PDA

View Full Version : Broncos Playing Scared?



spikerman
09-24-2014, 08:39 PM
I've seen this theory thrown around a bit since the game. This guy brings up some good points. Personally, I thought the play calling pretty much sucked for about 55 minutes.


In every conceivable way, the Broncos offense is stacked, yet against Seattle, and on other occasions, the coaches go extremely conservative. Fox needs to change this.


If the Broncos had the same approach on offense that, say, the Bengals or Chargers or even the Falcons do, they would have beaten Seattle by two touchdowns Sunday. Instead, they lost 26-20 in overtime.


Consider this: On Denver's game-tying drive, the Broncos were able to move the ball easily against a brutal Seattle defense by testing that secondary. They threw short. They threw deep. Manning threw everywhere. There was no fear or hesitation. Seahawks players remarked after the game that on the drive, Denver used plays they hadn't seen on film.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2206783-mike-freemans-10-point-stance-why-the-broncos-cant-beat-the-seahawks?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cnn-sports-bin&hpt=hp_bn15

Thoughts?

MasterShake
09-24-2014, 09:08 PM
My thought is 3 games in and we are trying to find an identity. I'd rather have a good November to February than peak in September. Too early to freak out, though there are some concerns that I think will get fixed.

Slick
09-24-2014, 09:11 PM
I don't know about playing scared necessarily, more giving Seattle's D a little too much respect.

Buff
09-24-2014, 09:16 PM
I completely disagree.

We had a wide open gameplan in the Super Bowl with a very similar offense and got slaughtered.

I think the conservative approach was totally warranted - the real issue was the complete ineffectiveness of our running game. But if you try to abandon it completely then you just become one dimensional, the pass rushers pin their ears back and the Seattle secondary tees off.

I think we could have executed the gameplan a lot more effectively - but I don't have an issue with the plan itself.

TXBRONC
09-24-2014, 09:19 PM
I think Shake has it right they're not playing scared they're still trying to find their identity. If they're playing scared then the New England Cheese Danishes are crapping their pants.

Slick
09-24-2014, 09:21 PM
I completely disagree.

We had a wide open gameplan in the Super Bowl with a very similar offense and got slaughtered.

I think the conservative approach was totally warranted - the real issue was the complete ineffectiveness of our running game. But if you try to abandon it completely then you just become one dimensional, the pass rushers pin their ears back and the Seattle secondary tees off.

I think we could have executed the gameplan a lot more effectively - but I don't have an issue with the plan itself.

I don't know that Denver has the type of players on offense to effectively execute last Sunday's gameplan.

Buff
09-24-2014, 09:23 PM
I don't know that Denver has the type of players on offense to effectively execute last Sunday's gameplan.

Right - but we damn sure don't have the players to execute our SB gameplan. So, let's try the 180 degree opposite approach and go from there. I actually think it was exactly the right strategy.

TXBRONC
09-24-2014, 09:31 PM
Right - but we damn sure don't have the players to execute our SB gameplan. So, let's try the 180 degree opposite approach and go from there. I actually think it was exactly the right strategy.

How Denver played on those last couple of drives is how they wanted to play in Super Bowl and they certainly have the right kind of players for that style of play. Given how good Seattle is at home playing it closer to vest wasn't a bad idea but in hindsight a person could argue they should have gotten more aggressive sooner than they did.

DenBronx
09-24-2014, 09:34 PM
DT looked a little scared this past week. Suprised because the guys a monster. But I think the Seabirds managed to rattle him.

Sanders was anything but scared. For a little guy he was all in their face each play. I think Seattle had to change their game plan just for him which then left Welker, DT and our TEs open for plays.

Manning looked pissed off. I love that about him. He's not scared at all, he just wants to win maybe more than any other Bronco.

Adam Gase was scared. His play calling clearly showed us that.

weazel
09-24-2014, 09:48 PM
they know how many weapons they have on offense, they aren't scared in the slightest. Did they try playing it a little more conservative last game and give the defense some time on the bench, yes...

The offense ran crazy all over everyone last year, what did that get them?

Slick
09-24-2014, 09:59 PM
Right - but we damn sure don't have the players to execute our SB gameplan. So, let's try the 180 degree opposite approach and go from there. I actually think it was exactly the right strategy.

After the Superbowl one of my first thoughts was "we should have run the ball more". After watching them fail at it last Sunday, I had to re think that stance. Now, maybe that was because of the type of run plays called, and also the down and distance when they were called. Either way, it was ugly.

Denver turned it over 4 times in New York and twice in Seattle, were able to get one of those back in Seattle. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure we can really say the gameplan was the real problem in the Superbowl.

Denver's O is not going to be able to line up and play smashmouth against that team.

They looked scared to me in the Bowl, but not so much on Sunday.

Did I just prove your point? :D

TXBRONC
09-24-2014, 10:03 PM
they know how many weapons they have on offense, they aren't scared in the slightest. Did they try playing it a little more conservative last game and give the defense some time on the bench, yes...

The offense ran crazy all over everyone last year, what did that get them?

What did it get them? A chance to win a championship.

weazel
09-24-2014, 10:53 PM
What did it get them? A chance to win a championship.

and you don't know what they're going to do this season yet...

silkamilkamonico
09-24-2014, 11:08 PM
Don't agree at all.

People can have opinions about Seattle and that's cool. For myself, you don't go toe to toe and lose in OT to arguably the hardest place to win a football game ever to the defending SuperBowl Champs by playing scared and a poor gameplan the majority of the game.

I think trying to find conspiracy theory's on how this Denver team could possibly lose a football game to anyone is absurd.

TXBRONC
09-24-2014, 11:10 PM
and you don't know what they're going to do this season yet...

True and this time last year we didn't know that Denver would be playing in the Super Bowl back in February.

weazel
09-24-2014, 11:20 PM
True and this time last year we didn't know that Denver would be playing in the Super Bowl back in February.

I know that they can keep pace with Seattle instead of getting manhandled 43-8 as well.

BeefStew25
09-24-2014, 11:34 PM
We just need time to jell.

Hawgdriver
09-24-2014, 11:39 PM
Here's one person's take on why they didn't run the cover 3 beater earlier in the game.


You might ask why the Broncos didn’t call more of these plays earlier. They take a lot of time to develop, and Manning never had that time. Manning was sacked only once but he took more hits than I can remember in any game in recent years. It was part of Denver's game-planning to get the ball out of Manning's hands quick. A play like this requires a seven-step drop, at least 2.5 seconds in the pocket, and the Seahawks’ pass rush doesn’t allow that. With less than a minute left in regulation the Broncos had to get the ball downfield no matter the risk, and it paid off with two big plays.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/greg-cosell-s-week-3-analysis--examining-seattle-vs--denver-175639003.html

DenBronx
09-25-2014, 12:22 AM
We just need time to jell.

What if they were to gel instead?

Joel
09-25-2014, 04:00 AM
I completely disagree.

We had a wide open gameplan in the Super Bowl with a very similar offense and got slaughtered.

I think the conservative approach was totally warranted - the real issue was the complete ineffectiveness of our running game. But if you try to abandon it completely then you just become one dimensional, the pass rushers pin their ears back and the Seattle secondary tees off.

I think we could have executed the gameplan a lot more effectively - but I don't have an issue with the plan itself.
Why is this is so hard for some to grasp? I agree with MasterShakes we're still finding our way a bit after RB and line changes, and think (hope) the run will stabilize after the bye (I also agree with adopting a power run game; there was a lot of talk about not finessing a physical Seahawks team, and the D lived up to that, but the stretch runs and such did not; end runs vs. fast smart D is dangerous.)

Yet the bottom line remains: One trick Broncos don't win SBs, as Elway knows better than anyone.

Northman
09-25-2014, 05:04 AM
Thoughts?

Definitely agree with that last quote. I have always thought we dont challenge defenses by going downfield more. While running the ball is important so is keeping defenses honest by letting them know you have receivers that can be a deep threat. We supposedly picked up Sanders for his speed yet we are treating him like a possession receiver. JT is a mismatch all the time for defenders yet we rarely take shots with him downfield as we keep nickle and diming teams. At some point you have to get those 8 man boxes off your line of scrimmage but you dont wait until the end of the game to decide to do it.

TXBRONC
09-25-2014, 06:40 AM
Here's one person's take on why they didn't run the cover 3 beater earlier in the game.



http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/greg-cosell-s-week-3-analysis--examining-seattle-vs--denver-175639003.html

If this game had been played in Denver then maybe they run those plays.

BroncoNut
09-25-2014, 08:21 AM
We just need time to jell.

well put, I think that's a lot of it beef and yiou hit the nail on the head. it's only week 3 (completed) and the players just need to get used to each other and become a team (ie: jell)

Northman
09-25-2014, 09:32 AM
well put, I think that's a lot of it beef and yiou hit the nail on the head. it's only week 3 (completed) and the players just need to get used to each other and become a team (ie: jell)

You sure lotion wouldnt do the trick?

BroncoNut
09-25-2014, 09:41 AM
You sure lotion wouldnt do the trick?

let me see, I'll have to review the post, brb.

oh, gel vs. lotion. very good North, very good

I don't think we play scared, I think we play conservative which imo is fine at this point.

CCMO
09-25-2014, 10:05 AM
I think when your are playing one of the best teams in the NFL at home, early in the season, you have to use a balanced approach both running and throwing high percentage passes. The goal in a game like this is to be in a position to win the game in the 4th quarter. That goal was accomplished as we went into overtime. Had the defense played better in OT and the offense been on the field, who knows, it would have been anyone's game! I read an article/ questions and answers, in the Denver Post, on line, I think written by Krisla.....in it he laid out some run/pass stats and make a good case that Denver played a pretty good game offensively as far as mixing up the plays. Of course they did not execute as well as they should have on offense or defense.

We are 3-1 having played 4 very good teams. Now a week to lick our wounds, learn from what we did not do well....and go kick some butt in two weeks! It is great to be a Bronco Fan....I live in KC, they have great fans, who seldom are rewarded! We are blessed!

Ziggy
09-25-2014, 11:03 AM
It's Fox ball. The Broncos are going to play conservative until they have no choice but to take chances. In the second half, JDR finally had to turn the D loose. The result? They dominated. Denver has the overall talent to match any team in the league, including Seattle. If you play that game again and switch coaching staffs, Denver wins by double digits. This is why Carolina fans came to hate John Fox. He will always play NOT TO LOSE. Winners play to win.

If Denver wins a super bowl this year, it will be DESPITE the coaching staff, not because of it.

tripp
09-25-2014, 01:41 PM
A lot of people say this about Championship winning teams, whether it's Basketball, Hockey, or Football, etc. I think this same thing applies to our Broncos as well, ever think maybe they'll mentally exhausted? I mean they just had a record breaking year in terms of records from our offence. I wouldn't totally be surprised if they feel exhausted after a huge season and going all the way to the Superbowl, and lose, like they did. It takes a toll.

I know Manning isn't the type of guy to dwell on it, and will be happy to move on from last year, but some of the younger guys, like JT, and DT, might feel drained and find it harder to repeat last year's performance. I mean, let's face it, the expectations are there, regardless of whether it's possible or not. We're always going to expect 4 or more TD's a game.

We're still trying to establish the run, and I think we're committed to the run, I don't see us ever abandoning it unless we're down by a couple of scores. The one thing I'd like to see is, put Ronnie Hillman on the PS, and bring Thompson in. Give CJ Anderson the rock a bit more rather than Montee taking 90% of the carries. I think our O-line is so used to being in pass protection, they're not nearly as good at run protection. Need to have a healthy dosage of both.

Joel
09-25-2014, 01:57 PM
I didn't count his gameday actives last season, but am pretty sure Hillman's exhausted his PS eligiblity. Championships aren't won with gameday inactives though, and a guy who's stated and SHOWN an eagerness to hit rather than be hit suits these run "blockers" well, at least until/unless they learn to keep guys from blowing into our backfield right as Manning hands off (which literally happened on one play @Seattle.) I'm cautiously optimistic the line will congeal over the bye, but right now we need a guy finishes runs like Moreno did last year, for much the same reason.

I Eat Staples
09-27-2014, 04:27 PM
The offense ran crazy all over everyone last year, what did that get them?

Broken records, a 13-3 season and a trip to the Superbowl. That's pretty damn good if you ask me.

I don't know why people think we need to change our identity because of one loss in a game that was over from the first snap. If Ramirez doesn't snap that ball over Manning's head, maybe we don't win, but I guarantee we don't get blown out.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 03:18 AM
People make sweeping judgments over a very small sample of plays.

We all do it, so to bitch and moan at me for pointing it out is useless, because I do it too.

To say the running game won that Super Bowl for Seattle and lost it for Denver is just not true. Marshawn Lynch ran 39 times for an average of 2.6.

2.6!

And we're hearing a lot of bitching about Ball averaging a little less than 4 and the inability of the run game? Guess who was above average in the Super Bowl? Russell Wilson. Over 8 yards per attempt. Seattle got first downs because Wilson completed passes in second and third and long, and scrambled for big yards. Why? Because the Seattle running game was ineffective.

Denver lost one game. It's not a sweeping affirmation, or lack there of, of anything. They lost one game.

Joel
09-28-2014, 09:35 AM
People make sweeping judgments over a very small sample of plays.

We all do it, so to bitch and moan at me for pointing it out is useless, because I do it too.

To say the running game won that Super Bowl for Seattle and lost it for Denver is just not true. Marshawn Lynch ran 39 times for an average of 2.6.

2.6!

And we're hearing a lot of bitching about Ball averaging a little less than 4 and the inability of the run game? Guess who was above average in the Super Bowl? Russell Wilson. Over 8 yards per attempt. Seattle got first downs because Wilson completed passes in second and third and long, and scrambled for big yards. Why? Because the Seattle running game was ineffective.

Denver lost one game. It's not a sweeping affirmation, or lack there of, of anything. They lost one game.
According to ESPN, Wilson averaged 8.25/att THROUGHOUT 2013, so his SB average wasn't below average: It was par for the course. That said, Seattles SB offense was hardly overwhelming; they had a big play on each of their first two drives, but our D stepped up with a stop to hold them to a FG both times, and they needed an imaginary 3rd down PI to reach the end zone on their third drive.

The problem was the safety, three-and-out and Int gave Seattle fantastic field position to START those drives, so they didn't need to gain much for each score. A lot of that's because Seattle could and did sell out on stopping the pass with no fear of the run. After our NEXT drive ended in a pick-six that made it 22-0 there's not much to discuss; the second half kickoff return made it 29-0 and iced it, but teams that blow huge leads don't reach SBs.

In fact, the biggest SB comeback is 10 pts, and has only happened twice: Against Denver in SB XXII and against Manning in SB XLIV, so expecting Manning AND Denver to overcome thrice that was expecting too much. No, Seattles offense didn't win the SB—it didn't HAVE to, because the Greatest. Passing. EVAH! did it FOR them. They didn't have to worry about Moreno or Ball, so they didn't: The line just sprinted for Manning without even a glance at the RB, while 7 and sometimes 8 guys dropped in coverage, outnumbered our receivers 2-to-1 and got easy Ints.

Seattle's not an elite offense, though it IS nicely balanced in a ways ours isn't: They can pass when they need to, and usually get big yardage, but their solid running and smothering D means they rarely have to pass. Our D played an outstanding game against them, especially given fully half the starters were out hurt—but it didn't matter, because our elite one-dimensional offense handed Seattle the game from the very first play, and the deeper that hole got, the more they pinned their ears back and played pass exclusively.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 10:09 AM
According to ESPN, Wilson averaged 8.25/att THROUGHOUT 2013, so his SB average wasn't below average: It was par for the course. That said, Seattles SB offense was hardly overwhelming; they had a big play on each of their first two drives, but our D stepped up with a stop to hold them to a FG both times, and they needed an imaginary 3rd down PI to reach the end zone on their third drive.

The problem was the safety, three-and-out and Int gave Seattle fantastic field position to START those drives, so they didn't need to gain much for each score. A lot of that's because Seattle could and did sell out on stopping the pass with no fear of the run. After our NEXT drive ended in a pick-six that made it 22-0 there's not much to discuss; the second half kickoff return made it 29-0 and iced it, but teams that blow huge leads don't reach SBs.

In fact, the biggest SB comeback is 10 pts, and has only happened twice: Against Denver in SB XXII and against Manning in SB XLIV, so expecting Manning AND Denver to overcome thrice that was expecting too much. No, Seattles offense didn't win the SB—it didn't HAVE to, because the Greatest. Passing. EVAH! did it FOR them. They didn't have to worry about Moreno or Ball, so they didn't: The line just sprinted for Manning without even a glance at the RB, while 7 and sometimes 8 guys dropped in coverage, outnumbered our receivers 2-to-1 and got easy Ints.

Seattle's not an elite offense, though it IS nicely balanced in a ways ours isn't: They can pass when they need to, and usually get big yardage, but their solid running and smothering D means they rarely have to pass. Our D played an outstanding game against them, especially given fully half the starters were out hurt—but it didn't matter, because our elite one-dimensional offense handed Seattle the game from the very first play, and the deeper that hole got, the more they pinned their ears back and played pass exclusively.

I like how you gloss right over the ineffectiveness of the Seattle run game.

Move that bar.

Joel
09-28-2014, 10:36 AM
I like how you gloss right over the ineffectiveness of the Seattle run game.

Move that bar.
Not at all; despite half our starters out hurt, our D shut down Seattles normally solid run game, as I acknowledged then and many times since; like Elway said, our D kept us in the game. The games leading rusher was a WR with <50 yds, most of it on a single play; I said that in February, too, so thanks for the late-breaking news. Seattles offense didn't do jack—but since OUR offense scored all THEIR points, we got blown out ANYWAY. Great defenses beat one-dimensional offenses; it's pretty simple.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 11:12 AM
Not at all; despite half our starters out hurt, our D shut down Seattles normally solid run game, as I acknowledged then and many times since; like Elway said, our D kept us in the game. The games leading rusher was a WR with <50 yds, most of it on a single play; I said that in February, too, so thanks for the late-breaking news. Seattles offense didn't do jack—but since OUR offense scored all THEIR points, we got blown out ANYWAY. Great defenses beat one-dimensional offenses; it's pretty simple.

Never you mind me. I'm just pointing out the obvious contradictions in your diatribes.

silkamilkamonico
09-28-2014, 11:41 AM
I don't understand why people are addressing the run game and the SuperBowl last year.

The run games didn't play a much of a factor for either team. Seattle couldn't run the ball. Denver didn't even try to run the ball. The run game didn't cause the interceptions, and the safety for Denver during the SuperBowl. Denver abandoned the running game during the SuperBowl before they even tried.

Why are people "concerned" this year?

We lost, in OT, playing toe to toe, in arguably the hardest place to win a football game ever, to the SuperBowl defending champions coming off a loss the week before needing a win much more than Denver.

Don't be so ignorant. How many NFL seasons can you look after week 4 and see the cold hard favorite to win the SuperBowl?

Seattle needed that win last week much more than Denver. People just need to let the process play out.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 11:43 AM
I don't understand why people are addressing the run game and the SuperBowl last year.

The run games didn't play a much of a factor for either team. Seattle couldn't run the ball. Denver didn't even try to run the ball. The run game didn't cause the interceptions, and the safety for Denver during the SuperBowl. Denver abandoned the running game during the SuperBowl before they even tried.

Why are people "concerned" this year?

We lost, in OT, playing toe to toe, in arguably the hardest place to win a football game ever, to the SuperBowl defending champions coming off a loss the week before needing a win much more than Denver.

Don't be so ignorant. How many NFL seasons can you look after week 4 and see the cold hard favorite to win the SuperBowl?

Seattle needed that win last week much more than Denver. People just need to let the process play out.

That's what Joel does. A few weeks ago he tried to pin the Super Bowl loss on Stockholm syndrome as a direct result of the Super Bowl losses of the 80s.

BroncoWave
09-28-2014, 12:01 PM
That's what Joel does. A few weeks ago he tried to pin the Super Bowl loss on Stockholm syndrome as a direct result of the Super Bowl losses of the 80s.

Huh, I missed that one among him pinning it on our running game and on Prater. Too many too keep up with.

Joel
09-28-2014, 12:07 PM
Never you mind me. I'm just pointing out the obvious contradictions in your diatribes.
You're "pointing out" something I've repeatedly said since it happened; not sure how saying something I already said disproves it. Maybe another case of "read before replying"? ;)

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 12:11 PM
You're "pointing out" something I've repeatedly said since it happened; not sure how saying something I already said disproves it. Maybe another case of "read before replying"? ;)

Yeah. I get that.

You already said it once, but I'm not referring to that at all.

Seattle's run game was completely ineffective, but they still won the game, which completely negates and contradicts all of your bitching about the Denver run game and how it cost Denver a championship. How many words have you wasted on this contradiction?

Joel
09-28-2014, 12:13 PM
The run games didn't play a much of a factor for either team. Seattle couldn't run the ball. Denver didn't even try to run the ball. The run game didn't cause the interceptions, and the safety for Denver during the SuperBowl. Denver abandoned the running game during the SuperBowl before they even tried.
That's how the useless run game caused (or at least contributed to) the safety and interception. Pretty sure the first scrimmage snap doesn't go past Mannings ear into our end zone if he's under center instead of in shotgun; I bet Ramirez even would've heard Manning calling the signals. With an effective run game, SS Kam Chancellor would've been up in the box to stop us busting off another 5 or 6 yds on the ground, not lurking in a deep robber spot to intercept Manning like he did in the Super Bowl. And last Sunday. Effective running would've slowed the pass rush by forcing it to watch our RBs.

Great Ds destroy one-dimensional offenses; defenses love when RBs are obviated so they can pin their ears back and chase the QB and blanket all the receivers: Our offense does that FOR them.

Joel
09-28-2014, 12:14 PM
Yeah. I get that.

You already said it once, but I'm not referring to that at all.

Seattle's run game was completely ineffective, but they still won the game, which completely negates and contradicts all of your bitching about the Denver run game and how it cost Denver a championship. How many words have you wasted on this contradiction?
Seattles offense didn't NEED to score points: OURS did it FOR them. That's why we need a run game to prevent the Greatest. Passing. EVAH! getting abused from kickoff to gun.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 12:19 PM
The running game CAUSED the safety.

******* awesome.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 12:26 PM
Seattles offense didn't NEED to score points: OURS did it FOR them. That's why we need a run game to prevent the Greatest. Passing. EVAH! getting abused from kickoff to gun.

Right, but according to you, you have to have a running game to win the Siper Bowl. Seattle didn't.

That's the contradiction. And it's a massive one.

#theBroncosrungamecausescancer

Joel
09-28-2014, 12:33 PM
The running game CAUSED the safety.

******* awesome.
How many turnovers did Seattles low-risk/reward offense hand us? 'Cause our high-risk/reward offense gave them FOUR, plus the safety, worth 22 pts by themselves: That alone was enough to beat an offense that didn't score it's ONLY points until the final play of the THIRD QUARTER. Our D played a standout game, shutting down their offense and holding it to 14 pts—but our one-dimensional offense effectively outscored ITSELF by nearly a 3 to 1 margin, and that was the game.

Seattles run game didn't move the chains to kill much clock and alter field position, but that's only half its job: The other half's avoiding turnovers, and Seattle did that VERY well; I only wish the Greatest. Offense. EVAH! had done HALF as well; maybe then it would've been a ball game instead of a slaughter.

Joel
09-28-2014, 12:35 PM
Right, but according to you, you have to have a running game to win the Siper Bowl. Seattle didn't.

That's the contradiction. And it's a massive one.

#theBroncosrungamecausescancer
You don't need ANYTHING to win the SB if the other team self-destructs. Seattle didn't win that game: WE LOST IT. That's what one-dimensional offenses do against decent defenses, let alone great ones.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 12:35 PM
How many times turnovers did Seattles low-risk/reward offense hand us? 'Cause our high-risk/reward offense gave them FOUR, plus the safety, worth 22 pts by themselves: That alone was enough to beat an offense that didn't score it's ONLY points until the final play of the THIRD QUARTER. Our D played a standout game, shutting down their offense and holding it to 14 pts—but our one-dimensional offense effectively outscored ITSELF by nearly a 3 to 1 margin, and that was the game.

Seattles run game didn't move the chains to kill much clock and alter field position, but that's only half its job: The other half's avoiding turnovers, and Seattle did that VERY well; I only wish the Greatest. Offense. EVAH! had done HALF as well; maybe then it would've been a ball game instead of a slaughter.

Lol. OK, Joel, whatever you say buddy.

Russell Wilson never uses the shotgun...

Joel
09-28-2014, 12:40 PM
Lol. OK, Joel, whatever you say buddy.

Russell Wilson never uses the shotgun...
Never's a long time, but he doesn't live there. Not that ANY of Seattles offense was a factor; all they had to do was not cough the ball up 4 times (like we did.)

Seattles offenses gave them 14 pts; our offense gave us 8—and gave THEM 22. All the denial in the world can't and won't change that.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 01:09 PM
How many times turnovers did Seattles low-risk/reward offense hand us? 'Cause our high-risk/reward offense gave them FOUR, plus the safety, worth 22 pts by themselves: That alone was enough to beat an offense that didn't score it's ONLY points until the final play of the THIRD QUARTER. Our D played a standout game, shutting down their offense and holding it to 14 pts—but our one-dimensional offense effectively outscored ITSELF by nearly a 3 to 1 margin, and that was the game.

Seattles run game didn't move the chains to kill much clock and alter field position, but that's only half its job: The other half's avoiding turnovers, and Seattle did that VERY well; I only wish the Greatest. Offense. EVAH! had done HALF as well; maybe then it would've been a ball game instead of a slaughter.

You sure take offense to Denver having a good offense last year.

BTW, Seattle snapped the ball in shotgun 70 percent of its plays last week. 70 percent. Because, as we all know, they just get under center and go conservative all the time.

Simple Jaded
09-28-2014, 01:12 PM
I've never seen a passing game build up so much resentment in a fan before, especially one as good as Denver's, it's almost as if there's something else behind all that resentment.

Joel
09-28-2014, 02:21 PM
You sure take offense to Denver having a good offense last year.
If we'd had a good OFFENSE it wouldn't have scored 22 pts for the WRONG TEAM and "thrown" away the SB. Remember Carroll yelling at his D for giving up the SHUTOUT? THAT'S a good offense? :confused:


BTW, Seattle snapped the ball in shotgun 70 percent of its plays last week. 70 percent. Because, as we all know, they just get under center and go conservative all the time.
Wonder if that had anything to do with Lynchs weak rushing average last week....


I've never seen a passing game build up so much resentment in a fan before, especially one as good as Denver's, it's almost as if there's something else behind all that resentment.
I resent getting BLOWN OUT by 5 TDs in a SB. The NFL's not some six-man league in Laredo, so that crap won't win NFL championships. There's a reason they had to rewrite the freakin' rulebook to convince good teams to adopt sandlot Maddenball: Elite professionals make their living off small but CONSISTENT gains, not all-or-nothing gambles that miss more than they hit. That's why Warren Buffett made his billions off boring but prudent investments in the stock market rather than doubling down on bad hands in a glamorous exciting Vegas casino.

Nine times in ten, the tortoise beats the hare, and even AFTER the NFL rewrote its rulebook to increase passing and thus TV ratings, who's winning championships? Seattle's boring offense won last year, the year before that it was run-first smothering D vs. run-first smothering D and the year before THAT it was the Giants running committee and tough D shutting down a first ballot HoF passer for the second time in as many meetings. We have to go back FOUR seasons to find a pass-happy team winning a SB; even in flag football land, it's still more the exception than the rule.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 02:24 PM
Move the bar.

Joel
09-28-2014, 02:30 PM
Look, I loved the "pass first, second and last" AFL as much as anyone, but there's a reason the NFC stomped the crap out of it for 30 solid seasons before the run-first Broncos finally turned the tables. Yeah, there's "something else" behind resenting a 5 TD blowout that was nearly a SHUTOUT: The Comeback had more than my fill of watching my teams elite passing blow its whole season because completely incapable of running. Best case scenario, it's hard to close out second half leads completing 70% of passes that STILL stop the clock 30% more than runs—worst case, there IS no lead, just picks and punts.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 02:31 PM
Look, I loved the "pass first, second and last" AFL as much as anyone, but there's a reason the NFC stomped the crap out of it for 30 solid seasons before the run-first Broncos finally turned the tables. Yeah, there's "something else" behind resenting a 5 TD blowout that was nearly a SHUTOUT: The Comeback had more than my fill of watching my teams elite passing blow its whole season because completely incapable of running. Best case scenario, it's hard to close out second half leads completing 70% of passes that STILL stop the clock 30% more than runs—worst case, there IS no lead, just picks and punts.

OK.

Joel
09-28-2014, 02:34 PM
Move the bar.
If anyone's moving the goalposts, it's people still ranting about a "great offense" that needed THREE FULL QUARTERS for its ONLY score to avoid the First. Super Bowl Shutout. EVAH! If that offense is so great, why'd our D stifle Seattles the whole game yet STILL get blown out by 5 TDs? Answer: Because our "great" offense scored 22 of Seattles points, three times what our "great" offense scored for US.

Keep telling yourself that didn't happen; if you can't even SEE the goalposts, there's no need to move them. ;)

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 02:36 PM
If anyone's moving the goalposts, it's people still ranting about a "great offense" that needed THREE FULL QUARTERS for its ONLY score to avoid the First. Super Bowl Shutout. EVAH! If that offense is so great, why'd our D stifle Seattles the whole game yet STILL get blown out by 5 TDs? Answer: Because our "great" offense scored 22 of Seattles points, three times what our "great" offense scored for US.

Keep telling yourself that didn't happen; if you can't even SEE the goalposts, there's no need to move them. ;)

So Denver's offense scored 30 points and Seattle scored 18.

I think that means Denver actually won the game.

I don't make sweeping determinations on one game. I refuse to do it even if that game is a Super Bowl. Luckily, John Elway agrees with me.

Simple Jaded
09-28-2014, 02:53 PM
No, that's not it, keep digging.

Joel
09-28-2014, 04:47 PM
So Denver's offense scored 30 points and Seattle scored 18.
No, Seattle scored 21: 14 on offense, 7 on a kickoff. The rest was ALL OUR OFFENSE:

2 pt safety, plus Seattle got the ball at their 36 for a short drive resulting in
+3 pt FG, which our "offense" "answered" with a three-and-out followed by a
+7 pt TD after a phantom PI on 3rd down gave them 1st and G at our 1, after which our "offense" threw a pass intercepted at OUR 37 for a
+3 pt FG, after which our "offense" threw a pick-six resulting in a
+7 pt TD
22 Seattle points by OUR "offense" plus the kickoff TD made it 29: Our D held Seattles well-balanced offense to just 14 pts, but with our offense handing them 22 more, it didn't matter.

The same offense that only managed 8 pts for us on a SINGLE score that took THREE FULL QUARTERS.


I think that means Denver actually won the game.
A safety, two Ints (including a pick-six) and a strip-sack never won ANY game except for the OTHER team


I don't make sweeping determinations on one game. I refuse to do it even if that game is a Super Bowl. Luckily, John Elway agrees with me.
Unluckily, John Elway has FOUR SB blowouts to tell him even a first ballot HoF QB can't win championships singlehandedly.

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 04:56 PM
Hilarious.

Joel
09-28-2014, 05:15 PM
We STARTED THE GAME WITH A SAFETY, then moved on to three-and-outs and pick-sixes: You and the Seahawks are the only ones who found that "great" "offense" hilarious.

If you need more than one game to judge: Last week our "great" "offense" only managed a FG more than in the SB (sorry, an Int setting us up in Seattles red zone doesn't count as offense.)

MOtorboat
09-28-2014, 05:21 PM
Lol. Too funny.

silkamilkamonico
09-29-2014, 08:55 AM
That's how the useless run game caused (or at least contributed to) the safety and interception. Pretty sure the first scrimmage snap doesn't go past Mannings ear into our end zone if he's under center instead of in shotgun; I bet Ramirez even would've heard Manning calling the signals. With an effective run game, SS Kam Chancellor would've been up in the box to stop us busting off another 5 or 6 yds on the ground, not lurking in a deep robber spot to intercept Manning like he did in the Super Bowl. And last Sunday. Effective running would've slowed the pass rush by forcing it to watch our RBs.
.

75%+ of the QB's in the NFL don't play under center. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.