Denver.

It's a complete and utter myth, only perpetrated by Joel, that Denver had a lot of three and outs and ton of third and longs, because they were so horrible on first and second down.

Joel
02-06-2014, 02:06 PM
Joel, you need to invest in Sunday Ticket and actually start watching the games, or at least looking at the stats. Here's some comparisons of run/pass play results by down:

First Down

Den -- 273 rushing plays (3.95 average yards per rush), 283 passing plays (8.4 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 247 rushing plays (4.06 average yards per rush), 192 passing plays (7.83 average yards per passing play)

Second Down

Den -- 151 rushing plays (4.48 average yards per rush), 235 passing plays (8.17 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 169 rushing plays (4.04 average yards per rush), 150 passing plays (7.9 average yards per passing play)


Third Down

Den -- 32 rushing plays (2.22 average yards per rush), 173 passing plays (6.54 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 37 rushing plays (2.57 average yards per rush), 166 passing plays (5.81 average yards per passing play)

As you can see, Den and Sea are very comparable.
I already knew Seattles 12th best rushing average was a lot more "pedestrian" than most folks think, and that they're 8.4 yds/pass was better than our average (and everyone but Philly.)

The difference is 1) Seattle has the D to get away that and 2) our offense is supposed to be a LOT better than theirs—and everyone elses EVER.

Sure didn't look like it Sunday.

Joel
02-06-2014, 02:13 PM
I think I read somewhere that only happened to Manning. No other QB was strip-sacked all year. In fact, no other QB was ever pressured, threw an INT or injured all year except Manning.

Good lord, Joel. I think you need a break.
No other QB had his stellar offensive line. People keep giving me the "do you even WATCH the games?!!!" line, but how can ANYONE look at that SB and say our lines OK, let alone great?

Facts matter unless inconvenient; then they're mere anomalies; "just one game." At least we can gaze up at a beautiful sunset 24/7. http://www.migravent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/1480478-p-2x.jpg

Northman
02-06-2014, 02:16 PM
I would normally agree - if the Super Bowl wouldn't have played our exactly like the preseason game. It was obviously more representative that we'd like to admit.


Yea, again you cant hinge everything on preseason play however......

Manning played all the way up until about 6 minutes left in the first half of the preseason game so basically in the last 6 quarters the Broncos were outscored 55-15. They had a total 7 turnovers for both games and our 3rd down efficiency was 35% for the preseason game and 46% for the Super Bowl. There is just too much coincidences between both matchups to simply write it off as one bad game. The games were very similiar in both cases.

Tned
02-06-2014, 02:21 PM
I already knew Seattles 12th best rushing average was a lot more "pedestrian" than most folks think, and that they're 8.4 yds/pass was better than our average (and everyone but Philly.)

The difference is 1) Seattle has the D to get away that and 2) our offense is supposed to be a LOT better than theirs—and everyone elses EVER.

Sure didn't look like it Sunday.

You just claimed that Denver was terrible on 1st and 2nd downs, had a bunch of three and outs, and relied on big plays to convert 3rd down and big plays to score, to make up for all their three and outs. What's your basis for these claims?

Ravage!!!
02-06-2014, 02:25 PM
We'd have long drives if we could, especially once our defensive starters started heading to IR; that's how we rest the ones left and reduce chances to get hurt.

If we could??? Come on Joel..... you can't be serious. You are suggesting this offense couldnt' just sustain drives instead of scoring, if they had chosen to? We just "kept scoring" instead and couldnt' slow ourselves down??

Hawgdriver
02-06-2014, 03:23 PM
Manning rarely gets sacked or hit. OFFENSIVE LINE SUCKS! LOL.

This is the game I was watching.

4282

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 03:53 PM
Stop right there for a moment. How often did we actually TRY for a 7 minute drive? When your QB throws for 55 TDs, and you are the most prolific scoring team in NFL history, its not a offense that tries to simply HOLD onto the ball. THey are going all out, scoring, a LOT and very often scoring very quickly. To try and say that this offense didn't "have a 7 minute drive" was purely because we weren't TRYING to have 7 minute drives. Then, there are offense in the NFL that are/were VASTLY inferior to Denver's offense....yet they had better production against Seattle than we did on Sunday. Sometimes bad games happen and the momentum takes a bad swing, but lets stop with this "we only performed well against bad teams" junk where it lies and walk away.

It's not like Gase and Manning both said they wanted run the offense at a faster clip. It's also not like Denver intentionally took the air out of the ball in both games.

Joel
02-06-2014, 04:01 PM
You just claimed that Denver was terrible on 1st and 2nd downs, had a bunch of three and outs, and relied on big plays to convert 3rd down and big plays to score, to make up for all their three and outs. What's your basis for these claims?
Watching the games, but thanks for (more) stats showing the best offense in NFL history had about the same 1st/2nd down performance as Seattles plodding offense.

Seattles unremarkable offense relies on its elite D to keep games close enough 20 pts will win, but STILL averaged more per run AND pass than our record-setting offense.

Ya'll tell me how that's more than just big plays rather than long drives.


If we could??? Come on Joel..... you can't be serious. You are suggesting this offense couldnt' just sustain drives instead of scoring, if they had chosen to? We just "kept scoring" instead and couldnt' slow ourselves down??
No, we kept TRYING to score IMMEDIATELY, and are "skill" players are good enough we often succeeded. It usually took more than a few tries, so we either didn't start hitting much till the second half of previously close games, or ONLY hit a lot early, so we jumped out to big leads only to wind up hanging on to a close one.

With a second half lead, teams kill the clock with a 1st down 3-4 yd run followed by two more; lather, rinse, repeat. Denver's the only team since the Run 'n Shoot Oilers to regularly do it with a 3rd down 30 yd pass, for the same reason: Because that's how they got the lead in the first place. It's also how The Comeback happened.

Joel
02-06-2014, 04:03 PM
It's not like Gase and Manning both said they wanted run the offense at a faster clip. It's also not like Denver intentionally took the air out of the ball in both games.
It's not like they could do that fearlessly against the poor defenses they faced in both games. It's not like being a pass-only team against Seattle wasn't declaring open season on Manning. They took the air out of the ball against NE and SD because that's how both would've beaten us if we hadn't, and because a GENUINELY great offense has enough blocking it's not one-dimensional.

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 04:05 PM
Joel, you need to invest in Sunday Ticket and actually start watching the games, or at least looking at the stats. Here's some comparisons of run/pass play results by down:

First Down


Den -- 273 rushing plays (3.95 average yards per rush), 283 passing plays (8.4 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 247 rushing plays (4.06 average yards per rush), 192 passing plays (7.83 average yards per passing play)


Second Down


Den -- 151 rushing plays (4.48 average yards per rush), 235 passing plays (8.17 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 169 rushing plays (4.04 average yards per rush), 150 passing plays (7.9 average yards per passing play)


Third Down


Den -- 32 rushing plays (2.22 average yards per rush), 173 passing plays (6.54 average yards per passing play)
Sea -- 37 rushing plays (2.57 average yards per rush), 166 passing plays (5.81 average yards per passing play)

As you can see, Den and Sea are very comparable.

Don't bother me with facts I already have my mind made up.

Signed

Joel :wave:

Joel
02-06-2014, 04:07 PM
Don't bother me with facts I already have my mind made up.

Signed

Joel :wave:
The fact our offense averaged less per down than Seattles crappy one proves everything's fine? So if we switched offenses you'd be confident next season?

Tned
02-06-2014, 04:10 PM
The fact our offense averaged less per down than Seattles crappy one proves everything's fine? So if we switched offenses you'd be confident next season?

Again I will ask. What do you have to backup your contention that the Broncos had a bunch of three and outs, and only racked up points on big plays? Also, the same question for your contention that they were awful on first and second downs, requiring them to make big plays to convert 3rd downs?

TXBRONC
02-06-2014, 04:12 PM
The fact our offense averaged less per down than Seattles crappy one proves everything's fine? So if we switched offenses you'd be confident next season?

Likes games you obviously didn't actually read though the stats.

Slick
02-06-2014, 04:31 PM
I don't think we can difinitively say we don't have/had the horses to compete with Seattle. We played so shitty and made so many mistakes. Had Denver played a clean game and got steamrolled I would agree. Denver has a team capable of beating any team in the league, they just sucked out loud on Sunday.

Mental toughness is fair game.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 04:33 PM
This is the game I was watching.

4282

One play.

Now, instead of wanting to blow the team up over one game, we're resorting to one play?

Good grief.

BroncoNut
02-06-2014, 04:35 PM
One bad game doesn't make the line bad. That's reactionary bullshit.

And please don't respond with the "Manning's ankle crap." That was just as flukey.

OMG.. talk about reactionary. the line is not bad, just not strong enough to keep pressure off of manning to beat seattle in a superbowl gam.. or any game as far as im concerned. sure, we can beat 26 or so of the 31 likely, but we can't win the superbowl without addressing a few things. are you telling me you do not agree with that.??? if so, you are not only short, but also a Mormon

I've got my opinions. to enhance the skills of Peyton manning I, personally would put a pocket around him. I pin this loss on a team effort more than any singl playeer or group. Offensive players can only block for so long, and you know what??? the best corners can only cover for so long. manning was forced to throw in most if not all of those situations, small widows and not too much in Yac as a result. He did it pretty well actually. what was his passing percentage, pretty good wasn't it?

I wouldn't count on the Seahawks changing their style anytime soon. And I would suggest that you pull your head out of your ass and start accepting some realities of this league mister.. . That is if you want to come along for the ride, otherwise you can take your pay now

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
02-06-2014, 04:52 PM
OMG.. talk about reactionary. the line is not bad, just not strong enough to keep pressure off of manning to beat seattle in a superbowl gam.. or any game as far as im concerned. sure, we can beat 26 or so of the 31 likely, but we can't win the superbowl without addressing a few things. are you telling me you do not agree with that.??? if so, you are not only short, but also a Mormon

I've got my opinions. to enhance the skills of Peyton manning I, personally would put a pocket around him. I pin this loss on a team effort more than any singl playeer or group. Offensive players can only block for so long, and you know what??? the best corners can only cover for so long. manning was forced to throw in most if not all of those situations, small widows and not too much in Yac as a result. He did it pretty well actually. what was his passing percentage, pretty good wasn't it?

I wouldn't count on the Seahawks changing their style anytime soon. And I would suggest that you pull your head out of your ass and start accepting some realities of this league mister.. . That is if you want to come along for the ride, otherwise you can take your pay now

What disappoints me is at no time did we try to go with any two TE sets. We didn't really give the line any help in that game. Hopefully next year will be defferent. We'll be able to leave Clady on an island and ocassionally swing help over to Franklin.

Hawgdriver
02-06-2014, 04:53 PM
One play.

Now, instead of wanting to blow the team up over one game, we're resorting to one play?

Good grief.

You don't really want each and every example of where the O-line didn't match up to Seattle, do you? You haven't already forgotten how much pressure Seattle generated, how much they disrupted Manning, have you? You don't realllllly think it was just one play, right? That's just drama-talk, right?

I'm not in the "blow up the team" camp. I think we are closer than most credit. But the offensive line is not a strength in our matchup against Seattle, and it needs to be addressed. If "blowing up the team" means a change to the O-line that takes it from can't-stop-the-Seattle-pressure to Manning-has-time-and-space-to-throw, then by all means blow it up.

Yes, the rest of the season the O-line did fine, considering the injuries and so on. But we aren't talking about a generic 2013 Broncos game, we are talking about the Seattle matchup.

And in that matchup, the picture of Avril in Manning's face is a fair representation of why the O-line was not up to the task.

BroncoJoe
02-06-2014, 04:59 PM
You don't really want each and every example of where the O-line didn't match up to Seattle, do you? You haven't already forgotten how much pressure Seattle generated, how much they disrupted Manning, have you? You don't realllllly think it was just one play, right? That's just drama-talk, right?

I'm not in the "blow up the team" camp. I think we are closer than most credit. But the offensive line is not a strength in our matchup against Seattle, and it needs to be addressed. If "blowing up the team" means a change to the O-line that takes it from can't-stop-the-Seattle-pressure to Manning-has-time-and-space-to-throw, then by all means blow it up.

Yes, the rest of the season the O-line did fine, considering the injuries and so on. But we aren't talking about a generic 2013 Broncos game, we are talking about the Seattle matchup.

And in that matchup, the picture of Avril in Manning's face is a fair representation of why the O-line was not up to the task.

Record for completions in a Superbowl. The pressure was there, but there were a lot of things going on that for some inexplicable reason we weren't expecting.

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 05:06 PM
You don't really want each and every example of where the O-line didn't match up to Seattle, do you? You haven't already forgotten how much pressure Seattle generated, how much they disrupted Manning, have you? You don't realllllly think it was just one play, right? That's just drama-talk, right?

I'm not in the "blow up the team" camp. I think we are closer than most credit. But the offensive line is not a strength in our matchup against Seattle, and it needs to be addressed. If "blowing up the team" means a change to the O-line that takes it from can't-stop-the-Seattle-pressure to Manning-has-time-and-space-to-throw, then by all means blow it up.

Yes, the rest of the season the O-line did fine, considering the injuries and so on. But we aren't talking about a generic 2013 Broncos game, we are talking about the Seattle matchup.

And in that matchup, the picture of Avril in Manning's face is a fair representation of why the O-line was not up to the task.

And the one game still isn't an indictment on the line. They got whipped. In ONE GAME.

The line immediately gets better when Clady returns, and it was already one of the better lines in football, despite some of the dumb things Joel talks about.

The key to evaluating the line isn't the three strip sacks it allowed in 19 games, or the one sack and the four pressures one defense had on the quarterback. It's every play of every drive of every game.

Hawgdriver
02-06-2014, 05:22 PM
The line immediately gets better when Clady returns...

I was thinking about that. It sounds good, sure would be nice to have him at 100%. I hope this chatter about his injury having lingering effects is a bunch of hooey.

Hawgdriver
02-06-2014, 05:45 PM
Record for completions in a Superbowl. The pressure was there, but there were a lot of things going on that for some inexplicable reason we weren't expecting.

Yeah, they did get some good work in. It wasn't all bad. But I'm not that comfortable with this line stopping the pressure in key situations next time around.

Ravage!!!
02-06-2014, 06:07 PM
Losing 2 centers and your starting LT is a big bump..and I think the OL was helped a LOT by Manning...... as we've seen QBs help OLs across the league. Hell, Manning went to the SUper Bowl in INdy with a 1st round LT that they ended up DROPPING because he was so bad. So yeah, the OL is a place that could use an upgrade in strength, so that when you DO come across teams that can put pressure with just the front four, then we can run some routes other than the "oh shit, i gotta get rid of the ball" ones we had to in the Super Bowl.

As I mentioned before, Manning was ROLLING OUT against Seattle....several times. How often did Manning "roll out" during the season? It's not a bash on the team to accept the fact that our OL did get whipped, because we aren't ALWAYS going to have Manning to do his magic and help our OL out.

At the same time, this OL did one HELL of a job all year long despite having to recover some from BIG time injuries. As far as the Manning "ankles" go...there is no proof in the ankles. ONE hit on one guy can take out any number of limbs and joints...that doesn't show a weakness at an entire position. There is a reason that the DLman get paid (and pass rushers VERy well), and that is to get pressure on the QB. Just because one of their pass rushers beat our OL on a play, doesn't mean they are weak across the front, or were weak all season long.

Joel
02-06-2014, 06:49 PM
Again I will ask. What do you have to backup your contention that the Broncos had a bunch of three and outs, and only racked up points on big plays? Also, the same question for your contention that they were awful on first and second downs, requiring them to make big plays to convert 3rd downs?
Other than my eyes, "The Broncos were in 3rd and 6+ 54% of the time, Seattle 52% of the time;" that's a negligible difference between us and a very poor offense.

Averaging 8.3 yds/passing attempt is another piece of evidence; Manning had nearly a 70% completion percentage, so he averaged ~12 YPC. Even if they were all EXACTLY 12 yds that's a good sized chunk, but there were plenty of quick slants/outs that only went for ~5, and each had to be offset by a 19 yd pass (or each 2 by a 26 yd pass) to keep the average at 12.


Record for completions in a Superbowl. The pressure was there, but there were a lot of things going on that for some inexplicable reason we weren't expecting.
It's not inexplicable at all: They have an excellent front 7, and our line can't protect Manning from that nor open holes in it for Moreno and Ball. 43-8 is only a mystery if we refuse to look at why.

Clady's return will be very welcome, but won't help Beadles (whom we probably must replace whether we like it or not) and Franklin. If two centers on IR is the only reason Ramirez was in there, well, one of those centers came out of retirement only to tear his ACL, so he's done, and the other one we CUT after he got healthy, so Ramirez is still the best we've got.

I don't know why anyone takes any comfort in the false notion our line's fine and only got destroyed for 3½ hrs straight because of prep or mental weakness: Even if true, why would it change?

VonDoom
02-06-2014, 08:00 PM
I think replacing one or maybe two guys on the o-line is not exactly "blowing it up." Clady should be good if healthy, Vasquez was a beast all year and Ramirez was worlds better than expected. I'd like to upgrade Beadles, obviously. Not sure what to think about Franklin, but we also have Clark to move around. All in all, I don't think the line is that bad. Manning makes them look better and they obviously played like crap against Seattle. Doesn't mean we have to toss everyone, though.

My personal feeling is that the offense (and Manning in particular) didn't trust our mediocre defense and that's why they desperately tried to make plays in that game. Taking sacks, throwing the ball away, etc, is preferable to what we saw if we know the defense is stout. I think that's why, even though our defense wasn't truly to blame for the SB loss, that people want to spend most of our draft picks on that side of the ball. We don't have to be the highest scoring offense of all time; I think even losing Decker and Moreno, we can put up 30 a game next year. As stated somewhere above, we can probably beat most teams on any given Sunday. Is that good enough to win a SB? Based on this year, I'd say no. That's why I want a more balanced team, and a defense we can believe in. Guys coming back from injury, plus some strategic FA pickups and good drafting will make this defense look much better.

Look, we got our asses kicked on Sunday, but I think that the talking point of, "We'll never beat a team like Seattle" is a bit overblown. We'll retool and try again next year. Get some swagger in that defense and we'll be fine. The one benefit of playing that hard schedule next year is to be battle tested. If we win the division again, I doubt we'll be in a position to get a bye, so we'll have to go on the road and win some playoff games. A good/great defense is where it's at in that case.

MOtorboat
02-06-2014, 08:01 PM
Other than my eyes, "The Broncos were in 3rd and 6+ 54% of the time, Seattle 52% of the time;" that's a negligible difference between us and a very poor offense.

Averaging 8.3 yds/passing attempt is another piece of evidence; Manning had nearly a 70% completion percentage, so he averaged ~12 YPC. Even if they were all EXACTLY 12 yds that's a good sized chunk, but there were plenty of quick slants/outs that only went for ~5, and each had to be offset by a 19 yd pass (or each 2 by a 26 yd pass) to keep the average at 12.


It's not inexplicable at all: They have an excellent front 7, and our line can't protect Manning from that nor open holes in it for Moreno and Ball. 43-8 is only a mystery if we refuse to look at why.

Clady's return will be very welcome, but won't help Beadles (whom we probably must replace whether we like it or not) and Franklin. If two centers on IR is the only reason Ramirez was in there, well, one of those centers came out of retirement only to tear his ACL, so he's done, and the other one we CUT after he got healthy, so Ramirez is still the best we've got.

I don't know why anyone takes any comfort in the false notion our line's fine and only got destroyed for 3½ hrs straight because of prep or mental weakness: Even if true, why would it change?

Come on. Nothing about the Super Bowl performance was comforting.

But just like Rahim Moore last year, you don't evaluate anyone on a few plays, or even one game.

Joel
02-06-2014, 08:18 PM
Come on. Nothing about the Super Bowl performance was comforting.

But just like Rahim Moore last year, you don't evaluate anyone on a few plays, or even one game.
On the contrary, our defense continued the consistently stellar playoff performance it turned in despite being without half its starters. They played practically the entire first half, yet only allowed ONE TD when they were exhausted at the end. Even then Seattle needed a third down PI on Carter in the end zone or we'd have kept them out 3 times in a row, even though the "drive" STARTED on OUR 37. A power running SB Champ had the game leading rusher with <50 yds, and it wasn't Lynch: Stopped him cold.

Had the Greatest Passing in History done HALF as much as our D we win that game going away, but with no line surge or holes for the RBs and no protection for the QB it was hopeless.

VonDoom: Clark's a nice depth backup, but not starting material; I don't think replacing a bad LT with a bad RT is the solution, nor do I think replacing a bad RG with a bad LT is. Shuffling a bad hand doesn't change anything unless one gets new cards; otherwise, it just moves around the same bad ones. Ramirez might be OK with a good G on either side of him, but we need that good LG and a good RT for the other side even if Clady's 100% healthy next year; if he's not we DEFINITELY need a top OT and OG. With them we beat Seatle; without, another 43-8 or 40-10.

Tned
02-06-2014, 10:22 PM
Other than my eyes, "The Broncos were in 3rd and 6+ 54% of the time, Seattle 52% of the time;" that's a negligible difference between us and a very poor offense.

Averaging 8.3 yds/passing attempt is another piece of evidence; Manning had nearly a 70% completion percentage, so he averaged ~12 YPC. Even if they were all EXACTLY 12 yds that's a good sized chunk, but there were plenty of quick slants/outs that only went for ~5, and each had to be offset by a 19 yd pass (or each 2 by a 26 yd pass) to keep the average at 12.



Joel, you do realize that the Broncos led the NFL in plays from scrimmage, but also had the fourth fewest punts, they completely dominated the league in first downs per game, and you are just going to double down on your contention that the Broncos were a team that had a ton of three and outs and had to rely on big plays to score? Really? You're going to double down on that, without providing one shred of data to back that up?

Tned
02-06-2014, 10:46 PM
Joel, I could just toy with you, because it's just hillarious to watch you make these ridiculous assertions and have no ability to back them up, then to post unrelated facts and stats, so here are some of the actual ones related to drives.

The Broncos averaged 38 yards per drive, which was second to only SD (40 YPD) in the NFL (league average 30 YPD).
The Broncos averaged 6.07 plays per drive, which was 5th in the league.

And, wait for it, wait for it....

The Broncos went three and out on 15.4% of their drives (31 of 202 drives), the only team that had a lower percentage of three and out was SD (13.8%). NE was third best at 18.4%.

So, as usual, you just pulled crap out of your butt, and rather than letting it go, you attempt to double down on it and prove your contention through hyperbole and shoveling as much BS as possible.

ANYONE that watched the Broncos this year would know that the Broncos did not have a lot of three and outs, and put up their points by having long scoring plays. However, to further illustrate the ludicrousness of the "they scored on big plays" nonsense, the Broncos also led the league in red zone scoring attempts and conversion in 2013.

51 of their 71 TDs came from within the Red Zone.

This was not a team that went three and out or scored on big plays.

Anyway, not sure why I waste my breath (words).

Joel
02-07-2014, 12:12 AM
Joel, you do realize that the Broncos led the NFL in plays from scrimmage, but also had the fourth fewest punts, they completely dominated the league in first downs per game, and you are just going to double down on your contention that the Broncos were a team that had a ton of three and outs and had to rely on big plays to score? Really? You're going to double down on that, without providing one shred of data to back that up?
Big plays tend to produce first downs, unless they score TDs outright. Remember the SD loss? Or the first KC game, when our failure to get first downs let them almost come back and force OT? Thank heaven for Mike Adams batting away their 4th down end zone pass. We're feast or famine, like a slugger batting .205 with 40 HRs. Teams want A guy like that, not a whole lineup.

Sunday should've been SB L: Celebrate the mergers golden anniversary with a classic AFL team (small fast D, tons of passing) vs. a classic NFL team (power running, power D.)

MOtorboat
02-07-2014, 12:14 AM
Big plays tend to produce first downs, unless they score TDs outright. Remember the SD loss? Or the first KC game, when our failure to get first downs let them almost come back and force OT? Thank heaven for Mike Adams batting away their 4th down end zone pass. We're feast or famine, like a slugger batting .205 with 40 HRs. Teams want A guy like that, not a whole lineup.

Sunday should've been SB L: Celebrate the mergers golden anniversary with a classic AFL team (small fast D, tons of passing) vs. a classic NFL team (power running, power D.)

Do you remember the 15 wins? Once again. Joel is wrong and he still won't shut up.

Joel
02-07-2014, 12:22 AM
Joel, I could just toy with you, because it's just hillarious to watch you make these ridiculous assertions and have no ability to back them up, then to post unrelated facts and stats, so here are some of the actual ones related to drives.

The Broncos averaged 38 yards per drive, which was second to only SD (40 YPD) in the NFL (league average 30 YPD).
Big plays are big because they get big yardage, so that stat proves nothing.


The Broncos averaged 6.07 plays per drive, which was 5th in the league.
Big plays also get first downs, so a big third down play followed by three short ones (like our penultimate drive vs. SD) is still a 6 play drive. Again, the stat proves nothing.


And, wait for it, wait for it....

The Broncos went three and out on 15.4% of their drives (31 of 202 drives), the only team that had a lower percentage of three and out was SD (13.8%). NE was third best at 18.4%.
That DOES refute the claim of many three-and-outs, but STILL doesn't disprove the larger claim we lived and died by big plays; a big play prevents three-and-outs, but only earns ONE conversion.


So, as usual, you just pulled crap out of your butt, and rather than letting it go, you attempt to double down on it and prove your contention through hyperbole and shoveling as much BS as possible.

ANYONE that watched the Broncos this year would know that the Broncos did not have a lot of three and outs, and put up their points by having long scoring plays. However, to further illustrate the ludicrousness of the "they scored on big plays" nonsense, the Broncos also led the league in red zone scoring attempts and conversion in 2013.

51 of their 71 TDs came from within the Red Zone.
One of the many nice things about big plays is they get the team to the Red Zone even if never gains another inch, or even loses yardage. One of the many nice things about the Red Zone is teams that get there don't have far to go for a TD. There's a lot to be sad for the big play, and I actually prefer an offense that uses the pass primarily for one-play conversions, Red Zone trips or outright TDs, with most picks being little worse than punts. I just don't want to LIVE off that, because a one-dimensional offense is a vulnerable offense.


This was not a team that went three and out or scored on big plays.

Anyway, not sure why I waste my breath (words).
I assure you I empathize. ;)

Joel
02-07-2014, 12:25 AM
Do you remember the 15 wins? Once again. Joel is wrong and he still won't shut up.
Do you remember the Alamo? Both are about equally relevant to the discussion (which is to say, not at all.)

MOtorboat
02-07-2014, 12:28 AM
Do you remember the Alamo? Both are about equally relevant to the discussion (which is to say, not at all.)

So, Denver's 15 wins are irrelevant?

Joel, you've been proven wrong. Back away buddy. It's embarrassing.

Tned
02-07-2014, 12:30 AM
OMG, someone shoot me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

pnbronco
02-07-2014, 01:18 AM
OMG, someone shoot me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

Where is a water gun when I need it????

BTW the weather sucks here in Denver. I set up my booth in minus 4 yesterday and it was all the way up to minus 2 when I got to my show this morning. I know this has nothing to do with the topic but well you know....lol

I think we need a real Full Back....OK I'm trying....

BTW I read the 1st page and Tned's if there are serious solutions....I'm sorry I'm too tired right now to go through them.

dogfish
02-07-2014, 01:21 AM
Where is a water gun when I need it????

BTW the weather sucks here in Denver. I set up my booth in minus 4 yesterday and it was all the way up to minus 2 when I got to my show this morning. I know this has nothing to do with the topic but well you know....lol

I think we need a real Full Back....OK I'm trying....

hi, P. . .

when does camp start?

:frusty: :lol:

pnbronco
02-07-2014, 01:24 AM
hi, P. . .

when does camp start?

:frusty: :lol:

At the end of the summer when it's not minus 4 outside....you think I'm bitter right now....oh yeah....Mr. Stinkers.....:eviltongue:

Joel
02-07-2014, 01:55 AM
So, Denver's 15 wins are irrelevant?
Completely irrelevant to how they won. If a rockslide wipes out a small town we don't say, "Hundreds were brutally slain; their murderer MUST be brought to justice!"


Joel, you've been proven wrong. Back away buddy. It's embarrassing.
I've been proven wrong on lots of three-and-outs, not living off big plays. There was a big logic leap from each stat quoted, the old "all dogs have 4 feet, a cat has 4 feet; thus a cat is a dog" bit.

Saying our per play average matches Seattle ought to be a big red flag: They scored a LOT less than us this year, so how'd we score so much more with the same average gain? Because instead of (for example) a ton of 12 yd passes averages the same amount as a half ton of 5 yd passes and a half ton of 19 yd passes; which gets more first downs? Same mean; different median.

Dzone
02-07-2014, 03:18 AM
haha its entertainment reading some of this. People can spew whatever opinion they want. Dont make no shit to me

Hawgdriver
02-07-2014, 03:41 AM
Yeah, this is the post-apocalyptic mess that trolls enjoy browsing.

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 07:43 AM
Big plays are big because they get big yardage, so that stat proves nothing.


Big plays also get first downs, so a big third down play followed by three short ones (like our penultimate drive vs. SD) is still a 6 play drive. Again, the stat proves nothing.


That DOES refute the claim of many three-and-outs, but STILL doesn't disprove the larger claim we lived and died by big plays; a big play prevents three-and-outs, but only earns ONE conversion.


One of the many nice things about big plays is they get the team to the Red Zone even if never gains another inch, or even loses yardage. One of the many nice things about the Red Zone is teams that get there don't have far to go for a TD. There's a lot to be sad for the big play, and I actually prefer an offense that uses the pass primarily for one-play conversions, Red Zone trips or outright TDs, with most picks being little worse than punts. I just don't want to LIVE off that, because a one-dimensional offense is a vulnerable offense.


I assure you I empathize. ;)

You've proven flat out, no doubt about it wrong you should let it go buecause it's making you look stupid.

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 07:46 AM
:suspicious:
Yeah, this is the post-apocalyptic mess that trolls enjoy browsing.

Are you a post-apocalyptic troll? :suspicious:

Tned
02-07-2014, 08:12 AM
Where is a water gun when I need it????

BTW the weather sucks here in Denver. I set up my booth in minus 4 yesterday and it was all the way up to minus 2 when I got to my show this morning. I know this has nothing to do with the topic but well you know....lol

I think we need a real Full Back....OK I'm trying....

BTW I read the 1st page and Tned's if there are serious solutions....I'm sorry I'm too tired right now to go through them.

I'm feeling your weather woes. Arkansas is having one of the worst winters that anyone can remember in the last 30-40 years. Overnight our forecast changed from partly cloudy today to 3 inches of snow.

Tned
02-07-2014, 08:15 AM
You've proven flat out, no doubt about it wrong you should let it go buecause it's making you look stupid.

It's unbelievable. After having spent most of last year away from the forum due to work stuff, I now fully understand why so many people are frustrated for him. He argues for the sake of arguing, because NOBODY could state the unsubstantiated garbage that he does and actually believe it.

Tned
02-07-2014, 08:23 AM
I know at this point people are laughing at me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with Joel, but my last foray.

As to his assertion that Broncos lived off the big play. While the Broncos had the most plays from scrimmage, when it comes to the BIG pass and rush plays, even in absolute numbers, the Broncos were average to below average.

Passing
15th 20+ Yards
13th 40+ Yards


Rushing
23 20+ Yards
21 40+ Yards

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 09:08 AM
I know at this point people are laughing at me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with Joel, but my last foray.

As to his assertion that Broncos lived off the big play. While the Broncos had the most plays from scrimmage, when it comes to the BIG pass and rush plays, even in absolute numbers, the Broncos were average to below average.

Passing
15th 20+ Yards
13th 40+ Yards


Rushing
23 20+ Yards
21 40+ Yards

I don't keep information at my finger tips but without knowing the numbers I knew Denver wasn't living off of big plays. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Watch the games and you'll know and I'm not convinced Joel actually watches the games.

Tned
02-07-2014, 09:13 AM
I don't keep information at my finger tips but without knowing the numbers I knew Denver wasn't living off of big plays. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Watch the games and you'll know and I'm not convinced Joel actually watches the games.

There's no way he can. I think he lives in Slovenia or someplace like that, and probably only sees a game or two and maybe some highlights. So, he probably sees the occasional DT screen pass that he takes 25 yards down the sideline, or the VERY rare long post pass for a TD to Decker or Welker and assume that is how Broncos are getting their scores.

There is no way that anyone that has actually watched the Broncos games would have made the statements that he made, such as how they are feast or famine, three and out or big scoring play, because it's 100% the opposite of what happens in reality. Those of us watching the games know that the big scoring plays are very rare, and in fact they are a dink and dunk, grind it out team.

Anyway, it's a shame he doesn't realize how foolish and uniformed he looks, when he makes statements that are polar opposite to what actually takes place on the field.

Mike
02-07-2014, 10:00 AM
I don't keep information at my finger tips but without knowing the numbers I knew Denver wasn't living off of big plays. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Watch the games and you'll know and I'm not convinced Joel actually watches the games.

Denver doesn't live off a big plays. They live off of picks and quick passes. When that breaks down or when the receivers get manhandled, we struggle. The run game feeds off of that passing game. When it fails, the wheels come off. It happened to us in Indy, to a degree in the first NE game, and in the second SD game. Obviously not too many teams could do it, so it wasn't too big of a deal. But, outside of turnovers, it is Denver's biggest vulnerability.

That is why I have been saying that we need to upgrade the o-line. Let the run game stand on it's own, help the pass rush. It will go a long way in making us not so one-dimensional and give us a chance when Manning has an off game.

BroncoNut
02-07-2014, 10:22 AM
haha its entertainment reading some of this. People can spew whatever opinion they want. Dont make no shit to me

you and I both brutha

BroncoNut
02-07-2014, 10:24 AM
What disappoints me is at no time did we try to go with any two TE sets. We didn't really give the line any help in that game. Hopefully next year will be defferent. We'll be able to leave Clady on an island and ocassionally swing help over to Franklin.

I was thinking that at some time. more I was thinking were Tamme had been all day (I like him). may have seen some play, I kinda quit paying attention after the ko return

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 11:01 AM
Denver doesn't live off a big plays. They live off of picks and quick passes. When that breaks down or when the receivers get manhandled, we struggle. The run game feeds off of that passing game. When it fails, the wheels come off. It happened to us in Indy, to a degree in the first NE game, and in the second SD game. Obviously not too many teams could do it, so it wasn't too big of a deal. But, outside of turnovers, it is Denver's biggest vulnerability.

That is why I have been saying that we need to upgrade the o-line. Let the run game stand on it's own, help the pass rush. It will go a long way in making us not so one-dimensional and give us a chance when Manning has an off game.

I don't think it's the blocking it was lead running back. Moreno is good back he's not explosive Ball on the other is a little more gifted runner but I think Denver still needs to find someone to complement him.

Edit: I look at games where Denver purposely took the air out of the ball they were effective at running the ball. Some of our best games running were against the Chiefs, the win against the Chargers, and the loss to the Patriots. You could also include the games against Giants, Cowboys and Eagles. You want the running attack that more effective then get a running back that is capable of consistently carrying the ball 20 to 25 times. That also means Denver a 60:40 pass to run ratio.

BroncoNut
02-07-2014, 11:04 AM
Yeah, this is the post-apocalyptic mess that trolls enjoy browsing.

who are really the trolls here?

chazoe60
02-07-2014, 11:16 AM
who are really the trolls here?
SuperChop. ****, every time I see a new thread by him I want to scream. I honestly think he's crazy.

BroncoNut
02-07-2014, 11:30 AM
SuperChop. ****, every time I see a new thread by him I want to scream. I honestly think he's crazy.

oh yeah, he's nuts

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 11:39 AM
SuperChop. ****, every time I see a new thread by him I want to scream. I honestly think he's crazy.

You're a few bricks shy a full load too Chazoe. It's not that I disagree with you on your assesment of Chop but hey you are one wacked out mofo. :D

Northman
02-07-2014, 12:32 PM
Denver lived off the presence of backup kicker Anubis.


Im sorry guys.....i missed the bus to the game..... :(

Hawgdriver
02-07-2014, 12:50 PM
:suspicious:

Are you a post-apocalyptic troll? :suspicious:

Are you?

Man in the mirror time, TX. Man in the mirror.

4285

Hawgdriver
02-07-2014, 12:53 PM
I know at this point people are laughing at me for trying to have a reasonable discussion with Joel, but my last foray.

As to his assertion that Broncos lived off the big play. While the Broncos had the most plays from scrimmage, when it comes to the BIG pass and rush plays, even in absolute numbers, the Broncos were average to below average.

Passing
15th 20+ Yards
13th 40+ Yards


Rushing
23 20+ Yards
21 40+ Yards

No way. That surprises me. I believe, but source please? I want to do some digging.

Hawgdriver
02-07-2014, 12:57 PM
who are really the trolls here?

You can't see them.

But they are e * v * e * r * y * w * h * e * r * e.

Looking over your shoulder.

On the edges of the monitor.

Lurking.

Hovering.

Waiting. . .

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 01:05 PM
Denver lived off the presence of backup kicker Anubis.


Im sorry guys.....i missed the bus to the game..... :(

Your pink slip wil be arriving soon.

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 01:07 PM
Are you?

Man in the mirror time, TX. Man in the mirror.

4285


I was joking Hawg. :D

Tned
02-07-2014, 01:08 PM
No way. That surprises me. I believe, but source please? I want to do some digging.

I have no idea. I thought I got it from NFL.com, but looking there, those don't match. I even checked to see if I put the wrong year, or was looking at preseason, and am finding nothing that matches those numbers. Hmmm. I wasn't drinking this morning, I swear.

Hawgdriver
02-07-2014, 01:11 PM
I was joking Hawg. :D

Me too buddy. Nothing but love here for everyone. Except MO ofc.

TXBRONC
02-07-2014, 02:42 PM
Me too buddy. Nothing but love here for everyone. Except MO ofc.

Yeah MO is kind of challenging but he's alright most of the time.

Hawgdriver
02-07-2014, 04:35 PM
Yeah MO is kind of challenging but he's alright most of the time.

This is my friend MO. He's pretty cool. Although he's not always so smart.

oi4O2b9Vc9U

TimHippo
02-07-2014, 08:49 PM
Yeah MO is kind of challenging but he's alright most of the time.

MO's not too shabby for an aging hipster.