Eagles, 49ers, Patriots and Broncos each have glaring weakness

[Denver Native (Carol)]

from article:


7) Denver Broncos' running game

With Knowshon Moreno no longer on the team, Denver can't run the football. The Broncos currently rank 28th in the league in rushing and have notched only one score on the ground.

I still believe this is the best team in the AFC, but establishing the run is a big part of the Broncos' upside. Montee Ball has to do a better job. That's the one "yeah, but" when assessing the Broncos' chances at landing another Super Bowl berth.

full article - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000400478/article/eagles-49ers-patriots-and-broncos-each-have-glaring-weakness

[tripp]

The tenacity isn't there in the run game yet. Would like to see CJ Anderson be given a bigger role in the run game. Need JT to become a better blocker, or else he'll just be a good pass catching TE, not a complete TE.

[Joel]

The backs aren't the problem; I (perhaps wrongly) expect a bit deeper view from NFL.com. I'd like to see Thompson, but a lot of that's because he likes to hit people and THESE "blockers" will let him.

[DenBronx]

I think MJD would have been the perfect addition this offseason. If we would have even kept Knowshon we would have been in decent shape, dude made play after play in this Manning offense. But MJD would have been a good pick up.


Denver should at least look to make a trade. Never been a big fan of Hillman, not sure why Ball isn't getting it done and we wont put CJ in more. So...go make a trade.


Now....who's out there???

[DenBronx]

The backs aren't the problem; I (perhaps wrongly) expect a bit deeper view from NFL.com. I'd like to see Thompson, but a lot of that's because he likes to hit people and THESE "blockers" will let him.


It's not just the OLine Joel.

[Joel]

It's not just the OLine Joel.
It's primarily them. Ball sometimes has poor vision, but he broke a LOT of tackles for tons of extra yards the first two games; sadly, -2+5=3, which is about what he averaged in those games. It's not like Anderson lit it up every (or ANY) time he subbed for Ball. I'll say this much: If we want a scatback like Hillman to do much, the line must get MUCH better at sealing their blocks.

I may fantasize about trading for Purple Jesus, but a big upgrade from Franklin/Clark might be a cheaper investment with better return. Or just screw up the unit chemistry even worse; who knows?

[tomjonesrocks]

I think MJD would have been the perfect addition this offseason. If we would have even kept Knowshon we would have been in decent shape, dude made play after play in this Manning offense. But MJD would have been a good pick up. Denver should at least look to make a trade. Never been a big fan of Hillman, not sure why Ball isn't getting it done and we wont put CJ in more. So...go make a trade. Now....who's out there???

Elway seems to only want young, cheap RBs going forward. Makes sense, but if you go that route you need to get the scouting right. Denver hasn't.

[tripp]

If you're going to let Moreno go, you better make damn sure the next guy up is going to be able to fill those shoes without a doubt. Ball hasn't yet. Ball hasn't really shown us that he is more than an average RB yet.

[DenBronx]

It's not just the OLine Joel.
It's primarily them. Ball sometimes has poor vision, but he broke a LOT of tackles for tons of extra yards the first two games; sadly, -2+5=3, which is about what he averaged in those games. It's not like Anderson lit it up every (or ANY) time he subbed for Ball. I'll say this much: If we want a scatback like Hillman to do much, the line must get MUCH better at sealing their blocks.

I may fantasize about trading for Purple Jesus, but a big upgrade from Franklin/Clark might be a cheaper investment with better return. Or just screw up the unit chemistry even worse; who knows?


Id love to have AP on this team....pre-child abuse and pre-contract. No way he would fit here now.

[underrated29]

Ball has averaged 6 yards per carry when the Oline has blocked for him to the line of scrimmage.


In other words, when Ball is not being hit in the backfield he is averaging 6 yards per carry.



Both of those are stupidly high numbers. The fact that any RB is averaging 6ypc is amazing! That is top notch!!!
The fact that montee is currently only averaging 3 something yards per carry shows how many times he is being hit in the backfield.




The solution is simple. Let montee run to the LOS without having to dance, break a tackle, deke, spin or anything else. Just get him to the LOS and we are all set. Real simple. Thats all on the OL, play calling and TE. 6 yards per carry is just ridiculously good!

[underrated29]

It's primarily them. Ball sometimes has poor vision, but he broke a LOT of tackles for tons of extra yards the first two games; sadly, -2+5=3, which is about what he averaged in those games. It's not like Anderson lit it up every (or ANY) time he subbed for Ball. I'll say this much: If we want a scatback like Hillman to do much, the line must get MUCH better at sealing their blocks.

I may fantasize about trading for Purple Jesus, but a big upgrade from Franklin/Clark might be a cheaper investment with better return. Or just screw up the unit chemistry even worse; who knows?




Itll be fixed. Orlando, i heard him on the radio today, he had a tone in his voice. The tone that usually when people get you go with whatever they say. We face the Cards who are easily a top 5 run defense. Maybe top 2- havent looked. But i suspect it will be better in that game and absolutely better once we face a team who is not top 5 run defense.

[Hawgdriver]

It's not just the OLine Joel.

True, coaches need a blame token too.

5662

[VonDoom]

I think MJD would have been the perfect addition this offseason. If we would have even kept Knowshon we would have been in decent shape, dude made play after play in this Manning offense. But MJD would have been a good pick up.


Denver should at least look to make a trade. Never been a big fan of Hillman, not sure why Ball isn't getting it done and we wont put CJ in more. So...go make a trade.


Now....who's out there???

MJD is washed up - Oakland can have him. Last year at age 28, he rushed for 803 yards, and 3.4 ypc. Ball can do that well enough, even with our poor OL play, and he's younger and cheaper.

[TXBRONC]

I think MJD would have been the perfect addition this offseason. If we would have even kept Knowshon we would have been in decent shape, dude made play after play in this Manning offense. But MJD would have been a good pick up.


Denver should at least look to make a trade. Never been a big fan of Hillman, not sure why Ball isn't getting it done and we wont put CJ in more. So...go make a trade.


Now....who's out there???

MJD is used up.

[BroncoWave]

Ball has averaged 6 yards per carry when the Oline has blocked for him to the line of scrimmage.


In other words, when Ball is not being hit in the backfield he is averaging 6 yards per carry.



Both of those are stupidly high numbers. The fact that any RB is averaging 6ypc is amazing! That is top notch!!!
The fact that montee is currently only averaging 3 something yards per carry shows how many times he is being hit in the backfield.




The solution is simple. Let montee run to the LOS without having to dance, break a tackle, deke, spin or anything else. Just get him to the LOS and we are all set. Real simple. Thats all on the OL, play calling and TE. 6 yards per carry is just ridiculously good!

Yeah, but that 6 ypc means nothing unless you compare it to every other RB when they have a clean path to the LOS. I'm sure everyone's averages would go up significantly if you took out every carry where they got hit in the backfield.

[Joel]

Id love to have AP on this team....pre-child abuse and pre-contract. No way he would fit here now.
Meh; I got plenty of welts from switches growing up in Houston (which is what Spring is) and not just 'cause my grandmother was born in Palestine just like him. Welts bad enough they were still present when a plane landed hours later in Minnesota went too far, IMHO, but so does calling it "abuse." I'm disappointed they convened a SECOND grand jury after another ALREADY REFUSED TO INDICT (double jeopardy, anyone?) but I'll be stunned if there's anything more than a minor misdemeanor conviction for this, if even that much.

Frankly, I feel bad for him: His baby-mommas new boyfriend STRANGLED PETERSONS SON TO DEATH a year ago, but now she's had HIM indicted for switching another of his sons. It could easily end his career and send him to prison (and another thing I learned growing up in East Texas is that Huntsville's a really nice place as long as you're free to leave and a hellhole if you're not.) Even if acquitted, he'll probably lose ALL custody to the mother who's already filed for a restraining order to keep him away from their son; she ought to focus on keeping their childs MURDERER away from the rest.

Sorry to go tangential, but this whole sorry saga really annoys me. I don't think either of my parents (much less both) belong in prison for "abusing" me.

All that said, there's no WAY we could afford the final 4 years of his contract.

[Joel]

Yeah, but that 6 ypc means nothing unless you compare it to every other RB when they have a clean path to the LOS. I'm sure everyone's averages would go up significantly if you took out every carry where they got hit in the backfield.
C'mon, we average 1.9/att @Seattle; sure, there an all time great D, but nearly every adult on EARTH could average 1.9 yds if they just walked up to the line and fell forward face first—the trick is GETTING to the line, something our blockers haven't been great about letting ANY of our RBs do since Shanny left. McGahee led the lead in yards after contact in 2011; it was about half his TOTAL yardage (meanwhile everyone called Moreno a scared porcelain doll because he kept jumping out of peoples way and getting hurt when he didn't do it fast or often enough.)

Our backs have been hit behind the line on roughly HALF OF ALL CARRIES THIS SEASON. Not "Ball:" ALL of them; Ball, Hillman, Anderson; if you run the ball for the Denver Broncos this year, you've got a 50/50 shot of getting to the line before the defenders get to YOU. Some of that's playcalling; end runs vs. fast D blow up fast unless every lineman not lead blocking can seal cleanly, and that takes good consistent execution across the board: If our guys perform flawlessly but just ONE blows it, he blows the play.

It's nothing new, sadly; the only novelty is that now coaches and players are talking about instead of just a handful of people insisting runs aren't obsolete while all the homers question their fanhood.

[BroncoWave]

Joel, I'm not sure what any of that had to do with the post you were responding to. My only point in that was that it's meaningless to laud Ball's 6 ypc when not being contacted before the line unless you compare him to every other back under the same circumstance. For all we know, 6 ypc could be close to the norm on those types of plays.

[Joel]

Joel, I'm not sure what any of that had to do with the post you were responding to. My only point in that was that it's meaningless to laud Ball's 6 ypc when not being contacted before the line unless you compare him to every other back under the same circumstance. For all we know, 6 ypc could be close to the norm on those types of plays.
Okay, that's fair as far as it goes; we don't know what other backs average when first contact's past the LoS, nor even how often that's the case for them—but I bet it's >50% of the time for most of them.

[BroncoWave]

This reminds me of an article I read last season where Gus Bradley was lauding Blaine Gabbert by saying his QB rating jumped up into like the 80s or 90s when he had a clean pocket, proving that he can be a good QB if the line blocked better. Well no shit the QB is going to put up good numbers when he has a clean pocket. But in real life the guys on the other side get paid to make plays too, and you're just not always gonna have a clean pocket as a passer or a clean backfield as a back. So only singling out the stats that take place under ideal circumstances is kinda pointless, because you are just never going to have ideal circumstances 100% of the time.

[Joel]

This reminds me of an article I read last season where Gus Bradley was lauding Blaine Gabbert by saying his QB rating jumped up into like the 80s or 90s when he had a clean pocket, proving that he can be a good QB if the line blocked better. Well no shit the QB is going to put up good numbers when he has a clean pocket. But in real life the guys on the other side get paid to make plays too, and you're just not always gonna have a clean pocket as a passer or a clean backfield as a back. So only singling out the stats that take place under ideal circumstances is kinda pointless, because you are just never going to have ideal circumstances 100% of the time.
Unless the D knows the snap count, line surge alone should be good for a yard or two against anything but goal line D (another argument for power running with between-tackles RBs, and against all the end runs, traps and counters; I wonder how much of those are Manning and how much Gase/Fox.)

[MOtorboat]

Joel is salivating.

[Joel]

Joel is salivating.
Just not in denial. In fact, if you look closely you'll see my first comment in this thread was "the backs aren't the problem," which strongly implies approval of Denvers backs. But hey, don't let that or three solid weeks of Broncos coaches and players publicly worrying about our run blocking stand in the way of the "Joel hates EVERYTHING about Denver" narrative.

[MOtorboat]

Just not in denial. In fact, if you look closely you'll see my first comment in this thread was "the backs aren't the problem," which strongly implies approval of Denvers backs. But hey, don't let that or three solid weeks of Broncos coaches and players publicly worrying about our run blocking stand in the way of the "Joel hates EVERYTHING about Denver" narrative.

Forgive me, but part of me just thinks it's funny that the Broncos did EXACTLY what you wanted them to do with the line and it's not working...so what do you do...get giddy again.

[Joel]

Forgive me, but part of me just thinks it's funny that the Broncos did EXACTLY what you wanted them to do with the line and it's not working...so what do you do...get giddy again.
I wanted a real LG and RT, not a failed RT converted to LG. I picked up the "Franklin to LG" cry after SEVERAL OTHERS suggested it over the last two seasons; I didn't freakin' START it: If I had THAT kind of pull with Denvers front office Atlanta wouldn't be the ones paying Jon Asamoah $22.5 million for the next 5 years, even if it meant keeping last years team sack leader instead of signing Ware.

[CrazyHorse]

It's definitely the line. They're good at pass blocking but seal everything up so good there's no holes for the backs to go through.

[DenBronx]

MJD is washed/used up? Child please!

[BroncoWave]

MJD is washed/used up? Child please!

I mean, he is....

He hasn't been good since 2011.

[VonDoom]

MJD is washed/used up? Child please!

What have you seen in recent years that makes you think he's still any good?

[Joel]

It's definitely the line. They're good at pass blocking but seal everything up so good there's no holes for the backs to go through.
There's plenty of holes; sadly, they all go the wrong direction and have defenders in them. You may be onto something though: Guards don't pull in pass protection, but traps, draws, counters; all carry the risk of fast alert defenders getting through a vacated spot to blow up plays before they start unless they develop quickly and the rest of the line makes up the difference. That's one area better vision from Ball would help, but maybe we should just be relying on raw strength (which most of our linemen have) instead of agility (which Franklin and Clark lack) and Balls hard-nosed style to push more slams.

Somethin' gotta give though: Either Ball or some other RB must raise their game a couple levels, or the line must; if we keep doing what we've done, we'll keep getting what we've gotten.

[CrazyHorse]

There's plenty of holes; sadly, they all go the wrong direction and have defenders in them. You may be onto something though: Guards don't pull in pass protection, but traps, draws, counters; all carry the risk of fast alert defenders getting through a vacated spot to blow up plays before they start unless they develop quickly and the rest of the line makes up the difference. That's one area better vision from Ball would help, but maybe we should just be relying on raw strength (which most of our linemen have) instead of agility (which Franklin and Clark lack) and Balls hard-nosed style to push more slams.

Somethin' gotta give though: Either Ball or some other RB must raise their game a couple levels, or the line must; if we keep doing what we've done, we'll keep getting what we've gotten.

I wouldn't mind seeing Virgil Green used as a full back more.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

It's not just the OLine Joel.

You're right....I hope one of these days they mike up JT so we can hear whether or not he shouts "Ole!" when a DE or LB comes in his direction on a run play.

[artie_dale]

Am I the only one who believes that our passing game along with Peyton Manning is good enough to be what sets up the run???? I mean, come on... Great run games setup the pass, why can't a great pass game setup the run? Think non-traditional/outside the box, when you have a passing attack like we have.

[Joel]

I wouldn't mind seeing Virgil Green used as a full back more.
He was close to one Sunday, not only blocking and catching flat passes, but even running inside tackle once (though he got concussed doing it, and Fox strongly implied that was a busted play, noting in his postgame that we don't practice many 3rd and long TE handoffs.) Thompson might be an option there, too; he's a bit smaller than I normally like FBs, but otherwise fits the profile: Alert and powerful, STs ace, likes contact, hard-nosed etc. The way our line run "blocks" right now, we might be well-served with a FB not only as a lead blocker ouf of the backfield, but on a fair number of inside carries.

At this point, I'd like to ride line surge on more inside carries generally; the edge runs and even the off tackle runs are getting eaten alive by penetration.

[Ravage!!!]

Am I the only one who believes that our passing game along with Peyton Manning is good enough to be what sets up the run???? I mean, come on... Great run games setup the pass, why can't a great pass game setup the run? Think non-traditional/outside the box, when you have a passing attack like we have.

that's not new. The passing game always sets up the run.

On that same topic, through three weeks, we do NOT have a great passing game.

[BroncoWave]

Am I the only one who believes that our passing game along with Peyton Manning is good enough to be what sets up the run???? I mean, come on... Great run games setup the pass, why can't a great pass game setup the run? Think non-traditional/outside the box, when you have a passing attack like we have.

that's not new. The passing game always sets up the run.

On that same topic, through three weeks, we do NOT have a great passing game.

Lol are you actually being serious right now? You are way spoiled by the comical numbers this offense put up last year. We are still well on pace to have one of the top passing attacks in the league this year. Manning went into Seattle and put up 300 yards and 2 tds. Almost no one goes up there and does that.

[Ravage!!!]

Lol are you actually being serious right now? You are way spoiled by the comical numbers this offense put up last year. We are still well on pace to have one of the top passing attacks in the league this year. Manning went into Seattle and put up 300 yards and 2 tds. Almost no one goes up there and does that.

I am being serious, but perhaps I'm judging our offense based on what I know of it. Manning has 2 TDs in the second half, total, over three games?

I'm a bit down on our passing attack because it's looked like shit. Manning is showing his age, is missing wide open WRs (both wide open in the field and in the endzone)...and just isn't looking good. YOu can have your girlish "lol" all you want, but the truth is, we put up 300yrds because we were throwing the ball all the time (poorly), and if it wasn't for that last coupel of catches in the last 20+ seconds of the game, we wouldn't have had that.

If you want to look at our passing attack against Seattle and walk away feeling GOOD about what you saw based on those numbers.... good for you. I'm going by what I see, and I'm REALLY not impressed with it. KCs defense is in shambles, and we couldn't exploit their weak corners and lack of safety.

Sure things can turn around and sharpen up. But as it is right now, I'm not impressed in the least.

[G_Money]

Week three of last week, we thought the pass-blocking was going to get Manning obliterated. Clark was a sieve, Man-Ram was kicking himself in the nuts on every play... Vasquez knew what he was doing and Beadles could pull, but the unit was BAD. And then, magically, with more time together, they got better.

Not good ENOUGH, based on that Super Bowl, but WAY better. Clady missed a year, Franklin is in a new position, and Clark has to reverse everything he was doing last year (footwork and impulses). It's okay that we're not world-killers on that front after 3 weeks. We'll get there. Job#1 is to keep Manning upright. We can win games without a proficient rushing attack for a bit if we have to.

DT, JT, Sanders and Welker are gonna be a nightmare for other teams. Unless DT has some serious problem with his foot (KNOCK ON WOOD) we can definitely get folks out of the box. As the OL figures out how to work as a unit we should be able to get some ground-n-pound working as well. Not as a main course, most likely, but only a couple of teams live that way these days anyway.

We're always gonna win a title through the air. We just need the ground game to hold its own when we need it.

Look: first two games last year? we ran the ball 23 times for 65 yards against the Ravens and 29 times for 107 yards against the Giants. Game three last year was against the Raiders (164 yards). If we had played the Raiders in week 3 this year, who thinks we woulda "busted out" for more than 100?

The line last year had similar problems. I like the line construction better this year - we just need them to get their shit together, and for us to realize that the line should be more powerful but less mobile/pull-happy. If we want mobile blockers, use a TE (not JT).

~G

[Ravage!!!]

Week three of last week, we thought the pass-blocking was going to get Manning obliterated. Clark was a sieve, Man-Ram was kicking himself in the nuts on every play... Vasquez knew what he was doing and Beadles could pull, but the unit was BAD. And then, magically, with more time together, they got better.

Not good ENOUGH, based on that Super Bowl, but WAY better. Clady missed a year, Franklin is in a new position, and Clark has to reverse everything he was doing last year (footwork and impulses). It's okay that we're not world-killers on that front after 3 weeks. We'll get there. Job#1 is to keep Manning upright. We can win games without a proficient rushing attack for a bit if we have to.

DT, JT, Sanders and Welker are gonna be a nightmare for other teams. Unless DT has some serious problem with his foot (KNOCK ON WOOD) we can definitely get folks out of the box. As the OL figures out how to work as a unit we should be able to get some ground-n-pound working as well. Not as a main course, most likely, but only a couple of teams live that way these days anyway.

We're always gonna win a title through the air. We just need the ground game to hold its own when we need it.

Look: first two games last year? we ran the ball 23 times for 65 yards against the Ravens and 29 times for 107 yards against the Giants. Game three last year was against the Raiders (164 yards). If we had played the Raiders in week 3 this year, who thinks we woulda "busted out" for more than 100?

The line last year had similar problems. I like the line construction better this year - we just need them to get their shit together, and for us to realize that the line should be more powerful but less mobile/pull-happy. If we want mobile blockers, use a TE (not JT).

~G

Good post, you are right. We will improve with time, hopefully... as long as those injuries stay away. We did go into the game with the plano using a lot of 2 TE sets...then injury hit to our blocking TE. That put a kink in the chain, for sure.

Things aren't looking sharp, but we are 2-1 and still a lot of season to go. :beer:

[BroncoWave]

Lol are you actually being serious right now? You are way spoiled by the comical numbers this offense put up last year. We are still well on pace to have one of the top passing attacks in the league this year. Manning went into Seattle and put up 300 yards and 2 tds. Almost no one goes up there and does that.

I am being serious, but perhaps I'm judging our offense based on what I know of it. Manning has 2 TDs in the second half, total, over three games?

I'm a bit down on our passing attack because it's looked like shit. Manning is showing his age, is missing wide open WRs (both wide open in the field and in the endzone)...and just isn't looking good. YOu can have your girlish "lol" all you want, but the truth is, we put up 300yrds because we were throwing the ball all the time (poorly), and if it wasn't for that last coupel of catches in the last 20+ seconds of the game, we wouldn't have had that.

If you want to look at our passing attack against Seattle and walk away feeling GOOD about what you saw based on those numbers.... good for you. I'm going by what I see, and I'm REALLY not impressed with it. KCs defense is in shambles, and we couldn't exploit their weak corners and lack of safety.

Sure things can turn around and sharpen up. But as it is right now, I'm not impressed in the least.

I'm not really sure what games you have been watching. The main reason we didn't have huge passing numbers in the second halves of the first two games is because we got big leads and started playing super conservatively. Against Seattle we were conservative pretty much the whole game until we had to turn it loose at the end. Every time the offense has actually been aggressive this season instead of trying to sit on the ball, they have had no issues moving it down the field.

You also have to consider that we haven't had our entire receiving corps healthy in any game. No Welker the first two weeks and a really gimpy DT against Seattle.

Has Peyton missed a few balls here and there? Sure, but so does every qb. He hasn't been missing throws at any sort of alarming level though. If our passing game has any issues its with our wrs dropping passes, not with anything Manning is doing.

[VonDoom]

Good post, you are right. We will improve with time, hopefully... as long as those injuries stay away. We did go into the game with the plano using a lot of 2 TE sets...then injury hit to our blocking TE. That put a kink in the chain, for sure.

Things aren't looking sharp, but we are 2-1 and still a lot of season to go. :beer:

I think the two TE plan hasn't worked out great so far. It limits our passing options (which should be our bread and butter) and the run game has been ... well, you know. I hope they go back to spreading it out more, using 3 WR sets and using the whole field horizontally. This will definitely improve the passing game, and if the sets look the same on almost every snap, it'll give us more opportunity to run the ball against a weaker front, who have to spread out to account for the pass. I like the dedication to the run game, but we are not a "traditional" running team, and we should be operating out of the offensive sets that will do us the most good.

[Joel]

Unless DT has some serious problem with his foot (KNOCK ON WOOD) we can definitely get folks out of the box.
"Run to establish the pass" or "run 'em out of cover 2," it all works out the same, and getting people OUT of the box won't help our passing game: It's just more Kam Chancellors lurking for an easy Int in triple coverage, like he had last week and in the SB. Our receivers are great, but not great enough to win 4 on 7/8 matchups vs. NFL secondaries. Maybe most teams don't have good enough front fours to consistently reach Manning without blitzes, but the less coverage the more better.

It's not like we're facing a ton of overload blitzes from 7 or 8 guys, else Manning would make a hot read to Welker, or DT/Sanders (with 3-4 guys in coverage, THAT has "touchdown" written all over it.) Great QBs love seeing safeties in the box and shred blitzes: I WISH that's what we were dealing with, because Manning's made a first ballot HoFers career out of destroying that. Sadly, our run game's crap and our passing game lethal, so: Double cover everyone sent the rest for Manning and ignore the impotent running. We MUST run well enough to punish that or it'll never change.

I don't mean to cherry-pick one brief comment as a bone of contention from a post with which I largely agree, it's just that there's a completely backward yet bafflingly popular view we can just throw over everyones head and beat safeties and LBs squatting on underneath routes, like they're not just playing man-zone and won't chase deep balls as easily as short ones, and beat it as easily with a 2:1 numbers edge. When Manning threw into TRIPLE coverage Sunday, the defenders weren't squatting on short routes any more than the PREVIOUS time Chancellor picked Manning.

I do think, and certainly HOPE, the line will "collectively congeal" (if we want to avoid the term "gel") during or soon after the bye. I'm more worried the playcalls won't change, because strong plodding backs behind strong plodding lines are better suited to running between the tackles than to end runs. Defenders have always had to trade power for speed or vice versa, and edge runs, traps and the like play to those who prioritize speed; the way to beat fast, aggressive risk-inclined defenses has always been to overpower them, and always will be: It's just physics and physiology.

[Ravage!!!]

I'm not really sure what games you have been watching. The main reason we didn't have huge passing numbers in the second halves of the first two games is because we got big leads and started playing super conservatively. Against Seattle we were conservative pretty much the whole game until we had to turn it loose at the end. Every time the offense has actually been aggressive this season instead of trying to sit on the ball, they have had no issues moving it down the field.

You also have to consider that we haven't had our entire receiving corps healthy in any game. No Welker the first two weeks and a really gimpy DT against Seattle.

Has Peyton missed a few balls here and there? Sure, but so does every qb. He hasn't been missing throws at any sort of alarming level though. If our passing game has any issues its with our wrs dropping passes, not with anything Manning is doing.

Then I'm not sure what games you are watching.

[Joel]

I think the two TE plan hasn't worked out great so far. It limits our passing options (which should be our bread and butter) and the run game has been ... well, you know. I hope they go back to spreading it out more, using 3 WR sets and using the whole field horizontally. This will definitely improve the passing game, and if the sets look the same on almost every snap, it'll give us more opportunity to run the ball against a weaker front, who have to spread out to account for the pass. I like the dedication to the run game, but we are not a "traditional" running team, and we should be operating out of the offensive sets that will do us the most good.
I'm really wondering a lot about this and how much is Manning vs. Gase. The 3rd and long draws aren't bad ideas in principle: Doing the opposite of what the defense is defending can often beat them badly—but not if the offenses formation tips its hand and the play's designed to develop so slowly the D can recognize the misdirection. All the lateral motion on most of our runs buys linebackers in short zone coverage time to diagnose the run and come up to stop it: Run straight at them and the back's 5 yds past the line before they can react—but don't do it out of a jumbo set; that's not exactly subtle.

[Ravage!!!]

I think the two TE plan hasn't worked out great so far. It limits our passing options (which should be our bread and butter) and the run game has been ... well, you know. I hope they go back to spreading it out more, using 3 WR sets and using the whole field horizontally. This will definitely improve the passing game, and if the sets look the same on almost every snap, it'll give us more opportunity to run the ball against a weaker front, who have to spread out to account for the pass. I like the dedication to the run game, but we are not a "traditional" running team, and we should be operating out of the offensive sets that will do us the most good.

I think it was working very well against Seattle before Green was injured. I think we are using it now because the OL is struggling and that will change week to week depending on what kind of team we play.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I think we just need to give this team time to gel. So far, we've played 2 of the best teams in the NFL. Seattle and Denver are probably the best two teams, and Indy is top 5, IMO. KC might not be elite, but they're not awful either, and they are always going to play Denver tough.

[VonDoom]

I think it was working very well against Seattle before Green was injured. I think we are using it now because the OL is struggling and that will change week to week depending on what kind of team we play.

I don't know how often we were in two TE in the 1st quarter of the Seahawks game (though I imagine it was a lot, based on the previous weeks). Green was injured on the first play of the second quarter, though; until that time, Ball had rushed 7 times for 19 yards. That includes, of course, the first run of the game where he ran for 9 before fumbling. So 6 carries for 10 yards for the rest of the quarter. I don't think I would classify that as "working very well."

[VonDoom]

I think we just need to give this team time to gel. So far, we've played 2 of the best teams in the NFL. Seattle and Denver are probably the best two teams, and Indy is top 5, IMO. KC might not be elite, but they're not awful either, and they are always going to play Denver tough.

The next three teams we play are Arizona, the Jets and the 49ers. The Jets have a terrible secondary but a very good front seven (and especially front four), while the other two are borderline elite run defenses. It will be a struggle to run unless we figure something out during the bye.

[weazel]

it's a far cry from when the Broncos would just throw any scrub in there and get 1000 yards out of him

[Joel]

it's a far cry from when the Broncos would just throw any scrub in there and get 1000 yards out of him
To be fair, the rules have changed a LOT sense then; cut blocks (a critical component of ZBS) were increasingly restricted by rules changes in at least three seasons I know of, even as rules restricting defense against receivers and quarterbacks were also restricted, then they topped the whole thing off by essentially dubbing it spearing when a RB lowers his head to break a tackle.

In that environment, we couldn't churn out rushing yards like we did with our late nineties/early aughts Pro Bowl lines even if we had the same guys. Big 'splosions=big ratings, and soccer moms or Madden-crazed teens don't want to spend their Monday Nights watching three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust. I hope for the NFLs sake they're willing to invest money in merchandise and NFLN subscriptions like the oldtimers who grew up on Lombardi and Hayes football instead of this sandlot arena flag "football" crap.

[tripp]

it's a far cry from when the Broncos would just throw any scrub in there and get 1000 yards out of him

Hey you leave Reuben Droughns alone!

[Ravage!!!]

I don't know how often we were in two TE in the 1st quarter of the Seahawks game (though I imagine it was a lot, based on the previous weeks). Green was injured on the first play of the second quarter, though; until that time, Ball had rushed 7 times for 19 yards. That includes, of course, the first run of the game where he ran for 9 before fumbling. So 6 carries for 10 yards for the rest of the quarter. I don't think I would classify that as "working very well."

Wasn't talking about using it for the running game, but to keep people off Manning and give him time to throw. The Passing game was looking MUCH btter with the 2 TE sets before the injury than afterwards. We aren't goin ANYWHERE reliant on our running game. Everything revolvs and evolves around our passing game. Manning is taking more hits, already, than I've seen in the 3 years he's been here.

Considering how much difference there was in our passing ability with the 2 TE sets compared to not... I would very much classify it as "working very well."

[Ravage!!!]

To be fair, the rules have changed a LOT sense then; cut blocks (a critical component of ZBS) were increasingly restricted by rules changes in at least three seasons I know of, even as rules restricting defense against receivers and quarterbacks were also restricted, then they topped the whole thing off by essentially dubbing it spearing when a RB lowers his head to break a tackle.

In that environment, we couldn't churn out rushing yards like we did with our late nineties/early aughts Pro Bowl lines even if we had the same guys. Big 'splosions=big ratings, and soccer moms or Madden-crazed teens don't want to spend their Monday Nights watching three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust. I hope for the NFLs sake they're willing to invest money in merchandise and NFLN subscriptions like the oldtimers who grew up on Lombardi and Hayes football instead of this sandlot arena flag "football" crap.

We had several 1000 yrd rushers after the cut block rules changed. Cut blocks are still allowed in the NFL and probably always will be. If they aren't, then QBs will fall to the wayside with injuries. The ZBS is still used in the NFL because the cut blocks are still allowed.

[Joel]

We had several 1000 yrd rushers after the cut block rules changed. Cut blocks are still allowed in the NFL and probably always will be. If they aren't, then QBs will fall to the wayside with injuries. The ZBS is still used in the NFL because the cut blocks are still allowed.
"Restricted"=/="banned," and cut blocks HAVE been restricted, not just once, but increasingly, over multiple seasons. The last time was last YEAR, when the NFL made the previously partial ban on peelback blocks absolute, and Moreno finished with just over 1000 yds, so Denver's had ONE 1000 yd rusher (barely) since then, not several. Before that, we'd only had a 1000 yd rusher ONCE (McGahee in 2011) since 2006, about the time the NFL started the cut block crackdown. "Several" implies >2.

[G_Money]

"Run to establish the pass" or "run 'em out of cover 2," it all works out the same, and getting people OUT of the box won't help our passing game: It's just more Kam Chancellors lurking for an easy Int in triple coverage, like he had last week and in the SB. Our receivers are great, but not great enough to win 4 on 7/8 matchups vs. NFL secondaries. Maybe most teams don't have good enough front fours to consistently reach Manning without blitzes, but the less coverage the more better.

It's not like we're facing a ton of overload blitzes from 7 or 8 guys, else Manning would make a hot read to Welker, or DT/Sanders (with 3-4 guys in coverage, THAT has "touchdown" written all over it.) Great QBs love seeing safeties in the box and shred blitzes: I WISH that's what we were dealing with, because Manning's made a first ballot HoFers career out of destroying that. Sadly, our run game's crap and our passing game lethal, so: Double cover everyone sent the rest for Manning and ignore the impotent running. We MUST run well enough to punish that or it'll never change.

I don't mean to cherry-pick one brief comment as a bone of contention from a post with which I largely agree, it's just that there's a completely backward yet bafflingly popular view we can just throw over everyones head and beat safeties and LBs squatting on underneath routes, like they're not just playing man-zone and won't chase deep balls as easily as short ones, and beat it as easily with a 2:1 numbers edge. When Manning threw into TRIPLE coverage Sunday, the defenders weren't squatting on short routes any more than the PREVIOUS time Chancellor picked Manning.

I do think, and certainly HOPE, the line will "collectively congeal" (if we want to avoid the term "gel") during or soon after the bye. I'm more worried the playcalls won't change, because strong plodding backs behind strong plodding lines are better suited to running between the tackles than to end runs. Defenders have always had to trade power for speed or vice versa, and edge runs, traps and the like play to those who prioritize speed; the way to beat fast, aggressive risk-inclined defenses has always been to overpower them, and always will be: It's just physics and physiology.

To be clear, what I should have said instead of "out of the box" would be "out of the middle of the field." ;) More space is better when dealing with a (non-46) defense or trying to get creases to attack. If DT requires a double-team and JT forces a man to cover him, there are fewer people in the middle of the field to get into open running lanes and stop us from chunking yardage. I would like to see us run fewer double-crossing routes, because we're taking defenders right to guys like Welker, and helping to concuss the poor lad.

If we're going to run from draw formations then I want the field spread out first. Having bunched defenders defeats the purpose of any delayed handoff or draw.

[G_Money]

I would think that Lynch and Peterson the last couple years would show that you absolutely CAN still run the ball in the NFL. Heck, the Eagles rushed for 2500 yards AND passed for 4,000, better in both figures than the 97 or 98 Broncos.

Part of that is scheme, part is rules changes, but rushing the ball is not only permissable it's necessary in the NFL still. They're just doing it differently. Thre are things we can do to help the running game if we choose to. But much like with Andy Reed, Manning's philosophy is to throw first, and second, and run is maybe the 3rd or 4th offensive priority. That's okay - as long as you CAN run when you need to.

It would be very useful to this team to have a running game that can produce if the passing game happens to be shut down...

[Joel]

Well, we saw at the end of the Ravens playoff game Manning knows the value of running and when it's preferred to passing: He outright said he called those running plays at the end of regulation that had everyone screaming at Fox and McCoy. And rightly so; it burned all Baltimores time outs and left them with 0:40 to drive the length of the field to force OT; not the offenses fault our D couldn't play Prevent over 80 yds for under a minute to stop the tying TD: That's one of the most basic things a defense can't do, and if ours couldn't, maybe the better team DID win.

The real problem though was the pitiful yardage those runs got and, most importantly, the failure to get more than one conversion that would've let Manning kneel and host the AFCCG. I know he was a rookie then, but Hillman was just useless once Moreno got hurt and, while there was a whole herd of goats to "prevent" Hillman getting all the blame for the loss, that's much of why I have no faith in him now. That, and last years fumbles. I really hope we give Thompson his expressed wish to run over people, and soon, if only because that'll be necessary until/unless our run blocking improves.

[I Eat Staples]

Our lack of a running game is only a problem because we keep trying to run the ball, particularly from under center in a singleback set. Most teams need a running game, but our passing game is good enough that we just don't. We could go full air raid and have a better offense than the one that tried in futility to run the ball the past 3 games. Not only are the Broncos as a team so much better at passing than running, but passing the ball is just so much easier with the way NFL rules are. I don't understand why a team with Peyton Manning and the best receiving corp in the NFL (if you count the tight ends) is so committed to lining up under center and running stretch plays and misdirection plays for 2 yard losses. Running the ball would become a lot easier if we lined up in the Shotgun and spread the defense out every play.

Also, Ball would be a top 15 back on a lot of teams. I don't buy into the talk that he's the problem.

[Joel]

That's bad enough against any NFL defense, but against playoff defenses like Seattles, it's death, hence the SB. There are almost innumberable other reasons we need it though. Imagine this scenario:

Your elite offense drives the field in a 3 play 1:30 TD drive, you kickoff and the bad guys take over at their 20. They putter around a bit, get a few breaks and first downs, but after 3 or 4 minutes your elite D stops them short of midfield and forces a punt, then your elite offense drives the field for ANOTHER 3 play 1:30 TD drive and the whole thing starts again.

Okay, you're scoring—but you BETTER be: By the fourth quarter your D's played pretty much the whole game and theirs has barely been out there 10 minutes. Good luck trying to grind out the clock against a rested defense that knows those runs are coming, or stop their desperately passing offense tying it up against your totally exhausted D. And any time before that you DON'T score and/or your D allows one, your margin of error gets a lot tighter for that fourth quarter when they're 2:00 offense starts storming back against your gasping D while your quick strike offense can't kill the clock.

There's obviously far more to it; the interminable list of reasons coaches have run to salt away leads and passed to overcome them ever since the pass was legalized 109 years ago. Even Woody Hayes didn't play three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust down 3 TDs in the 4th. Everything that makes passing good for teams trailing late makes it bad for teams leading late; leading or trailing, incompletes still stop the clock and short drives still give the bad guys the ball so they can go back to Hail Maries and onside kicks over and over trying to get back in it.

Look at our last two drives vs. Indy: 1:19 and 0:28, but none of that nasty running—which is why the last ended in UNDER HALF A MINUTE. That doesn't rest our D nor tire theirs; just the opposite. Just be glad those passes were incomplete instead of intercepted, 'cause that's about three times more likely than on a run, and if Indy only needs 20 yds for the OT-forcing TD instead of 60 or 70, that game's even scarier, and we might be 1-2 now.

We can talk about high percentage passes, but even completing 70% stops the clock 30% more than a run, just as QBs with 6 Ints go to the Pro Bowl while RBs with 6 fumbles go the waiver wire.

So, yeah, running still has a firm and large place, even in our offense, even in todays pass-crazed NFL. Again, all those powerful reasons don't even include the BIGGEST one: The most important reason we need to run—and well—is so defensive lines can't just pin their ears back, ignore our RBs and murder Manning, while 6, 7 or even 8 DBs and LBs drop in coverage and play 2-on-1 against our receivers. Even they and Manning aren't good enough to beat ANY pro defense doing that: We must give give the NFLs Kam Chancellors motive to stack the box instead of lurk for Ints.

Fingers crossed we work it out over the bye.

[Simple Jaded]

Take more snaps from under center, it's harder to run from shotgun and pistol.

[Joel]

Take more snaps from under center, it's harder to run from shotgun and pistol.
Now, that one could well be on Manning; he loves him some shotgun, and after the SB I can't blame him, but if our pass blocking really is as much improved as everyone says, they should be able to give him time to drop back and pass. All roads lead to Rome. ;) If we don't get our run game figured out in a hurry though, silks facetious suggestion of five-wide is a good one: When backs can't get >2-3 yds and consequently sell play action, even a single back has ZERO value except as an extra pass blocker or receiver; might as well throw Caldwell/Lattimer out there with the Thomases, Welker and Sanders.