Our Greatest Strength is Our Greatest Weakness

[NightTrainLayne]

I thought about doing this after the SuperBowl last season.

And then again in the Second half against the Seahawks. I was reminded again in the disater at Foxborough, and yesterday I finally had enough after the debacle in St. Louis. Finally, after reading Dread's post in another thread, I decided to start this thread that has been working in my mind for about nine months. It's finally ready to be born.


I think the problem is structural to this team. We are built to be one dimensional. We are built to take advantage of PMFM's mad skillz. When he has an off day there is no "Plan B". He tends to have off days more often against decent defenses. So, we will continue to pound the beJaysus out of stiffs like the Raiders, but when push comes to shove this offense and this roster can't do much different than operating from a 3WR set out of the gun. When it works, great. Sometimes it doesn't work.

I would never build a team to operate like this. I am old. I prefer a 50/50 balanced offense, with a real FB, TE, 2 WR's. That isn't how Mr. Elway built this roster. He has looked damned smart, too, smarter than me, but maybe this team actually cannot win a SB as configured, and we lost sight of that. We outscored the 2007 Pats and 1998 Vikings last year, two other teams that didn't win a SB

Dread hit the nail on the head imo.

PFM is often lauded as some kind of offensive master-mind, running a complicated, ever-changing offense at the line of scrimmage, tailor-made to defeat the defense.

Well. .. to the extent he is a master-mind, it is based in simplicity. Our offense is simple. Especially compared to other NFL offenses.

Back in the mid-nineties, I used to relish the simplicity of our offense. As Bill Belichick once remarked, Shanahan didn't run a zillion plays, instead he ran the same 6-7 plays out of a zilliion formations, and confused the look, but didn't really run a huge amount of plays.

I loved it because defenses knew exactly what was coming. We didn't have a bunch of secret, trick plays. No, instead we just executed the same simple plays out of myriad formations, and ran over defenses who seemed powerless to stop us... . Even when they knew EXACTLY what was coming.

PFM does much the same. He likes to run a pretty simple offense, but one that prides itself on execution, and players all being on the same page to a very exacting degree.

The result is an offense, that while relatively simple for a defense to figure out, when executed well, is almost indefensible. It stresses the opposing defenses weaknesses. The defense may "know" more or less what PFM wants to do. .. but when executed properly is almost powerless to stop it.

Don't take my word for it:


The Colts’ offense was, structurally at least, among the simplest in the league for the entire time Manning was there. They used only a handful of formations — and almost always lined up Marvin Harrison (and later Pierre Garçon) split wide to the right and Reggie Wayne split wide to the left — ten or so core pass plays and just a couple of core runs. I know that sounds a little silly, especially since we’re constantly told that NFL playbooks are incredibly dense and huge and so on, but the Colts killed people with like fifteen, maybe twenty plays, and they did it for a decade. How? It’s an obvious but true answer to say: with execution. Part of that execution was having great, veteran players who were very good at their jobs. Part of that was having a quarterback who could, because the formations were simple, identify weak spots in the defense and check into the right plays. (The story that Manning was always given “three plays” to choose from on every down was always a bit apocryphal, but he obviously had a lot of freedom and they did use a variety of “check-with-me” concepts where he could change the play at the line.) The way Indianapolis did vary its formations was generally by only moving around the two inside receivers, either two tight-ends, a tight-end and a slot receiver, or, more rarely, two receivers. - See more at: http://smartfootball.com/offense/peyton-manning-and-tom-moores-indianapolis-colts-offense#sthash.0lie4W01.dpuf

Go read that entire article, if you haven't alread. Great stuff there.

But didn't Manning change it all up when he came here, and had to adopt the "Broncos Playbook"? No:


When asked how similar Manning’s current offense is to what he ran in Indianapolis, New England coach Bill Belichick was typically candid. “It’s identical. It looks the same to me.”

The enduring wonder of the Manning-Moore offense was not only its incredible success, but the way that success came about: by running the fewest play concepts of any offense in the league. Despite having one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time under center, the Colts eschewed the conventional wisdom of continually adding volume to their offense in the form of countless formations and shifts.

http://grantland.com/features/how-return-simplicity-peyton-manning-indy-offense-ignited-denver-broncos/

There's a whole host of other similar stories. It's All Over Fatman did a similar, and great breakdown a couple years ago.

That's all great. The weakness is the same. When we run into a defense that can put pressure on PFM, and/or alter our timing, it can sometimes go down-hill very fast. And we don't seem to have an answer for that.

All our eggs are in one basket, so to speak, and if a defense can pressure Manning enough, our offense goes up in a dumpster fire.

Much the same as defenses eventually (after a decade or so) started to figure out our zone running scheme, and answer for it, defenses, more and more have figured out how to defeat PFM. They don't always have the personnel to do so, but those that can, can neutralize PFM enough to knock the Broncos off.

Not surprisingly, the teams that are more able to do so, are those that we encounter deep in the playoffs. . . or God forbid in the SuperBowl.

Our Greatest Strength is our Greatest Weakness. I don't know what the answer is, because whatever the answer is, the better it is, the more it likely takes us away from PFM's simple, but effective concepts.

[SR]

Great write up. Amazing analysis.

It seems, this year at least, coaches have been able to handcuff Peyton, and this write up explains why.

I would also say that this staff is so invested in catering to Peyton that it has removed any aggressiveness this team could have.

Call the play and let Peyton be Peyton.

[NightTrainLayne]

I meant to have the following rant in the post above, and left it out:

We ran the ball NINE times. NINE ******* TIMES!!!! Are you kidding me? NINE FREAKING TIMES?

3F0rPFASUXY

I don't care how pass happy the NFL gets, you can't expect to win, or have any semblance of balance running the ball nine times against a good defense.

[Dreadnought]

Great write up. Amazing analysis.

It seems, this year at least, coaches have been able to handcuff Peyton, and this write up explains why.

I would also say that this staff is so invested in catering to Peyton that it has removed any aggressiveness this team could have.

Call the play and let Peyton be Peyton.

I think that is exactly what they are doing. This isn't "handcuffing" him, its that the system may have reached its maximum potential. Very very good, but never destined to be great. If that's true then its not a function of "aggressiveness" or "toughness" or "coaching" or any such stuff. The fatal flaw is baked into the cake.

The 1997/98 Broncos were the greatest pure finesse football team I have ever watched, but they were far more versatile on offense than this newer version

[Buff]

I'd take this one step further and say that Manning's physical limitations make our offense a proverbial house of cards.

He can't simply rifle the ball into tight coverage, which makes us very reliant on timing and WR route-running. Nor can he make plays when the pocket breaks down, which puts additional pressure on our o-line... So you've got a one-dimensional offense built around a one-dimensional QB and talented teams have figured out how to shut us down completely.

The issue - as Dread and NTL have alluded to - is that we're not a diverse enough football team to find other ways to win. We can't make in-game adjustments because we only have one style to hang our hat on. Beyond that - Manning has this "old dog" approach where it's his way or the highway... So whereas a younger team might try some new things, we will simply try to run all of our old concepts better... Which - Manning has proven that approach can win a Super Bowl... But we'll need the stars to align and hope to play Rex Grossman in the super bowl.

It's like we have this very clear-cut ceiling where we'll always dominate 90% of the league, but we'll never be better than the top 10%. Through that lens, Jim Irsay doesn't sound as crazy or bitter when he talks about being one and done in seven of 11 playoff years and not winning SBs with Star Wars numbers.

[aberdien]

And as Peyton ages, his skills diminish, which is why it seems like we're less effective. Guess we're on this train until it stops.

[Nomad]

I'd take this one step further and say that Manning's physical limitations make our offense a proverbial house of cards.

He can't simply rifle the ball into tight coverage, which makes us very reliant on timing and WR route-running. Nor can he make plays when the pocket breaks down, which puts additional pressure on our o-line... So you've got a one-dimensional offense built around a one-dimensional QB and talented teams have figured out how to shut us down completely.

The issue - as Dread and NTL have alluded to - is that we're not a diverse enough football team to find other ways to win. We can't make in-game adjustments because we only have one style to hang our hat on. Beyond that - Manning has this "old dog" approach where it's his way or the highway... So whereas a younger team might try some new things, we will simply try to run all of our old concepts better... Which - Manning has proven that approach can win a Super Bowl... But we'll need the stars to align and hope to play Rex Grossman in the super bowl.

It's like we have this very clear-cut ceiling where we'll always dominate 90% of the league, but we'll never be better than the top 10%. Through that lens, Jim Irsay doesn't sound as crazy or bitter when he talks about being one and done in seven of 11 playoff years and not winning SBs with Star Wars numbers.

Good job, Buff!

I guess my question is.......for starters, I agree with your assessment, and with a game like Manning had yesterday, why not give Osweiler a try in these types of games? Perhaps it would be throwing the kid to the wolves, or it could be perceived the BRONCOS are giving up on Manning and it would cause too much friction. It seems like a catch22, but I would like to know what our future looks like that is sitting on the bench.

[Dreadnought]

I'd take this one step further and say that Manning's physical limitations make our offense a proverbial house of cards.

He can't simply rifle the ball into tight coverage, which makes us very reliant on timing and WR route-running. Nor can he make plays when the pocket breaks down, which puts additional pressure on our o-line... So you've got a one-dimensional offense built around a one-dimensional QB and talented teams have figured out how to shut us down completely.

The issue - as Dread and NTL have alluded to - is that we're not a diverse enough football team to find other ways to win. We can't make in-game adjustments because we only have one style to hang our hat on. Beyond that - Manning has this "old dog" approach where it's his way or the highway... So whereas a younger team might try some new things, we will simply try to run all of our old concepts better... Which - Manning has proven that approach can win a Super Bowl... But we'll need the stars to align and hope to play Rex Grossman in the super bowl.

It's like we have this very clear-cut ceiling where we'll always dominate 90% of the league, but we'll never be better than the top 10%. Through that lens, Jim Irsay doesn't sound as crazy or bitter when he talks about being one and done in seven of 11 playoff years and not winning SBs with Star Wars numbers.

I've thought for a while that in Theory the way to beat PMFM was to understand how he would see any given defense and how he would then read and react to what he saw. If you could do that you could then in Theory dictate what he would do by what you showed him. If you were able to dictate Manning's audibles and play calling then he became totally predictable and therefore stoppable.

[NightTrainLayne]

I've thought for a while that in Theory the way to beat PMFM was to understand how he would see any given defense and how he would then read and react to what he saw. If you could do that you could then in Theory dictate what he would do by what you showed him. If you were able to dictate Manning's audibles and play calling then he became totally predictable and therefore stoppable.

This is what I felt Seattle did to us in the SuperBowl, and again for 3 and a half quarters earlier this season.

I feel like Peyton obliquely admitted as much as well. After the game at Seattle this season, post-game, Peyton said something to the effect that they "finally figured out what Seattle was doing defensively" and they finally moved the ball very well, and scored enough to get us into O.T. Once Peyton realized what Seattle was showing him, and expecting from him in return, he was able to adjust what the Broncos actually did in response.

At the same time, I was pretty upset that it took us the SuperBowl, a Pre-season match, and 3.5 quarters of a regular season match-up to "figure out what they were doing". I'm sure Seattle tweaked their defensive gameplan somewhat, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the key concepts that they won the SuperBowl with were in play in that regular season game, and likely have been picked up by other talented DC's in the league.

[NightTrainLayne]

This is what I felt Seattle did to us in the SuperBowl, and again for 3 and a half quarters earlier this season.

I feel like Peyton obliquely admitted as much as well. After the game at Seattle this season, post-game, Peyton said something to the effect that they "finally figured out what Seattle was doing defensively" and they finally moved the ball very well, and scored enough to get us into O.T. Once Peyton realized what Seattle was showing him, and expecting from him in return, he was able to adjust what the Broncos actually did in response.

At the same time, I was pretty upset that it took us the SuperBowl, a Pre-season match, and 3.5 quarters of a regular season match-up to "figure out what they were doing". I'm sure Seattle tweaked their defensive gameplan somewhat, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the key concepts that they won the SuperBowl with were in play in that regular season game, and likely have been picked up by other talented DC's in the league.

I should add, that part of the reason I feel this way is that both Seattle players, and New England players, post-game were quoted as saying something very similar to, "We knew exactly what he was going to do," throughout the game. Again, that's not surprising based on Manning's preferred offense, but not only did they know, but they executed better than the Broncos, and I think, to some extent, baited Manning into some mistakes.

[Northman]

The only thing i or we can hope for is they are just saving some shit for the playoffs. Its not likely but god im praying we try something different at some point.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Which is why we need to change it up a little and get away from the shotgun all the time. ;) (That's for MO).

Seriously though, we can change the formations a little without screwing up route trees and having to learn a completely new offense. Simply going under center and using play action more might help slow down the pass rush and also hold the safeties and LBs so our timing offense actually works.

Remember, even though the route trees were extremely similar to what Peyton/Moore ran in Indy, Peyton wasn't in the shogun half as much there as he is now. Remember the old Indy stretch play? They ran that damned thing to perfection so often I got tired of watching them use it. Starts off looking like a stretch run, into either a handoff or play action but it looked the same every time and so you had to respect the run even if they didn't run it. I remember one of the infamous games we played them they ran the same play like 10 times in a row and never actually handed the ball off. Even the announcers commented on how the play action was working without ever establishing the run. You had to respect it.

That's all I'm asking for. I honestly think there are 2 ways to help out an offensive line that's struggling. Play to their strength (run blocking) every O-linemen will tell you they LOVE to run block because they are the aggressors who get to fire off the ball instead of being on their heels. Run blocking and pass blocking are totally different techniques and I think if our guys could go forward instead of always going backward to create a pocket, it would significantly help out the running game.

The other way is to give them some help in pass protection. Someone tell Gase/Manning that it's okay to max protect sometimes. It's okay to have more than just 5 guys in tight. Shotgun or not, keeping a RB (or even better, 2 RBs especially if your RBs are better receivers than your TEs are blockers) in to help/chip then release/pickup the blitz will greatly improve the ability for Manning to get the ball down the field. Right now, I feel like if Manning doesn't have the ball out of his hands in under 2 seconds, it's a sack or hurry/throw away. He's just not getting the time nor are our receivers to actually get open, especially if they're jammed. You should know your matchup problems by the end of the 1st quarter at the latest. If an O-lineman is struggling you can't just ignore it and keep trying the same shit. That's exactly what we did vs NE and again yesterday. If you see the blitz and you don't have enough guys in protection, you can do more than just telling the RB who to block and trying to throw it to the hot receiver - especially when the defense knows exactly who that is and it's 3rd and long. Change the protection to get another blocker. Manning can do this at the LOS. If it means the RB can't flare out for the check down or that the TE must stay in and block, then so damned be it. The defender assigned to the new blocker usually has nothing to do then besides stand there just in case the guy releases so it also takes him out of the coverage scheme.

In short, our O-line is struggling especially against good competition and it's frustrating that we aren't trying to help them out. We can't just shuffle the deck every week and hope it works out and we can't just go grab guys off the street in hopes that they'll be better than the ones we have. So, the only way to band aid this problem is schematically. Just 'ol Jake the Snake and the naked bootleg which both got him throwing on the run (a strength vs the pocket) and cut the field in half to limit the decisions he had for who to throw to, we need to scheme better to help out the O-line.

[weazel]

I thought about doing this after the SuperBowl last season.

And then again in the Second half against the Seahawks. I was reminded again in the disater at Foxborough, and yesterday I finally had enough after the debacle in St. Louis. Finally, after reading Dread's post in another thread, I decided to start this thread that has been working in my mind for about nine months. It's finally ready to be born.



Dread hit the nail on the head imo.

PFM is often lauded as some kind of offensive master-mind, running a complicated, ever-changing offense at the line of scrimmage, tailor-made to defeat the defense.

Well. .. to the extent he is a master-mind, it is based in simplicity. Our offense is simple. Especially compared to other NFL offenses.

Back in the mid-nineties, I used to relish the simplicity of our offense. As Bill Belichick once remarked, Shanahan didn't run a zillion plays, instead he ran the same 6-7 plays out of a zilliion formations, and confused the look, but didn't really run a huge amount of plays.

I loved it because defenses knew exactly what was coming. We didn't have a bunch of secret, trick plays. No, instead we just executed the same simple plays out of myriad formations, and ran over defenses who seemed powerless to stop us... . Even when they knew EXACTLY what was coming.

PFM does much the same. He likes to run a pretty simple offense, but one that prides itself on execution, and players all being on the same page to a very exacting degree.

The result is an offense, that while relatively simple for a defense to figure out, when executed well, is almost indefensible. It stresses the opposing defenses weaknesses. The defense may "know" more or less what PFM wants to do. .. but when executed properly is almost powerless to stop it.

Don't take my word for it:

- See more at: http://smartfootball.com/offense/peyton-manning-and-tom-moores-indianapolis-colts-offense#sthash.0lie4W01.dpuf

Go read that entire article, if you haven't alread. Great stuff there.

But didn't Manning change it all up when he came here, and had to adopt the "Broncos Playbook"? No:



http://grantland.com/features/how-return-simplicity-peyton-manning-indy-offense-ignited-denver-broncos/

There's a whole host of other similar stories. It's All Over Fatman did a similar, and great breakdown a couple years ago.

That's all great. The weakness is the same. When we run into a defense that can put pressure on PFM, and/or alter our timing, it can sometimes go down-hill very fast. And we don't seem to have an answer for that.

All our eggs are in one basket, so to speak, and if a defense can pressure Manning enough, our offense goes up in a dumpster fire.

Much the same as defenses eventually (after a decade or so) started to figure out our zone running scheme, and answer for it, defenses, more and more have figured out how to defeat PFM. They don't always have the personnel to do so, but those that can, can neutralize PFM enough to knock the Broncos off.

Not surprisingly, the teams that are more able to do so, are those that we encounter deep in the playoffs. . . or God forbid in the SuperBowl.

Our Greatest Strength is our Greatest Weakness. I don't know what the answer is, because whatever the answer is, the better it is, the more it likely takes us away from PFM's simple, but effective concepts.

I've seen this as well, there was actually a great article written two years ago that drew up every formation and the optional plays for each... In total there were really only 15 plays.

[NightTrainLayne]

I've seen this as well, there was actually a great article written two years ago that drew up every formation and the optional plays for each... In total there were really only 15 plays.

Yes. The first link I posted has a bunch of the Indianapolis/Tom Moore plays. I seem to remember another, either for IAOFM.com or somewhere else, but didn't find it in time to include in this post.

[Joel]

I meant to have the following rant in the post above, and left it out:

We ran the ball NINE times. NINE ******* TIMES!!!! Are you kidding me? NINE FREAKING TIMES?

I don't care how pass happy the NFL gets, you can't expect to win, or have any semblance of balance running the ball nine times against a good defense.
See? You know EXACTLY what the answer is; anyone who watched Elway get blown out in 3 SBs in his prime as Our Greatest Strength only to win CONSECUTIVE SBs at 37 with a running game to share the load ought to know the answer: One-dimensional teams lose lots of games, because professional defenses are good enough to stop teams that only do ONE thing well.

None of that's on Manning, any more than it was on Elway in the '80s; this isn't the SECAA, where one great player can beat great teams: Vince Young in the 2005 "National" "Championship" game and Vince Young in the NFL achieved radically different results. Sadly, we signed a first ballot HoFer to a team that needed unprecedented luck just to reach .500, then tried to hurriedly assemble a championship team around him before he ran out of gas, and if it doesn't work, homerism and his history will put all the blame squarely on Manning to avoid putting it on the Broncos.

Yet as much as was made of Manning coming to Denver because Elway knew how a first ballot HoFer at the twilight of his career could get over the SB hump, the reality is Manning will do it the same way or no other. It's not his fault Irsay refused to draft a defense, and it's not his fault the team that made a science of the ZBS refuses to draft linemen. Our Greatest Strength in the mid-nineties is Our Greatest Weakness now: We rely on our QBs quick reads and releases to make up for poor pass blocking, and rely on NOTHING to make up for poor run blocking.

[Krugan]

So in a nut shell, PFM is the problem.

Maybe we arent running plays from under center because either a) he cant get back quick enough or b) the one line cant provide enough time for him to get back or c) both?

Essentially, after reading this, we are borked...

Just a quick take on a interesting set of issues.

Honestly I believe manning has some very serious issues with movement(well duh the eye test screams hes slower than slow) and it leads us to be even more 1 dimensional. Cant run stretch plays if your QB cant get there....

Not advocating Mannings anything here, just concerned that maybe his ship has pulled up anchor and started to drift abit.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

So in a nut shell, PFM is the problem.

Maybe we arent running plays from under center because either a) he cant get back quick enough or b) the one line cant provide enough time for him to get back or c) both?

Essentially, after reading this, we are borked...

Just a quick take on a interesting set of issues.

Honestly I believe manning has some very serious issues with movement(well duh the eye test screams hes slower than slow) and it leads us to be even more 1 dimensional. Cant run stretch plays if your QB cant get there....

Not advocating Mannings anything here, just concerned that maybe his ship has pulled up anchor and started to drift abit.

I think we stay in the shotgun spread because that's where Manning wants to be. He can get a better view of the field, he doesn't have to take a 3, 5, or 7 step drop, and he gets all his toys on the field at the same time. If our O-line was playing better, it would be fine and this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, they aren't and IMO being in the shotgun all the time isn't helping. They just can't hold up.

[Krugan]

I think we stay in the shotgun spread because that's where Manning wants to be. He can get a better view of the field, he doesn't have to take a 3, 5, or 7 step drop, and he gets all his toys on the field at the same time. If our O-line was playing better, it would be fine and this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, they aren't and IMO being in the shotgun all the time isn't helping. They just can't hold up.

We really need to vary the offense though, and what he likes isnt doing that.

i do get it though, and sadly its what we are. Shame we cant be consistent doing it this year, cause the window is pretty tight.

[broncobryce]

The broncos made their bed

[Hawgdriver]

One thing that sticks out to me from this past week is how effective NE was running the ball compared to Denver. How much was scheme (power still you stop us) and how much was personnel (our offensive line is flexible). I have to wonder if that's a Broncos front-office personnel flaw inherent in putting too many eggs in the Plan A basket. Virgil Green is out and our other TEs can't run block effectively, not to mention an offensive line that has proven to this point to be one-dimensional. The more other teams see what works, the more the onus is on the staff to craft a new formula. It will be a real test of Gase and Fox, because you know what you've got with Manning--and it's damn good, but good teams can stop it. He's not the only guy on the offense, there are plenty of other salty dudes pulling fat checks. In some ways this is their Tebow 2.0 moment, so it will be a real test. I have faith...what a gauntlet this season is shaping into. Would love to see them pull through it, but I share the same doubts.

[Slick]

Good point about Green. He made some great blocks last year for Moreno and Ball and the 2 TE 2Wr set was versatile and effective with him in it.

[broncofaninfla]

In defense of Manning the offensive line has struggled more often than not this season. We can't run the ball and our oline struggles against good dlines.

[MasterShake]

In defense of Manning the offensive line has struggled more often than not this season. We can't run the ball and our oline struggles against good dlines.

Any QB would look bad the way our interior line is letting pressure straight through. Strangely enough I think the 2 games we looked best and worst against were the NFC West teams. Seattle and St. Lois obviously being the latter. Basically any team that can get pressure and bring tight man to man coverage or that crazy cover 3 that Seattle does is going to shut down our passing attack. IF we can't fix the running game they at least have to give him a chance to get the ball off and I think a big part of that starts with the O-Line. Ideally we need to get CJ Anderson going early to establish some balance. We see what happens when the defense pins their ears back from the first snap of the game without the threat of a run. Hell, that big day by our running backs was what finally got us going in the Oakland game after they gave Manning fits early on.

And one more thing... for the love of God can we bench Andre Caldwell and get Latimer some reps? He runs like a puppet that was just granted a wish to be a real human. I'd rather have the rookie in there even if he is learning on the fly.

[Dreadnought]

I'm getting a sinking feeling that 2012 really was our chance. We probably have better pure receivers now than then, but running a 2 TE set with Dreesen and Tamme provided more potential for the running game.

****

[OB]

That's all I'm asking for. I honestly think there are 2 ways to help out an offensive line that's struggling. Play to their strength (run blocking) every O-linemen will tell you they LOVE to run block because they are the aggressors who get to fire off the ball instead of being on their heels. Run blocking and pass blocking are totally different techniques and I think if our guys could go forward instead of always going backward to create a pocket, it would significantly help out the running game.




I saw this pop up on my facebook page and thought this would be a good place to interject this article


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_26958129/broncos-change-directions-offense-decide-run-more-often


"I'm all for it," said Broncos left guard Orlando Franklin. "I'm glad he said it."

"As O-linemen, you like to take the fight to them as opposed to always retreating and blocking their best athletes on the backpedal the whole time," said center Will Montgomery.

(sorry if someone already posted this - I dont have time to read this whole thread ATM)

[Joel]

So in a nut shell, PFM is the problem.

Maybe we arent running plays from under center because either a) he cant get back quick enough or b) the one line cant provide enough time for him to get back or c) both?

Essentially, after reading this, we are borked...

Just a quick take on a interesting set of issues.

Honestly I believe manning has some very serious issues with movement(well duh the eye test screams hes slower than slow) and it leads us to be even more 1 dimensional. Cant run stretch plays if your QB cant get there....

Not advocating Mannings anything here, just concerned that maybe his ship has pulled up anchor and started to drift abit.
I personally think it's mainly b). Manning could stay under center a lot more in Indy because he had a GREAT line until his last few years there—then Glenn retired, Diem and Gandy left in FA, and within a couple years somebody snaps Mannings neck. He makes great presnap reads and gets the ball out faster than fast even when it's not a hot read, which makes these linemen look a lot better in pass protection than they actually are. Even in that SB debacle, I believe one of the best front sevens ever sacked him all of ONCE, and completed well over 60%.

Yet just because PFM can play hot potato with the best doesn't make it a good idea; all those SB completions didn't go very far because our QB didn't have time to wait for receivers to get downfield, and two of them were completed to the wrong team. That's what happens when the defense knows you play EVERY down like your down 11 at the end of the 4th qtr: They pin their ears back at the kickoff, ingoring the run game because it's an empty threat. Safeties play robber, LBs drop in zone or blitz and defensive linemen sprint for the QB without looking over their shoulder for an irrelevant RB.

Fix the line, and we'll fix Manning and the run game alike. With a good line, a team that can't pass can run, and a team that can't run can pass, but with a BAD line, they can't run OR pass, and since our special teams let NE nearly block a punt before running it back for a TD, punting's not an option either. It all starts (or doesn't) with the line; that's the most fundamental thing in football. #Championship coaching

[Valar Morghulis]

He runs like a puppet that was just granted a wish to be a real human.

I wish i had said this - what a great expression

[tomjonesrocks]

I think we stay in the shotgun spread because that's where Manning wants to be. He can get a better view of the field, he doesn't have to take a 3, 5, or 7 step drop, and he gets all his toys on the field at the same time. If our O-line was playing better, it would be fine and this wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, they aren't and IMO being in the shotgun all the time isn't helping. They just can't hold up.

I literally can't remember the last time I saw him take a snap from center. He might not even be able to do it athletically at this point.

[weazel]

I literally can't remember the last time I saw him take a snap from center. He might not even be able to do it athletically at this point.

yep.. too bad we didnt have Peytons mind in Kaepernicks body

[SR]

yep.. too bad we didnt have Peytons mind in Kaepernicks body

That's like a wet dream

[Valar Morghulis]

thats like a skinnier faster Elway with more audibles

[Cugel]

I don't think anybody is talking about the real issues here. #1 this isn't the 90's.

That kind of offense is not coming back.

#2 - Peyton and the offense would be perfectly fine IF Denver had a great pass-blocking stud OL. Peyton is old & creaky and he needs to be kept clean. If DL get right in his face after 2 seconds like they did in the SB, and again on Sunday against the Rams, then he looks like the second coming of Jay Cutler on a bad night!

If you keep defenders off him and give him time to throw he looks awesome as he did against the 49ers. Let's not forget that game. Then they can also run the ball because defenses have to play back in coverage to protect against the pass.

EVERYTHING comes back to the OL. They are a total mess.

Recap: After the Super-Blowout they decided to rebuild the OL, but they made the mistake of not getting any real talent to replace their guys. They just got rid of Zane Beadles, moved Franklin inside to G and Clark over to RT. That was supposed to work.

Franklin has slow feet, but is ginormous and freakishly strong. He theoretically should be a beast at LG where he doesn't have to worry about getting beaten around the edge by speed rushers. He hasn't shown anything like that kind of play, yet he's not even the real problem on OL.

Clark played well enough at LT they thought he could handle RT. He played his way out of a job and off the team after this season when he becomes a FA. Right now he's for emergency use only.

Manny Ramirez can't play center. I have no idea why that was considered an option. They needed to go out and get a quality center. No Paradis doesn't count nor Will Montgomery (God help us!). Moving him to G helps, slightly. But, he's totally underwhelming and a big part of the problem.

Clady has been mediocre and not at all worth the monster 5 year $33 million guaranteed ($52 million) six year contract he signed in 2013. But, mediocre looks pretty damn good compared with the right side of the line.

I have no idea what Paul Cornick was supposed to accomplish. FA rookie and you throw him in there? What did they expect? "Hey he couldn't be worse than Clark" is not a plan for a SB team.

This OL needed a total makeover and they gave it a paint job and moved a few crappy parts around. Now the wheels have come off and they are desperately trying improv on a weekly basis. It's not working.

Things hit rock bottom late in the game on that 3rd and 2 play. Everybody and his mother is thinking "hand the ball to C.J. Anderson and he can fall forward for 2 yards." Or, if they really want to get aggressive, they could go play-action pass and fake the handoff to C.J. and try and throw downfield. But, no! They throw that pathetic ball into the flat for no gain. 4th down.

I was just watching that and thinking "OMG! They just have absolutely ZERO confidence in their OL to call that play." They couldn't run the ball, and they didn't want to risk a play-action so they desperately flip through the play-book to find some play where their OL doesn't have to block for it to work. Just throw it to the right flat and hit the receiver in space, have him turn upfield, go one-on-one with a defender and make somebody miss and get the First Down. Only nobody missed.

Just a complete surrender. "We can't run because our OL is getting crushed and we can't protect Peyton so we have to have a quick opening play that gets the ball out of his hands in 1.8 seconds." Ouch!

That was just so pathetic I have to hide my head in shame.

[Buff]

The empty backfield on 3rd or 4th and 1 was just awful and inexcusable.

Cugel - I think everyone on the boards is talking about the o-line. I think this thread takes it a step further to identify that the o-line problems stem from our offensive philosophy.

[MOtorboat]

The empty backfield on 3rd or 4th and 1 was just awful and inexcusable.

Cugel - I think everyone on the boards is talking about the o-line. I think this thread takes it a step further to identify that the o-line problems stem from our offensive philosophy.

Blame the offensive line and the coaching if you want, but on at least two of those said situations if the receiver catches the damn ball we're not having this conversation.

[OB]

Blame the offensive line and the coaching if you want, but on at least two of those said situations if the receiver catches the damn ball we're not having this conversation.

So do you think our WR's are the problem and I am playing devils advocate BUT a WR is going to drop a pass or two - just like the line is going to miss a block and Peyton is going to be off mark with his passes

I think having a few dropped balls by the WR/TE's are the least of our worries (and thats of course with JT in and not Tamme)

[Cugel]

The empty backfield on 3rd or 4th and 1 was just awful and inexcusable.

Cugel - I think everyone on the boards is talking about the o-line. I think this thread takes it a step further to identify that the o-line problems stem from our offensive philosophy.

I just don't agree with those opinions. Look, everything would be fine if the OL could block. The idea was to pass to set up the run to set up the play-action.

That's a perfectly valid concept. People who are pining for a return to smash mouth football of the 90s can forget it. That's not happening on a Peyton Manning team.

You play to Peyton's strengths and avoid his weaknesses. He's a statute. Everybody knows that. Slowest guy on the field by far. But, keep him clean and he's a monster dissecting the defense. Let guys get in his face in 1.8 seconds and he looks like Jay Cutler throwing incomprehensible picks 6's where you scratch your head and say "what was he thinking throwing into double coverage like that?"

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I just don't agree with those opinions. Look, everything would be fine if the OL could block. The idea was to pass to set up the run to set up the play-action.

That's a perfectly valid concept. People who are pining for a return to smash mouth football of the 90s can forget it. That's not happening on a Peyton Manning team.

You play to Peyton's strengths and avoid his weaknesses. He's a statute. Everybody knows that. Slowest guy on the field by far. But, keep him clean and he's a monster dissecting the defense. Let guys get in his face in 1.8 seconds and he looks like Jay Cutler throwing incomprehensible picks 6's where you scratch your head and say "what was he thinking throwing into double coverage like that?"

Cugel, we all the know the line is struggling. The coaches know it, the fans know it, Peyton and the RBs know it, even the line themselves know it. Honestly, I don't think anyone is really blaming Peyton, the RBs, or the WRs/TEs for offensive ineptitude.

The problem is, EVERYONE knows the line is struggling and yet we don't seem to change ANYTHING other than shuffling the scrubs around. Normally, if the team has a deficiency there are a couple things they can do. A) Change the player, B) change the coach, C) or make adjustments to the scheme. "A" isn't gonna help much unless we sign a FA like Incognito and he comes in and is way better than expected. "B" isn't gonna happen sitting at 7-3 and still in the playoff hunt. So "C" seems like the most likely way to at least attempt to fix the problem. We can help the O-line by running the ball (committing to it - at least 30-35% of our offensive snaps) and and using more players (TEs, RBs, extra O-linemen, etc) in protection. Yeah, it means Manning might have one or two less targets in the pattern, but it will provide more time for Manning to get them the ball and more time for them to get open. We changed our entire offense for Tebow. We can tweak our current scheme to help the line out. Every time we go empty backfield, I cringe because I know we're taking a huge risk at a sack or turnover.

If anyone has any better ideas other than just bitching about the O-line, I'm all ears.

[MOtorboat]

So do you think our WR's are the problem and I am playing devils advocate BUT a WR is going to drop a pass or two - just like the line is going to miss a block and Peyton is going to be off mark with his passes

I think having a few dropped balls by the WR/TE's are the least of our worries (and thats of course with JT in and not Tamme)

There isn't one, single smoking gun. Whole offense played like shit. But on those plays, where people are calling out coaches, if the receivers catch the ball, the formation doesn't matter.

[Buff]

There isn't one, single smoking gun. Whole offense played like shit. But on those plays, where people are calling out coaches, if the receivers catch the ball, the formation doesn't matter.

But that's kind of the point - when you throw on 4th and 1 you introduce more risks, like the prospect of a WR dropping a ball... And if you have an empty backfield you're unnecessarily putting more pressure on your WRs and telegraphing your intent to the defense.

So I guess my point is that it's almost always a bad move in theory, regardless of results.

[MOtorboat]

But that's kind of the point - when you throw on 4th and 1 you introduce more risks, like the prospect of a WR dropping a ball... And if you have an empty backfield you're unnecessarily putting more pressure on your WRs and telegraphing your intent to the defense.

So I guess my point is that it's almost always a bad move in theory, regardless of results.

It's already 4th and 1. The running back could get stuffed just as easy as the receiver could drop it. I'd actually take the 70 percent completion percentage myself.

[Buff]

It's already 4th and 1. The running back could get stuffed just as easy as the receiver could drop it. I'd actually take the 70 percent completion percentage myself.

But you have to at minimum have a RB in the backfield so the defense has to prepare for a run. The theoretical error is having an empty backfield on 4th and 1, not passing instead of running.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

It's already 4th and 1. The running back could get stuffed just as easy as the receiver could drop it. I'd actually take the 70 percent completion percentage myself.

Personally, I'd rather line up in a bigger set with an extra TE or O-lineman, under center, with a RB in the backfield and then the defense has to at least respect the run and can't just play the pass. It allows Peyton to survey the defense for a weakness and either just handoff if there's a mismatch or go play action with a TE blocking to sell the run, disengaging as if he's beaten, then running a route where he'll probably be covered by a LB if he's covered at all. You see teams do it all the time inside the 5 with great success. At least it provides more options than lining up in a shotgun empty set with a QB who's no threat to run and putting all your eggs in one basket where everything from good coverage, to a pass batted down at the line, to a sack are more likely.

I don't think I've seen a team go for a 4th and 1 in a shotgun empty set all season except us. At least try not to telegraph the play. Hell, even when we did it vs the Raiders we had a RB in the backfield and used play action to free up JT for the conversion and then the TD.

[MOtorboat]

Personally, I'd rather line up in a bigger set with an extra TE or O-lineman, under center, with a RB in the backfield and then the defense has to at least respect the run and can't just play the pass. It allows Peyton to survey the defense for a weakness and either just handoff if there's a mismatch or go play action with a TE blocking to sell the run, disengaging as if he's beaten, then running a route where he'll probably be covered by a LB if he's covered at all. You see teams do it all the time inside the 5 with great success. At least it provides more options than lining up in a shotgun empty set with a QB who's no threat to run and putting all your eggs in one basket where everything from good coverage, to a pass batted down at the line, to a sack are more likely.

I don't think I've seen a team go for a 4th and 1 in a shotgun empty set all season except us. At least try not to telegraph the play. Hell, even when we did it vs the Raiders we had a RB in the backfield and used play action to free up JT for the conversion and then the TD.

That actually gives you three less options, and the defense is keyed on the run when they already know you suck at it. Why play into their strength? Spread it out, give your quarterback five options. And execute. We're not having this conversation if they execute, regardless of formation.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

That actually gives you three less options, and the defense is keyed on the run when they already know you suck at it. Why play into their strength? Spread it out, give your quarterback five options. And execute. We're not having this conversation if they execute, regardless of formation.

So why don't teams just do that inside the 5 all the time? No matter what you think, rushing for 1 yard is a higher percentage play than any pass play. Stacking the O-line improves the chance that a doubleteam is effective at creating a small crease to run through. I'm not even talking goalline, here. Leaving a WR out by himself (like DT) is a viable option and it takes a guy out of the box (or 2 if you feel the need to double him) That increases your chances exponentially of getting that one yard. We're talking about the same type of play the Pats did to us with Gronk. Line up big, motion him out where he's singled up, then throw a slant for a yard or just run the ball for a yard.

[MOtorboat]

So why don't teams just do that inside the 5 all the time? No matter what you think, rushing for 1 yard is a higher percentage play than any pass play. Stacking the O-line improves the chance that a doubleteam is effective at creating a small crease to run through. I'm not even talking goalline, here. Leaving a WR out by himself (like DT) is a viable option and it takes a guy out of the box (or 2 if you feel the need to double him) That increases your chances exponentially of getting that one yard. We're talking about the same type of play the Pats did to us with Gronk. Line up big, motion him out where he's singled up, then throw a slant for a yard or just run the ball for a yard.

Sounds to me like you just want anything other than what happened. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that because what happened didn't work, but Denver played to its strengths and I'm not going to fault them for doing that.

[Cugel]

Cugel, we all the know the line is struggling. The coaches know it, the fans know it, Peyton and the RBs know it, even the line themselves know it. Honestly, I don't think anyone is really blaming Peyton, the RBs, or the WRs/TEs for offensive ineptitude.

The problem is, EVERYONE knows the line is struggling and yet we don't seem to change ANYTHING other than shuffling the scrubs around. Normally, if the team has a deficiency there are a couple things they can do. A) Change the player, B) change the coach, C) or make adjustments to the scheme. "A" isn't gonna help much unless we sign a FA like Incognito and he comes in and is way better than expected. "B" isn't gonna happen sitting at 7-3 and still in the playoff hunt. So "C" seems like the most likely way to at least attempt to fix the problem. We can help the O-line by running the ball (committing to it - at least 30-35% of our offensive snaps) and and using more players (TEs, RBs, extra O-linemen, etc) in protection. Yeah, it means Manning might have one or two less targets in the pattern, but it will provide more time for Manning to get them the ball and more time for them to get open. We changed our entire offense for Tebow. We can tweak our current scheme to help the line out. Every time we go empty backfield, I cringe because I know we're taking a huge risk at a sack or turnover.

If anyone has any better ideas other than just bitching about the O-line, I'm all ears.

The problem is NONE of those options is going to work! They're shuffling the scrubs around because they don't have any other options.

Repeat after me: "they don't have the personnel to run the ball effectively." Period.

Did you hear Fox at the press-conference? He is clearly beyond frustrated. You KNOW he wants to change the scheme and run the ball more effectively, but he can't. They are stuck with Louis Vasquez at RT and Orlando Franklin at LG and Will Montgomery at C and they're not doing the job. Clady is less than stellar, and Manny Ramirez is underachieving.

What good is a new scheme going to do them? Don't you think the Broncos coaches are miles ahead of you on this? Don't you think they have already considered these things? Don't you think John Fox already knows all this and isn't making the changes you suggest because he doesn't think it can work?

Face it, the Broncos are just screwed. They made some assumptions about what they had for the OL and those assumptions (Chris Clark, Ramirez at C) proved to be hopelessly off.

They don't have the players to even beat the bad teams anymore on the road, and it's going from bad to worse as teams game plan how to exploit the terrible line play. Teams are ignoring the run, and teeing off on Peyton Manning and he's not responding well at all. If we had a mobile QB like Elway or Jake Plummer or Russell Wilson who could get out of pocket and buy some time then things would be different. But Peyton is a statue who's only great if his OL buys him the time to survey the field and make throws.

I'm predicting at least a 50% chance of a blow-out loss at home to the Dolphins who have a good DL that generates pressure. They have the #2 pass-defense in the NFL right now, behind the Chiefs and they're tied for 3rd in sacks with 30. This is a formidable defense and our OL is just in a shambles. By comparison, the Rams are 23rd with just 19 sacks, so this is a much BIGGER challenge for the OL than the Rams!

I hate to be pessimistic, but I don't see any upside to this one. I'd really love to be proven wrong though. Maybe they finally pull their heads out of their butts this week and remember how to block somebody!

Frankly, when you look ahead to the schedule I could easily see this team finishing 10-6 or even 9-7, if they can't win on the road. The Chiefs with the best pass-defense in the NFL and who just beat the Seahawks at home will be even tougher than the Dolphins.

[SR]

Jesus Joel

[HORSEPOWER 56]

The problem is NONE of those options is going to work! They're shuffling the scrubs around because they don't have any other options.

Repeat after me: "they don't have the personnel to run the ball effectively." Period.

Did you hear Fox at the press-conference? He is clearly beyond frustrated. You KNOW he wants to change the scheme and run the ball more effectively, but he can't. They are stuck with Louis Vasquez at RT and Orlando Franklin at LG and Will Montgomery at C and they're not doing the job. Clady is less than stellar, and Manny Ramirez is underachieving.

What good is a new scheme going to do them? Don't you think the Broncos coaches are miles ahead of you on this? Don't you think they have already considered these things? Don't you think John Fox already knows all this and isn't making the changes you suggest because he doesn't think it can work?

Face it, the Broncos are just screwed. They made some assumptions about what they had for the OL and those assumptions (Chris Clark, Ramirez at C) proved to be hopelessly off.

They don't have the players to even beat the bad teams anymore and it's going from bad to worse as teams game plan how to exploit the terrible line play.

I'm predicting at least a 50% chance of a blow-out loss at home to the Dolphins who have a good DL that generates pressure. They have the #2 pass-defense in the NFL right now, behind the Chiefs and they're tied for 3rd in sacks with 30. This is a formidable defense and our OL is just in a shambles.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I don't see any upside to this one. I'd really love to be proven wrong though. Maybe they finally pull their heads out of their butts this week and remember how to block somebody!

I can't guarantee it will work, but doing the same thing every week and expecting different results is futile. I'd just like to see them try it and see. The Pats' O-line got worked and called into question after the KC loss. They really aren't that good of an O-line. They just ran for over 200 yards vs the Colts because they lined up big and pounded the Colts over, and over, and over.

The Colts couldn't just line up to stop the run because then they had to contend with Brady, but lining up to run and running the ball completely opened up the Pats' passing game in the second half. Even if our running game wasn't hugely successful, it would help the passing game.

[Buff]

Mark Schlereth just completely destroyed the o-line in his 102.3 segment and agrees with Cugel. Basically he said that it's a hopeless bunch and whatever we do isn't going to work because these guys can't block anybody. He didn't seem to have much hope for getting it fixed this year.

[Slick]

Mark Schlereth just completely destroyed the o-line in his 102.3 segment and agrees with Cugel. Basically he said that it's a hopeless bunch and whatever we do isn't going to work because these guys can't block anybody. He didn't seem to have much hope for getting it fixed this year.

Neither do I. It's kind of refreshing.

[OB]

Can I ask a stupid question? Ya ya ya, insert funny comment here. But why? Seriously - why? We have done EVERYTHING to get a SB team together and we can't secure a decent offensive line? Is it salary cap issues? Are there people in the organization who don't see what needs to be fixed? If it's as simple as getting decent offensive linemen, than why aren't we doing it?

[VonDoom]

Can I ask a stupid question? Ya ya ya, insert funny comment here. But why? Seriously - why? We have done EVERYTHING to get a SB team together and we can't secure a decent offensive line? Is it salary cap issues? Are there people in the organization who don't see what needs to be fixed? If it's as simple as getting decent offensive linemen, than why aren't we doing it?

I mentioned this in another thread, but in all honesty, the line wasn't that bad last year. Clady was out, and while Clark was no Clady, he did a decent job. I certainly thought he had done enough to earn himself a shot at a starting job on the other side. But that line got us to the Super Bowl and then played terribly. It wasn't an epidemic last year.

Now, the front office took a calculated risk by moving Franklin and starting Clark at RT. I think we can chalk that up to "failed experiment" at this point. Honestly, though, everyone has played worse, as I said in that other thread. Clady is not a top five LT anymore, which is what he was before the injury. Franklin, despite what some people say on here, has not been that bad but he's playing a "new" position. Ramirez has been awful, which is especially damaging since he was good last year. Vasquez is even having a down year, and now he's out of position as well. RT has been a revolving door with no good answer.

So should Elway have looked to draft someone earlier who would be a plug and play starter? In retrospect, sure. But the line didn't look like a huge problem going into the season. The moves we made haven't panned out, and everyone is suffering as a result.

I'd give up on moving guys out of position and go with Clady/???/Montgomery/Vasquez/Franklin at this point. Say what you will about Franklin, but who is the best RT that is currently on our roster? In this scenario, LG would be the question mark, which is why people thought Incognito was a good idea. I'd try just about anybody there, to be honest - Clark, Cornick, Garland, whoever.

[MOtorboat]

Neither do I. It's kind of refreshing.

Refreshing?

[tubby]

Sounds like slick is giving up

[tubby]

I will say this, Manning reminds me way too much of Marino for my taste. #justsayin

[Slick]

Refreshing?

Yeah, I know that sounded bad. I won't be disappointed when they don't win because now I'm expecting them to lose to good teams.

[Slick]

Sounds like slick is giving up

Pretty much. I have zero expectations after having such high hopes.

[Valar Morghulis]

Pretty much. I have zero expectations after having such high hopes.

I am not there yet and still believe stories of PFM's demise are premature.

I fancy him to smash the td record in one game this week.

[Nomad]

I would rather fancy him playing like the supposedly GOAT rather than Jay Cutler.

[broken12]

Can I ask a stupid question? Ya ya ya, insert funny comment here. But why? Seriously - why? We have done EVERYTHING to get a SB team together and we can't secure a decent offensive line? Is it salary cap issues? Are there people in the organization who don't see what needs to be fixed? If it's as simple as getting decent offensive linemen, than why aren't we doing it?

I mentioned this in another thread, but in all honesty, the line wasn't that bad last year. Clady was out, and while Clark was no Clady, he did a decent job. I certainly thought he had done enough to earn himself a shot at a starting job on the other side. But that line got us to the Super Bowl and then played terribly. It wasn't an epidemic last year.

Now, the front office took a calculated risk by moving Franklin and starting Clark at RT. I think we can chalk that up to "failed experiment" at this point. Honestly, though, everyone has played worse, as I said in that other thread. Clady is not a top five LT anymore, which is what he was before the injury. Franklin, despite what some people say on here, has not been that bad but he's playing a "new" position. Ramirez has been awful, which is especially damaging since he was good last year. Vasquez is even having a down year, and now he's out of position as well. RT has been a revolving door with no good answer.

So should Elway have looked to draft someone earlier who would be a plug and play starter? In retrospect, sure. But the line didn't look like a huge problem going into the season. The moves we made haven't panned out, and everyone is suffering as a result.

I'd give up on moving guys out of position and go with Clady/???/Montgomery/Vasquez/Franklin at this point. Say what you will about Franklin, but who is the best RT that is currently on our roster? In this scenario, LG would be the question mark, which is why people thought Incognito was a good idea. I'd try just about anybody there, to be honest - Clark, Cornick, Garland, whoever.
My thought exactly, why not go with what was there last year help Franklin on those players were he needs help and move Clark to rg, he will understand the blocking scheme better there being at lt last year, if that don't work bring in another guy, why give up on protection for manning to try and gain a running game, better be good at one and not be bad at both

[Joel]

Jesus Joel
It's not quite the same, because evidently Cugel thinks the line was adequate last year, even with:

1) The third straight year Franklin broke his personal record for penalties,
2) Three straight games Clark gave up strip-sacks for scores and
3) Ramirez giving Pro Bowlers free shots at Manning and diving into piles after the whistle.

I still think Seattle just watched tape and exploited all that in the SB; otherwise, yeah, Cugel's saying exactly what I've been saying a long time. As I said after the SB, sometimes I really hate being right.

[Joel]

The frustrating thing is the coaches and FO knew the problem after the SB; Gase told Simms point blank the problem was we were so one-dimensional Seattle could and did just focus entirely on Manning to the exclusion of our non-existent run game. Defensive linemen could sprint for the QB without looking over their shoulder for RBs, LBs could squat on short routes instead of plugging holes and safeties could play robber instead of coming up to stack the box. It was exactly what I feared going into that game, and team management saw it—but did NOTHING about it!

The MOST frustrating thing is Elway knows better than anyone a solid line and reliable running is the difference between being blown out in 3 SBs and beating the defending champs to start our own repeat run.

[Valar Morghulis]

Was Peyton not one of the least sacked qbs in the league last year?

[BroncoJoe]

Was Peyton not one of the least sacked qbs in the league last year?

And this year.

[SR]

And this year.

11 times through 10 games i believe without checking.

[Dreadnought]

Yeah, I don't really buy the "crappy pass blocking" argument.

We can't run the ball, and I think its related to scheme first, then maybe line personnel and their inability to run block, combined with a touch of JT's (bless him) inability to run block. Somebody suggested Marshawn Lynch - he couldn't run in this system either, nor could a rejuvenated Terrell Davis, or anyone else really. That would be a pure waste of money.

[MOtorboat]

Was Peyton not one of the least sacked qbs in the league last year?

The offensive line has holes in run blocking this year. It's good in pass protection and it was fantastic in pass pro in 18 games last season. Thus far it's been good in 8 games.

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

The offensive line has holes in run blocking this year. It's good in pass protection and it was fantastic in pass pro in 18 games last season. Thus far it's been good in 8 games.

Which 8?

[SR]

Which 8?

The seven we won and at New England

[Hawgdriver]

We hoped Clady would come back 100%. Hoped Clark would be a good RT. Hoped Franklin would embrace road-grader LG. Hoped they would stay healthy. Hoped ManRam was not the same guy who looked lost when paired against talent. Kinda surprising to leave so much to hope when you look back on it.

I get your point, MO, but I think if the Broncos don't evolve, they have a certain ceiling that isn't what we all expected this season.

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

The seven we won and at New England

Are we talking run blocking, pass pro, or overall?

[SR]

Are we talking run blocking, pass pro, or overall?

MO's post very clearly said they have been good in pass pro in eight of the games.

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

MO's post very clearly said they have been good in pass pro in eight of the games.

Okay.

Since we are talking just pass protection, why do you think they looked good in the NE game? I watched NE send A gap blitzes all game that consistently pressured Peyton the entire game.

[PatriotsGuy]

Okay.

Since we are talking just pass protection, why do you think they looked good in the NE game? I watched NE send A gap blitzes all game that consistently pressured Peyton the entire game.

Didn't Manning pass for 438 yards in that game?

[ForgettingBrandonMarshall]

Didn't Manning pass for 438 yards in that game?

Yeah, he did a pretty damn good job with rushers in his face all game. Peyton's going to get a lot of yardage when he is forced to throw the ball 57 times.

[jhildebrand]

I think some of what is lost in this discussion is the genesis of this current roster from what it was. Let's not forget that we aren't that far removed from Orton going 1-4, whatever it was, and Tebow coming in on a team that was full of holes. The team had some nice pieces at the time but overall it was missing talent all over the place. We weren't a QB away from winning it all.

Manning will make almost any team a 10-12 win team as evidenced by what Indy did the year before his injury and the year he was out. He has done the same here. The problem with a short window to put a championship team together is you have to hit on more personnel than you miss on when filling those holes. Koppen was supposed to be the answer at C. His body couldn't hold up. Ty Warren has been brought in. Winston Justice, just to name a few. Some of the draft picks can't seem to get on the field. Manny has been an issue since day one and continues to be. We lack a real presence at ILB and have since the days of Al Wilson.

Add in the contract that Manning has and it becomes yet another hamstring-to a degree. Elway was consistently restructuring his contract at the end of his career to win and Manning is adamant about his pay. Not enough time nor money has forced this team into the position it is.

Finally, in defense of Manning, and other posters on this board who pointed it out before he signed here, he gets the ball off quick. If he wasn't as fast as he is at times this line would look drastically worse. I wonder if the FO felt that ability could allow them to proceed with the O line as they have? :noidea:

[Joel]

It's already 4th and 1. The running back could get stuffed just as easy as the receiver could drop it. I'd actually take the 70 percent completion percentage myself.
Manning hasn't completed 70% of passes this season nor in that game, but even if he did, nearly 100% of runs are completed, so that's nearly half again the completion rate. Backs can and do get stuffed, but 2 yds is ~2 sigma less than the perennial NFL average of 4.2 yds/att, so we're at least as likely to get that much from a run as a pass; it's not like it was 3rd and 15. That's not the issue though:


But you have to at minimum have a RB in the backfield so the defense has to prepare for a run. The theoretical error is having an empty backfield on 4th and 1, not passing instead of running.
I said the same in the gameday thread: 3rd and 2's a good running down, so a pass might fake out the D—but NOT with an EMPTY backfield; then they KNOW it's a pass, and success is far less likely when the D knows what's coming. That's a plain old coaching issue; if we want to make it about All Pros repeatedly failing to execute, that's coaching, too. Most good offenses play Hide the Lady so defenses never know what's coming (the Rams actually did a good job of it against our good D, forcing us to honor both pass AND run on every down.) Offenses that can't aren't good, almost by definition. #BestPassingEVAH

[MOtorboat]

100 percent of Denver's runs don't even reach the line, let alone are "completed."

St. Louis knew Denver couldn't run. It was useless to even try to fake it. That formation gave Denver it's best option. It just wasn't good enough Sunday. :whoknows:

[Joel]

I think some of what is lost in this discussion is the genesis of this current roster from what it was. Let's not forget that we aren't that far removed from Orton going 1-4, whatever it was, and Tebow coming in on a team that was full of holes. The team had some nice pieces at the time but overall it was missing talent all over the place. We weren't a QB away from winning it all.
Which is why I didn't want to sink $20 million/yr of cap space into a HoF QB in his final years, then "hurry, hurry" to add all those missing pieces before his clock expired: We weren't just a QB away from a championship, and Mannings salary greatly restricted our ability to get there, while simultaneously forcing us to do it in a hurry. Elway's made a fine effort, but the line's a glaring and probably fatal exception, and we have many hired guns also on short contracts. Scoring Ware and Talib may be a coup, but was also a necessity after the coup of scoring Shaun Phillips and DRC turned out to be a one year patch job.


Manning will make almost any team a 10-12 win team as evidenced by what Indy did the year before his injury and the year he was out. He has done the same here. The problem with a short window to put a championship team together is you have to hit on more personnel than you miss on when filling those holes. Koppen was supposed to be the answer at C. His body couldn't hold up. Ty Warren has been brought in. Winston Justice, just to name a few. Some of the draft picks can't seem to get on the field. Manny has been an issue since day one and continues to be. We lack a real presence at ILB and have since the days of Al Wilson.

Add in the contract that Manning has and it becomes yet another hamstring-to a degree. Elway was consistently restructuring his contract at the end of his career to win and Manning is adamant about his pay. Not enough time nor money has forced this team into the position it is.
You're making a lot of my favorite arguments, so I'll notify your next of kin. :tongue:


Finally, in defense of Manning, and other posters on this board who pointed it out before he signed here, he gets the ball off quick. If he wasn't as fast as he is at times this line would look drastically worse. I wonder if the FO felt that ability could allow them to proceed with the O line as they have? :noidea:
Maybe, but given they drafted and have since started Franklin each of 4 seasons, kept Walton till injury proved even RAMIREZ was better and kept Beadles till he left voluntarily for a big contract, it seems like the FO genuinely felt our linemen were genuinely good. Look at last offseason: Even after the coaches ADMITTED the persistent blocking failures the SB made undeniable, all we did was reshuffle the same bad hand, hoping guys who sucked at their first job would improve at their second.

Our SOLE addition on the line since Fox and Elway arrived was Vasquez, and that only happened because Kuper had a career-ending injury at the end of 2011. I just don't get it: The great run AND pass blockers that drew me to the Broncos also won Elways only championships, consecutively, starting with the defending champs; he should know better than anyone what made the difference between getting blown out in multiple SBs in his prime and winning multiple SBs in his final seasons. Yet here we are: The most important part of any offense is the ONLY part of the team he hasn't improved.

[MHCBill]

I just think it is short-sighted to focus on these "short comings" after a bad loss.

Folks point to an arguement after the outcome has been decided. This is the same schemes, personnel, coaches, etc as we had when we gave the Cardinals their only loss this year. Same schemes, tendiencies, personnel, coaches that beat New England in the AFC Championship last year. Same schemes, personnel, coaches that beat Indy, San Diego, and Kansas City this year.

Losing, like winning takes combinations of many factors. We lost in St. Louis Sunday due to poor execution; which causes every team to lose. Teams lose games, more than they win them.

All that said, I do believe that coaching adjustments are neccessary and that sound schemes and fundamentals go a long way in winning. However, execution trumps ALL.

[Joel]

100 percent of Denver's runs don't even reach the line, let alone are "completed."
Funny, I remember folks telling me our RBs getting hit at the handoff weren't the problem, because our line's elite; look at their PFF rankings and low sack totals! Negative runs aren't incompletes though (more's the pity; at least incompletes don't lose yardage.) Unless the handoff's fumbled, a LOT more than 70% of runs are completed—for good or bad.


St. Louis knew Denver couldn't run. It was useless to even try to fake it. That formation gave Denver it's best option. It just wasn't good enough Sunday. :whoknows:
How'd that formation give us our best option? We didn't need 5 WRs to sprint the length of the field for a Hail Mary, just SOMEONE to get open a measly 2 yds downfield. We could've done that with TEs and/or one or even TWO RBs sneaking into the flat and/or going over the middle—the difference is even ONE RB in the formation would've forced the Rams to honor the run on 3rd and 2.

Empty backfield removes fully HALF our offensive options, and playing with half the playbooks never the BEST option. If only because it's harder for defenses to stop what they don't know is coming.

You're right we can't run, or rather, I'VE been right all along and the coaches finally admitted it publicly so many times it's now undeniable (tell 'em they're not real Broncos fans; that should shut 'em up. ;)) THAT'S why I kept saying all of last year that the Best. Offense. EVAH! was really just the Best. PASSING. Evah. It's why I said we'd lose the SB if we couldn't run well enough to prevent the D selling out on the pass, and why Gase told Phil Simms we DID lose the SB BECAUSE we couldn't run well enough to prevent the D selling out on the pass.

Maybe instead of "spamming the boards" about it I should've spammed Elway and Foxs emails, but I credited Elway with a good enough memory of the difference between his SB blowouts and repeat championships to know better. But don't sit there "instructing" me on the fine points of an argument I've made and you've denied since before Manning even got to Denver. Pre-Manning, we had an All Pro LT, a good pass blocker at RG and holes at the other three spots: The names have changed since, but very little else has. Vasquez run blocks better than Kuper; that's about it.

[Joel]

I just think it is short-sighted to focus on these "short comings" after a bad loss.

Folks point to an arguement after the outcome has been decided. This is the same schemes, personnel, coaches, etc as we had when we gave the Cardinals their only loss this year. Same schemes, tendiencies, personnel, coaches that beat New England in the AFC Championship last year. Same schemes, personnel, coaches that beat Indy, San Diego, and Kansas City this year.

Losing, like winning takes combinations of many factors. We lost in St. Louis Sunday due to poor execution; which causes every team to lose. Teams lose games, more than they win them.

All that said, I do believe that coaching adjustments are neccessary and that sound schemes and fundamentals go a long way in winning. However, execution trumps ALL.
When a roster full of All Pros seasoned with a few first ballot HoFers can't execute, that's about coaching, too. Why did a dozen or more elite players turn into scrubs when they started playing for Fox...?

[Mike]

Was Peyton not one of the least sacked qbs in the league last year?


And this year.

Those numbers are good because Manning makes the reads, tells the oline where to block, and gets rid of it fast. It had nothing to do with good oline play. The oline was a problem last year but nobody wanted to acknowledge it and Manning's skills didn't make it seem so bad.

[SR]

Okay. Since we are talking just pass protection, why do you think they looked good in the NE game? I watched NE send A gap blitzes all game that consistently pressured Peyton the entire game.

He still was only sacked twice and threw for 440 yards. Deceiving stats, yes, but I'm also not cherry picking to support an argument...just stating facts

[VonDoom]

I just think it is short-sighted to focus on these "short comings" after a bad loss.

Folks point to an arguement after the outcome has been decided. This is the same schemes, personnel, coaches, etc as we had when we gave the Cardinals their only loss this year. Same schemes, tendiencies, personnel, coaches that beat New England in the AFC Championship last year. Same schemes, personnel, coaches that beat Indy, San Diego, and Kansas City this year.

Losing, like winning takes combinations of many factors. We lost in St. Louis Sunday due to poor execution; which causes every team to lose. Teams lose games, more than they win them.

All that said, I do believe that coaching adjustments are neccessary and that sound schemes and fundamentals go a long way in winning. However, execution trumps ALL.

I agree with the general premise here, but my larger concern is that teams have "figured out" how to stop us at this point. Teams couldn't do it last year, but it's becoming more apparent that there are ways that teams can match our vanilla game plans this year, thereby outcoaching AND out-executing us. This may be a largely pessimistic viewpoint, and if we beat up on the Dolphins this week, I'll feel better about our team overall, but we have to prove that we can plan for each time effectively and create new wrinkles that the other team hasn't seen yet.

Look at the Patriots, as much as I hate to keep saying it - they went with six offensive linemen on a ton of snaps last week and shoved it down the Colts' throats. They had barely run any formations like that in the earlier part of the season, but once again, Belichick is a step ahead of the competition.

[VonDoom]

Which is why I didn't want to sink $20 million/yr of cap space into a HoF QB in his final years, then "hurry, hurry" to add all those missing pieces before his clock expired: We weren't just a QB away from a championship, and Mannings salary greatly restricted our ability to get there, while simultaneously forcing us to do it in a hurry.

Yet we went from years of mediocrity to two straight number one seeds and championship contenders after Manning got here. We were also in the Super Bowl last year. Coincidence?

[Hawgdriver]

However, execution trumps ALL.

I'm not saying you are wrong, because I agree with this. But it's not like the team hasn't drilled enough, and doesn't want to win, doesn't want to execute. If execution is a function of preparation, and this is a well-prepared team, is execution really a solution? Or does the team need to adapt?

When a staff looks at the hundreds of plays the Broncos have run this season, and chooses the ones that are most effective, prepares the team to execute those plays, and plan falls far short, not all of that falls on execution. In any given game, lack of execution will bite the team on X% of plays, with some variance from game to game. I find it hard to believe that variance in execution explains how a team castrated an elite passing attack so completely. Broncos opponents tilted the odds in their favor by solving the riddle of the Bronco's offense, and Gase and Co. seem to be running out of "wrinkles."

It seems to me more than just improved execution is the fix, it seems that the offense needs to evolve somehow. And maybe they will never be able to establish a running game. But the same old tricks just aren't working. But what do I know? Big picture, one game, and all that...but it feels different somehow. In my mind, this is just another test to see if the Broncos are championship quality--how they respond. The postseason is suddenly in doubt, and we start to truly realize PFM can't do it alone, and the defense won't carry the team to a championship.

Maybe Plan A is what the team does best, but the team needs more quarrels in the quiver when opponents nullify Plan A.

[Joel]

Yet we went from years of mediocrity to two straight number one seeds and championship contenders after Manning got here. We were also in the Super Bowl last year. Coincidence?
No: Manning. Against a fixed division round robin and a rotating division from each conference, a .500 team SHOULD give a QB that great enough help to finish at or near the top of the standings. Plus that division rotation was pretty soft the first two years: We were 13-3 in 2012, but only beat 2 winning teams and got BLOWN OUT by ALL the rest (and one of those we beat ended our season in our house,) then last years NFCE was a joke and the AFCS little better apart from Indy (who beat us handily.) ANY team with Manning can go 9-2 against a semi-random schedule and earn a Bowl invite.

Yet once the playoffs start and we're facing nothing BUT winning teams in weekly elimination games, it takes more than a first ballot HoFer under center. Anyone who remembers Elway getting blown out in 3 SBs he had to win alone but winning consecutive SBs when he had help ought to understand that. This isn't college: One elite PLAYER can't beat an elite TEAM. Sure, we've given Manning lots of weapons—at RECEIVER: That still puts all the burden on him to get them the ball under heavy pressure or in double coverage because the D can ignore our impotent run "threat." Just as with Elways Three Amigos.

[Joel]

Yeah, he did a pretty damn good job with rushers in his face all game. Peyton's going to get a lot of yardage when he is forced to throw the ball 57 times.
The whole thing neatly summarized. Anyone who came away from that game thinking >400 passing yards and just 2 sacks was a great performance from our pass blockers didn't SEE the game. In particular, Manning, likes most elite QBs, is good enough to see a blitz off the edge coming and get the ball out fast on a hot read, but when the pressure's up the gut, obscuring his vision and blocking his follow through, what happens? Interceptions by guys he couldn't see past the OTHER guy tackling him. The Rams did that a lot with Laurinitis up the gut, too (even though I'm faithfully assured MLBs don't blitz.)

Manning's not a one-man SB team: It's past time we stopped treating him as one. It's a deep injustice to him (especially since Indy did the same thing throughout his previous career) and sabotages the SB chances of a team actually loaded with talent everywhere EXCEPT the offensive line on which the whole offense (Manning included) depends. C'mon, Broncos fans, sit down and ask yourselves:

What was the difference between Elway getting blown out in 3 SBs and Elway winning 2 straight SBs? Our defense? It was good in the mid-nineties, but hardly elite, and wasn't awful in the '80s: Try again. I HOPE this isn't as simple as Elway trying to prove Reeves wrong 30 years after the fact, because Shanahan already proved him RIGHT 15 years ago.

[Slick]

Our greatest stregnth and weakness won his only Superbowl when his team started to run the ball more. Denver isn't winning shit if he's throwing the ball 50+ times a game.

[OB]

http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/11/19/7244597/denver-broncos-offensive-line-is-nfls-most-penalized-unit



This is a coaching problem. Mental errors and execution issues are not excuses, John Fox, they are coaching failures. It seems, from the outside looking in, that you have lost the trust in some of your players, but your players are losing their trust in you. It's time to go get it back.

[Joel]

That really says it all. Maybe Franklin WAS a top rated lineman his rookie year, but he's had more penalties EVERY season since, and is on pace to do so for the third straight time. No, he's not the only problem, but in terms of correlating penalties with underperformance and increasing penalties with poor coaching, he makes a fine posterchild, because his penalty frequency has steadily and unceasingly risen since we drafted him, and that shouldn't happen to ANY starting NFL lineman. But who's been his coach since we drafted him...? ;)

[Simple Jaded]

The broncos made their bed

You say that like it's a bad thing?

[Simple Jaded]

Wow, in this one thread this team went from being a record setting offense with issues on the OL to being a One-Man-Waste-Of-Money. The Broncos literally did everything those idiots were saying they couldn't do when they signed Manning to his contract, can't sign All-Pro FA's, can't build the defense, can't do this, can't do that.

Bitch please! No team has done more to win a SB than the Denver Broncos since signing Manning. Tuck in your skirts, ladies, a little adversity and you wanna give up, this is the exact same "Punched in the mouth and quit" mentality we've been blasting the Broncos for.

[Valar Morghulis]

Wow, in this one thread this team went from being a record setting offense with issues on the OL to being a One-Man-Waste-Of-Money. The Broncos literally did everything those idiots were saying they couldn't do when they signed Manning to his contract, can't sign All-Pro FA's, can't build the defense, can't do this, can't do that.

Bitch please! No team has done more to win a SB than the Denver Broncos since signing Manning. Tuck in your skirts, ladies, a little adversity and you wanna give up, this is the exact same "Punched in the mouth and quit" mentality we've been blasting the Broncos for.

You should post in the politics forum - because you are awesome!

[Simple Jaded]

You should post in the politics forum - because you are awesome!

I am so.

[Slick]

Wow, in this one thread this team went from being a record setting offense with issues on the OL to being a One-Man-Waste-Of-Money. The Broncos literally did everything those idiots were saying they couldn't do when they signed Manning to his contract, can't sign All-Pro FA's, can't build the defense, can't do this, can't do that.

Bitch please! No team has done more to win a SB than the Denver Broncos since signing Manning. Tuck in your skirts, ladies, a little adversity and you wanna give up, this is the exact same "Punched in the mouth and quit" mentality we've been blasting the Broncos for.

We've seen this team get punched in the mouth and lay down a few times. It was nice to see them respond the way they did today. This was a great win. Had they just blown Miami out, I don't think it would have been as impressive.

It was really nice to see the team step up and take some of the pressure off of Manning.

[Dreadnought]

Put Manning under center, play 2 TE's on a number of occasions, add C.J. Anderson, allow the OL to do some sound aggressive drive blocking, and good things happened. Play action worked great, and the offense racked up production even with PMFM being a bit off with his deep ball.

[jhildebrand]

One of Manning's last TD throws was a rocket. Im not sure he showed similar arm strength all season long. I am also not sure it wasnt a result of his arm being fresh thanks to some healthy runs!

[MOtorboat]

Put Manning under center, play 2 TE's on a number of occasions, add C.J. Anderson, allow the OL to do some sound aggressive drive blocking, and good things happened. Play action worked great, and the offense racked up production even with PMFM being a bit off with his deep ball.

C.J. Anderson's success was out of the shotgun.

[NightTrainLayne]

C.J. Anderson's success was out of the shotgun.

C. J. Anderson's success was all over the freaking place!

[MOtorboat]

C. J. Anderson's success was all over the freaking place!

I agree. But I don't want to hear about how you can't run out of the shotgun when Anderson had 16 carries for 103 yards and a touchdown in the gun and 11 for 64 from under center.

Without the garbage time 26 yard run, Anderson was only 10 for 39 from under center.

[Simple Jaded]

Fwiw, Chad Brown bashed running out of shotgun and pistol this week on Dmac/Big Al, I don't have as much of a problem with it as long as it's not a staple like it was tonight.

[MOtorboat]

Fwiw, Chad Brown bashed running out of shotgun and pistol this week on Dmac/Big Al, I don't have as much of a problem with it as long as it's not a staple like it was tonight.

Really?

Even when it's more effective?

Amazing.

[Simple Jaded]

Perhaps the shotgun/pistol running was more effective because the Broncos established some run from C looks.

[MOtorboat]

Perhaps the shotgun/pistol running was more effective because the Broncos established some run from C looks.

Doubt it.

Blocking was just better.

[Simple Jaded]

Maybe the blocking was better because they established some conventional run looks?

[NightTrainLayne]

I agree. But I don't want to hear about how you can't run out of the shotgun when Anderson had 16 carries for 103 yards and a touchdown in the gun and 11 for 64 from under center.

Without the garbage time 26 yard run, Anderson was only 10 for 39 from under center.

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about. He was great wherever he was lining up at. And I don't consider that 26 yard run "garbage time" either. We needed a first down to seal it, and he delivered.

[MOtorboat]

I'm not sure exactly what you're on about. He was great wherever he was lining up at. And I don't consider that 26 yard run "garbage time" either. We needed a first down to seal it, and he delivered.

He did. He delivered all night. But this persistent "Denver needs to run with the quarterback under center" is hooey. It's bullshit.