PDA

View Full Version : Drops, run game need Broncos' attention



Denver Native (Carol)
09-08-2014, 04:16 PM
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- An examination of what the Denver Broncos must to after their win over the Indianapolis Colts:

When a game gets a little frayed around the edges before it eventually ends a victory, quarterback Peyton Manning will often quote his first NFL head coach -- Jim Mora.

"(Mora) used to say 'don't take winning for granted,'" Manning said after a game got a little frayed around the edges as the Broncos still came away with a 31-24 victory over the Colts in their season opener. "And sometimes people do it, we'll learn from it."

Some things to consider:

rest - http://espn.go.com/blog/denver-broncos/post/_/id/8579/drops-run-game-need-broncos-attention

dogfish
09-08-2014, 04:40 PM
didn't read the full article, but yea-- all those drops were no bueno. . . some sloppiness and penalties are expected in the first week (especially with the newer limits on TC and padded practices :tsk: ), but drops are just lack of concentration-- gotta get that cleaned up, for sure. . .

MOtorboat
09-08-2014, 05:02 PM
Drops always a problem...

Run game...eight first downs, sixth in the NFL. Doing its job.

TXBRONC
09-08-2014, 05:13 PM
Drops always a problem...

Run game...eight first downs, sixth in the NFL. Doing its job.

The run game need a little more time to gel but it's by no means a dumpster fire like some would have us believe.

MOtorboat
09-08-2014, 05:16 PM
The run game need a little more time to gel but it's by no means a dumpster fire like some would have us believe.

Denver converted 1/4 of its runs into first downs. I'm just not too worried about it.

Hawgdriver
09-08-2014, 05:30 PM
I'm not worried either, but what I'd like to see is a 49ers style beat you into submission running attack to salt games. I wonder if CJ and Juwan could rotate in more often during 2d half when up several scores.

Ziggy
09-08-2014, 05:34 PM
I'm not worried either, but what I'd like to see is a 49ers style beat you into submission running attack to salt games.

This team isn't coached that way. JDR has one of the corners playing off at least 10 yards on every play. This team is coached up to play a bend but don't break type of defense. It will never be elite playing not to lose. Great defenses play to win. When the Broncos went into a full blown prevent defense on Indy's last drive of the half, it became evident that this D is more worried about protecting a big lead than dominating. They also don't swarm to the ball. Great defenses have 12 guys flowing to the ball every play. The Broncos had 12 guys swarming on exactly 2 plays this game. Fortunately, one of them was Luck's attempt at a QB run near the goal line.

MOtorboat
09-08-2014, 05:37 PM
I'm not worried either, but what I'd like to see is a 49ers style beat you into submission running attack to salt games. I wonder if CJ and Juwan could rotate in more often during 2d half when up several scores.

The offense isn't built for that, and I don't think Anderson is that guy, anyway.

TXBRONC
09-08-2014, 05:49 PM
Denver converted 1/4 of its runs into first downs. I'm just not too worried about it.

I'm not either it just needs a little more time to gel. Ball like Miller played one series for the entire preseason.

Hawgdriver
09-08-2014, 05:51 PM
The offense isn't built for that, and I don't think Anderson is that guy, anyway.

Agree. Not too worried, just stating what I think everyone is thinking but hasn't said about a running game. Would I like to see that transformation? Yes. Can an offensive line do both? No idea, doubt it. What's the reality? Priority 1 is keeping Manning upright and giving him good throwing lanes.

Without the drops and with a little more focus, this discussion doesn't happen.

But do you feel better about your odds against the "physical" teams if you can demonstrate a punishing rushing offense to take away the defense's want-to at the end of games?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-08-2014, 06:10 PM
Roby played better than I expected. He was physical and made good plays on the ball. I'm super excited about the kid.

BroncoWave
09-08-2014, 06:43 PM
I think Anderson should get an extended look next week. I really liked what I saw from him last night. I'm not saying bench Ball or anything. Obviously way too early to think about that, but Anderson just has a great burst and finds the holes quickly.

tomjonesrocks
09-08-2014, 06:45 PM
I think Anderson should get an extended look next week. I really liked what I saw from him last night. I'm not saying bench Ball or anything. Obviously way too early to think about that, but Anderson just has a great burst and finds the holes quickly.

I think they had the ratio right. CJ looked less tentative, but if they really think Ball is the guy they need to keep feeding him and get him going. I wouldn't change the carry distribution yet.

Ball very well may prove to be the utterly average back I think he is though. 2.9ypc. Not what you want. I think they should have kept Knowshon around until Ball had really taken the reigns.

JFE is the man, but if he has shown a weak spot, scouting RBs might be it. Passing on Martin, Hillman, Ball over Lacy, letting Knowshon walk uncontested. Hmm.

dogfish
09-08-2014, 07:31 PM
I think Anderson should get an extended look next week. I really liked what I saw from him last night. I'm not saying bench Ball or anything. Obviously way too early to think about that, but Anderson just has a great burst and finds the holes quickly.

but he's a UDFA! the odds!



:heh:

Slick
09-08-2014, 08:14 PM
This team isn't coached that way. JDR has one of the corners playing off at least 10 yards on every play. This team is coached up to play a bend but don't break type of defense. It will never be elite playing not to lose. Great defenses play to win. When the Broncos went into a full blown prevent defense on Indy's last drive of the half, it became evident that this D is more worried about protecting a big lead than dominating. They also don't swarm to the ball. Great defenses have 12 guys flowing to the ball every play. The Broncos had 12 guys swarming on exactly 2 plays this game. Fortunately, one of them was Luck's attempt at a QB run near the goal line.

I hope this wrong. It was week one. Against a top flight QB. There were a couple of times where guys went for int's instead of playing it safe. I liked that. Maybe Del Rio will tighten those guys up a little when he's not going against Luck. Next week should tell us a little more.

VonDoom
09-08-2014, 08:22 PM
I hope this wrong. It was week one. Against a top flight QB. There were a couple of times where guys went for int's instead of playing it safe. I liked that. Maybe Del Rio will tighten those guys up a little when he's not going against Luck. Next week should tell us a little more.

This is pretty much where I'm at regarding this. I hope Del Rio uses guys to play to their strengths - I mean, we brought in these physical guys for a reason, right? That reason can't be to play ten yards off the ball on every pass. Luck is a great QB, so it's hard to read what we've seen so far. Let's see how they play Alex Smith.

Slick
09-08-2014, 08:43 PM
This is pretty much where I'm at regarding this. I hope Del Rio uses guys to play to their strengths - I mean, we brought in these physical guys for a reason, right? That reason can't be to play ten yards off the ball on every pass. Luck is a great QB, so it's hard to read what we've seen so far. Let's see how they play Alex Smith.

Post more VonDoom. I like your style.

dogfish
09-08-2014, 09:34 PM
let's keep in mind that TY hilton is one of the fastest WRs in the league. . . keeping somebody over the top isn't a bad idea. . . finding a proper balance of aggression is always a challenge for the DC on a manning team. . . i mean, personally i'm all about those zero blitzes, but i can see jack's dilemna. . .

NightTrainLayne
09-08-2014, 10:04 PM
let's keep in mind that TY hilton is one of the fastest WRs in the league. . . keeping somebody over the top isn't a bad idea. . . finding a proper balance of aggression is always a challenge for the DC on a manning team. . . i mean, personally i'm all about those zero blitzes, but i can see jack's dilemna. . .

On the broadcast last night they mentioned that the focus all week was not letting Hilton get behind anybody. I can get behind that... I mean it's not like a big, fast receiver has ever gotten behind our secondary when it mattered...at least I don't remember it happening in the past couple of years....

TXBRONC
09-08-2014, 11:08 PM
On the broadcast last night they mentioned that the focus all week was not letting Hilton get behind anybody. I can get behind that... I mean it's not like a big, fast receiver has ever gotten behind our secondary when it mattered...at least I don't remember it happening in the past couple of years....

I'm sure. ;)

dogfish
09-08-2014, 11:14 PM
On the broadcast last night they mentioned that the focus all week was not letting Hilton get behind anybody. I can get behind that... I mean it's not like a big, fast receiver has ever gotten behind our secondary when it mattered...at least I don't remember it happening in the past couple of years....

yep. . . those kinda notes from the production meetings are one of the reasons i tend to leave the broadcast audio on, despite annoying announcers. . .

armedequation
09-09-2014, 12:08 AM
i havent seen it mentioned but you hardly heard harris's name which is a good thing...

Joel
09-09-2014, 03:07 AM
let's keep in mind that TY hilton is one of the fastest WRs in the league. . . keeping somebody over the top isn't a bad idea. . . finding a proper balance of aggression is always a challenge for the DC on a manning team. . . i mean, personally i'm all about those zero blitzes, but i can see jack's dilemna. . .
In the Gameday thread, there were a couple posts questioning why we had a rookie CB on a first ballot HoFer; I think this is why: Because we needed Talib to deal with Hiltons speed and wanted Harris in the slot where he excels. Just my impression, and I concede I wasn't able to see who covered whom on every down.

Joel
09-09-2014, 03:14 AM
The run game was much improved in short yardage, where we got enough line surge to convert 3rd and 2, and there were a few nice holes early, but when we needed it most (i.e. with a big second half lead) our RBs just got stuffed repeatedly and left us in 3rd and long, forced to throw into a defense expecting a pass, so an incomplete stopped the clock and gave Indy the ball for another 2:00 drill against a Broncos D rapidly running out of gas. Not counting the kneel downs, our last two drives lasted 1:20 and 0:28: That's not how you salt away games or PUT away teams trailing by multiple TDs.

YES, that needs attention; this teams too good to keep swinging for the fences with a double digit 4th quarter lead. It stops the clock, triples turnovers and tires our D. When opponents need multiple possessions and a lot of luck to claw their way back into a game we've shut them out of, the LAST thing we should do is increase possessions so they have more chances to roll the dice.

dogfish
09-09-2014, 05:54 PM
In the Gameday thread, there were a couple posts questioning why we had a rookie CB on a first ballot HoFer; I think this is why: Because we needed Talib to deal with Hiltons speed and wanted Harris in the slot where he excels. Just my impression, and I concede I wasn't able to see who covered whom on every down.

not sure what they expect. . . hilton's their most dangerous, expolsive receiver, and nicks isn't exactly an easy cover either. . . rookie or not, if roby's out there, he's gonna be on someone-- it's not like you can hide your nickel back in coverage the way you might with a safety or LB. . .

besides. . . we're gonna need that depth down the stretch. . . may as well let him make some mistakes and learn from them now, as opposed to, say, december or january. . .

EastCoastBronco
09-09-2014, 06:19 PM
I thought we did fine in the run game.
It was the "taking our foot off the gas and trying to hold on for a win" game we played the entire second half that had me worried.
I thought we were done with that.
Since it was week one and we got the "W" I'll give it a slide but the mere hint of "Foxball" makes my stomach turn.

Joel
09-10-2014, 08:59 AM
Agree. Not too worried, just stating what I think everyone is thinking but hasn't said about a running game. Would I like to see that transformation? Yes. Can an offensive line do both? No idea, doubt it. What's the reality? Priority 1 is keeping Manning upright and giving him good throwing lanes.
I've been thinking AND saying it going on three years. You and I (among others) discussed this before the SB, which played like my worst nightmare; as I told you afterward, sometimes I really hate being right. Yet some folks still insist Manning can win a SB without a run game, even though trying went about as well for him as it did for Elway (i.e. slightly better than 55-10, slightly worse than 42-10.)

If Ball keeps averaging right at 3 yds/att, we'll surely see more Anderson and Thompson—and if the run blocking doesn't improve it won't make a bit of difference.

Joel
09-10-2014, 09:03 AM
not sure what they expect. . . hilton's their most dangerous, expolsive receiver, and nicks isn't exactly an easy cover either. . . rookie or not, if roby's out there, he's gonna be on someone-- it's not like you can hide your nickel back in coverage the way you might with a safety or LB. . .

besides. . . we're gonna need that depth down the stretch. . . may as well let him make some mistakes and learn from them now, as opposed to, say, december or january. . .
Agreed, and Roby played fantasticaly well for a rookie covering passes from a Pro Bowler to a first ballot HoFer. I'm hoping we get to see that quantum leap the Brandon Spano folks claimed Webster showed in camp, in which case Talib, Harris, Webster and Roby will have me feeling REALLY good about our CBs; Tony Carter and Bolden aren't worldbeaters, but plenty good enough to backup those 4.

Simple Jaded
09-10-2014, 02:41 PM
I thought we did fine in the run game.
It was the "taking our foot off the gas and trying to hold on for a win" game we played the entire second half that had me worried.
I thought we were done with that.
Since it was week one and we got the "W" I'll give it a slide but the mere hint of "Foxball" makes my stomach turn.

I doubt Foxball is the plan though, imo it's entirely possible that Denver wanted to test their own D/running game once they got up 24-10 in the first half. That will no doubt be perceived as opaque colored glasses rhetoric but oh well, this is a team that excelled at halftime adjustments and to me their adjustments Sunday night were largely tendency breakers.

Joel
09-10-2014, 02:47 PM
I doubt Foxball is the plan though, imo it's entirely possible that Denver wanted to test their own D/running game once they got up 24-10 in the first half. That will no doubt be perceived as opaque colored glasses rhetoric but oh well, this is a team that excelled at halftime adjustments and to me their adjustments Sunday night were largely tendency breakers.
That said, you could well be right. In the Gameday thread I DID say the second half would be our run games real test; just because I abhorred the results doesn't invalidate that test.