Let Peyton Be Peyton

[Shazam!]

Good read from Woody. Scrap the overhaul and go back to Manning in the shotgun and no huddle FT. It worked just fine in KC.

http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_28845260/manning-deserves-be-true-himself

[MOtorboat]

"Throw that ******* pigskin, boy."

[NightTrainLayne]

The problem comes in when we get to December, and Manning is worn down from throwing the ball 50 times a week, and we lose. .. . like the last couple of times.

It's seductive. It looks great now. Less so in January.

[Joel]

Are we just going to pretend the last two seasons didn't happen, or blame them all on our former coaches? The only people who want to let Peyton be Peyton (or should) are Seahawks fans. He's not a one-man team, nor even one-man offense, and until/unless his line gets its stuff together it's gonna be like watching replays of SB XLVIII every time we face a decent D. IF they get it straight, we've got the backs to take some pressure off and burn teams who try to cover all the short routes while sending the house for Mannings head.

There's a reason teams who run 2:00 drills all game, every game don't make the playoffs. Give 'em a HoF QB and a strong D and a few do, but they don't win championships: They get shelled by complete teams, while the HoF QB hometown fans herald as savior is derided as an overrated choker by everyone else. Thank heaven our GM and HC know that all too well, and what to do about it.

We'll probably POSTPONE the overhaul from necessity (though how much the line grows and "gels" over its current long break could decide that) but only as a short term stopgap, not long term solution. The only long term solution is for our linemen to start doing their job so an immobile surgically repaired HoFer pushing 40 doesn't have to do it all alone (like most of his career.)

[MOtorboat]

To win or lose in January, you have to get there.

[Poet]

Well until you let Peyton be Peyton he was getting physically abused, and running bootlegs didn't help. If this is truly a dichotomy Peyton being Peyton wins by default.

But it's not dichotomous. The offensive line will have to learn to run-block somehow. Peyton can't be in the shotgun every single snap, either.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Are we sure Payton can be Payton?
We were in the shotgun a lot in the first game. I'm not expecting to ever see the guy we saw in 2013 again. We need a running game.

[Joel]

Well until you let Peyton be Peyton he was getting physically abused, and running bootlegs didn't help. If this is truly a dichotomy Peyton being Peyton wins by default.

But it's not dichotomous. The offensive line will have to learn to run-block somehow. Peyton can't be in the shotgun every single snap, either.
Fair point: 2:00 drills exist for a reason, and even the best teams need a few every now and then. Not LIVING there--nor anywhere else--kind of the point; we're not trying to pick WHICH predictable offense we want, but avoid one altogether so the D's never sure what's coming till it's too late, so must plan for everything (and therefore sell out on nothing.)

All that's the real reason the line must learn to run and pass block sooner rather than later to keep our season alive with ANY style(s) of offense. In that sense, "letting Peyton be Peyton" really is our only (relatively) tenable course in the interim. If we COULD do other things we would, but we can't so we won't; Manning's on his own because he's all we've got. Hopefully he gets some help within a month or two.

Anyone reminded Mathis about a third of his contract is easily made incentives, but they mostly boil down to "start all or most games"? If he's benched by midseason we're essentially paying him $2½ mil (remember when he looked like a steal at twice the price?)

[MOtorboat]

Are we sure Payton can be Payton?
We were in the shotgun a lot in the first game. I'm not expecting to ever see the guy we saw in 2013 again. We need a running game.

Well, yes. But if it's getting stuffed no matter what formation you're running because the offensive line is crap, then Denver's gotta adjust fast and go into what we saw in the second half on Thursday. I think Kubiak will do it, but you can't just run into the line for the sake of running into the line.

A passing offense is more efficient anyway.

[Dapper Dan]

I think the offense will be okay once the OL gets some experience. I really hope we find a running game for the 2nd half of the season and playoffs.

[Joel]

Well, yes. But if it's getting stuffed no matter what formation you're running because the offensive line is crap, then Denver's gotta adjust fast and go into what we saw in the second half on Thursday. I think Kubiak will do it, but you can't just run into the line for the sake of running into the line.

A passing offense is more efficient anyway.

Ooooh, I was with you till that last sentence. Statistically, passing produces about 3X the turnovers for 2X the yards, and denies ones D rest (often even when it scores.) The ratios average gain and field position lost to turnovers improve for long passing, which is why I like it; if we can reach the red zone in one or two plays all we're doing for the rest of the drive is finding out how MUCH we score, not IF. But if we're talking about dink and dunk passing: I'd rather get 4-5 yds/play coughing it up every 100th or 200th time than throwing it away every 30th or 40th. It won't kill the clock with a lead either.

[MOtorboat]

I know you're not. You're stuck in the 70s and 80s.

No need to rehash all of your crap.

[MOtorboat]

When Manning drops back to pass, there's a 2.6 percent chance the pass is intercepted. There's a 65.4 percent chance Denver gains 11.7 yards.

The yardage per completion has dropped some this year but it's still wildly more efficient to throw the football.

[Dapper Dan]

When Manning drops back to pass, there's a 2.6 percent chance the pass is intercepted. There's a 65.4 percent chance Denver gains 11.7 yards.

The yardage per completion has dropped some this year but it's still wildly more efficient to throw the football.

What are the odds of an interception when you run the ball?

[DenBronx]

The problem comes in when we get to December, and Manning is worn down from throwing the ball 50 times a week, and we lose. .. . like the last couple of times.

It's seductive. It looks great now. Less so in January.

Could have easily lost that game against KC had Manning not taken the reigns. So we lose and lose more then hope we have our act together come late in the season when teams are all lickin their chops to make the playoffs? Lets take the wins now then worry about January when January rolls around.

It's a project and I suspect Kubiak will keep adding in plays the more Manning gets comfortable with them. Our run game is no where to be found. Maybe Kubiak should worry about why our backs aren't getting yardage. Right now, it's a total team effort and the defense is stepping up to the plate.

[MOtorboat]

What are the odds of an interception when you run the ball?

0. But your odds of only gaining 2 yards are really high. You weigh the risk/reward.

The risk is so minimal that passing is much more effective. The old adage that if you pass one of three things can happen and two of them are bad is a shitastic way to call plays in the NFL and has been for about 20 years.

[Dapper Dan]

0. But your odds of only gaining 2 yards are really high. You weigh the risk/reward.

The risk is so minimal that passing is much more effective. The old adage that if you pass one of three things can happen and two of them are bad is a shitastic way to call plays in the NFL and has been for about 20 years.

I appreciate the fact that you gave that stupid post a well thought out response.

[Poet]

0. But your odds of only gaining 2 yards are really high. You weigh the risk/reward.

The risk is so minimal that passing is much more effective. The old adage that if you pass one of three things can happen and two of them are bad is a shitastic way to call plays in the NFL and has been for about 20 years.

I agree - if you're run heavy it better be for a stronger reason than being conservative. I believe some teams benefit from running a lot - the reasons can range from just grinding out the clock to having a young QB. Sometimes it's great to run the ball when they think you're going to pass it a lot, match-up exploitation/s are a thing as well.

[Cugel]

Well until you let Peyton be Peyton he was getting physically abused, and running bootlegs didn't help. If this is truly a dichotomy Peyton being Peyton wins by default.

But it's not dichotomous. The offensive line will have to learn to run-block somehow. Peyton can't be in the shotgun every single snap, either.

This is truth. But, you have to analyze what is meant by the word "can't".

If you mean "it will get Peyton killed" then fine. I agree. But, they don't have a choice.

I went back and watched all the major pass plays they've run this season. And it was painful. Peyton got more than 2 seconds to throw on only a handful of occasions.

They can't run the ball at all and are averaging less than 3 yards per attempt. Everybody knows this and is just blitzing Manning on almost every play. When he's under center he doesn't even get time to execute a 3 step drop and set up before he's hit. It's just a jailbreak. To give him even a chance to throw the ball they're having to line up in the shotgun.

They don't have a choice about whether they want to have Peyton in the gun. They can't run block, so they have to pass 45 times a game. And to do that Peyton has to be in the shotgun because they can't pass block either.

I don't know what the answer is frankly. Their entire offensive line is just putrid and the veterans, Mathis, Vasquez and Harris have been worse than the rookies, Paradis and Sambrailo. They are the worst OL in football by a wide margin right now. It's not even close. They're 28th in the league right now in rushing, and that's counting the Colts who have only played one game.

If Peyton wasn't a Hall of Fame QB with the fastest release in football, they wouldn't complete a single pass. If you don't think it's that bad then go back and watch the pass plays in slow motion like I did. The blocking is almost non existent.

In fact they are sometimes keeping 7 guys including the TEs in to block and STILL not getting the job done. Chiefs defenders were just steamrolling the OL right back into Manning. Defenders were splitting double-teams, they can't get the TEs into the patterns because they need to keep them in to block all the time. It's just beyond ugly.

I can't imagine what they are telling their OL in the meeting room on Monday. But, it deserves to be a royal butt-chewing.

[DenBronx]

I don't ever want to see Manning run another bootleg. At least until our run game has some sort of a pulse.

[Joel]

When Manning drops back to pass, there's a 2.6 percent chance the pass is intercepted. There's a 65.4 percent chance Denver gains 11.7 yards.

Right, and a 34.6% chance he gets NOTHING, and 9% of THOSE are Ints (less than most: He's PFM, which is great, but first ballot HoFers don't show us "typical" passing; their several standard deviations above "typical.") We can't skew stats by ignoring failure, whether tackles for loss or incompletes (and even if we could, comparing rushing yds/ATTEMPT and passing yds/COMPLETION is apples and oranges.) 2/3 of 12=8, not 12; more precisely, Mannings career average is 7.7 yds/att, actulally LESS than (wait for it...) TWICE THE NFL RUSHING AVERAGE, which has held steady at ~4.2 for decades. Remember, that's a first ballot HoFers career numbers: "Average" NFL passing averages even less, so has even less advantage over "average" NFL running.

Even MANNINGS edge is less, because NFL yds/att ignores sacks (everyone else tracks "adjusted yds/att" separately: Not the NFL.) So his completion (and Int) percentages are slightly less: 96.9% of his attempts were't sacks, so counting sacks drops him to 7.24 yds/att. A little over 3 yds, or 75%, more than an average run--but average runners fumble about once every 150 carries, while Manning throws an Int about once every 40 passes (better than a 3:1 ratio: He's PFM, not John E. Football.) NONE of that counts passer fumbles either, yet Manning was strip-sacked thrice (that I recall) in 2013 alone.

So instead of comparing passing yds/comp to rushing yds/att and first ballot HoF QBs to generic RBs, let's try apples to apples. For the record, I'm switching from PFR to ESPN here; I'll explain why after:

2014 NFL Rushing

13,351 for 55,762 yds, 376 TDs and 91 Fumbles Lost, or 4.2 yds/att, 2.8% TD and 0.7% FL

2014 NFL Passing

11,200 of 17,879 (PLUS 1212 sacks) for 121,247 yds (MINUS 7651 sack yds,) 807 TDs and 450 Ints, or 5.95 yds/att, 4.2% TD and 2.4% Int

EXCEPT--ESPN says there were 305 fumbles lost last year, but only 91 on runs (Pro Football Reference only lists total fumbles (lost or not, rushing, passing or kicking: That's why I switched.)) ESPNs receiving (i.e. PASSING) stats show receivers lost 85 more, but I can't find which of the rest were kick returns, blocked punts and strip-sacks. I think we can all agree strip-sacks are FAR more common than the other two though; I just can't tell how MUCH more common. So I must give QBs a "pass" for those other 129, despite knowing Manning alone had at least 3. That makes 2014 passing stats

5.95 yds/att, 4.2% TD and 2.8% TO Where's all that leave us? In the 2014 NFL

The average pass gained 1.4X more yards, scored 2X more TDs and lost 5X more turnovers than the average run.

Worth it? Another 1.8 yds, twice the scoring and five times the turnovers? Reasonable men can differ, but I wouldn't trade 4 possessions for a TD and 1.8 yds/play. A team that can't score a TD in 4 possessions has bigger problems than its run/pass ratio, and those that do don't care how far that TD traveled, much less whether it was by air mail or ground freight: All they care about is GETTING it.


The yardage per completion has dropped some this year but it's still wildly more efficient to throw the football.

1.8 yds/att isn't "wildly" more efficient, and double TDs for pentuple turnovers certainly isn't. And that's letting QBs off the hook for about a THIRD of ALL NFL turnovers.

[Northman]

Peyton can't be in the shotgun every single snap, either.

Apparently he does judging by the first two weeks of the season. The most one dimensional QB ive ever seen. Shocking really.

[Northman]

I don't ever want to see Manning run another bootleg. At least until our run game has some sort of a pulse.

Why? The run game did not affect the bootlegs he did run. On 3 occasions he was able to pass to a wide open receiver but just flat out missed them. The run game has nothing to do with his accuracy when rolling out.

[TXBRONC]

The problem comes in when we get to December, and Manning is worn down from throwing the ball 50 times a week, and we lose. .. . like the last couple of times.

It's seductive. It looks great now. Less so in January.

Exactly, no matter how much the NFL has become a passing league teams still have be able run the ball weather turns colder.

[TXBRONC]

Could have easily lost that game against KC had Manning not taken the reigns. So we lose and lose more then hope we have our act together come late in the season when teams are all lickin their chops to make the playoffs? Lets take the wins now then worry about January when January rolls around.

It's a project and I suspect Kubiak will keep adding in plays the more Manning gets comfortable with them. Our run game is no where to be found. Maybe Kubiak should worry about why our backs aren't getting yardage. Right now, it's a total team effort and the defense is stepping up to the plate.

It would not be a good idea to kick the can down the road on the running game. It's not a like a light switch that just be turned on when it's needed. When the Packers won their last Super Bowl they struggled running the ball most of the season but were able get going late into the season through the playoffs. One of the reasons they were able to had do with not giving up on running the ball earlier in the year.

[Davii]

What happened to using the Pistol? It seems to have the benefits of having Manning off the line but still allowing for a diverse run game. Obviously, the line must improve no matter what.

[Joel]

0. But your odds of only gaining 2 yards are really high. You weigh the risk/reward.
No higher than odds of an incomplete, even with PFM (let alone far lesser QBs, which is MOST.) Is 2nd and 10>2nd and 8? Part of a runs appeal is that even bad ones usually get SOMETHING, while bad passes get NOTHING. Likewise, tackles for loss rarely lose >2-3 yds, but sacks routinely lose 7+. Most importantly, PASSES LOSE THE BALL AT LEAST 5 TIMES MORE THAN RUNS! Why even debate it?

Because passes also SCORE twice as often, either outright or setting up chip shots even if the drive immediately dies. Passes flip field position and score (or SHOULD) to a degree running can't: There's the cost/benefit analysis. Instant points are worth greater turnover risks, but if we're gonna be in 2nd and long either way I prefer the route that produces positive yardage more often and turnovers less often. If we're dinking and dunking for ball control (or any reason,) getting SOMETHING nearly EVERY time beats getting NOTHING a THIRD of the time. West Coast passing's supposedly "high percentage" because it's higher percentage than Lamonicas mad bombs, but passing for less than a 1st down has lower percentages than running for that, because there's no such thing as an "incomplete run."

I love passing as only someone who grew up with the Run 'n Shoot can (it's literally DESIGNED for passing to set up the run, not the reverse.) But our recent seasons have practically been Anti-Run 'n Shoot: Instead of spreading the D all over the field to open up runs, quick short passes just behind the line encourage the D to stack the box till running's hopeless. Hardly "complementary football."


The risk is so minimal that passing is much more effective. The old adage that if you pass one of three things can happen and two of them are bad is a shitastic way to call plays in the NFL and has been for about 20 years.

Five times the turnovers isn't minimal risk, especially not when the benefit's no more than a slightly above average run that's MUCH safer. For TDs, instant red zone trips and first downs that keep us 1st and 10 scenarios where we have the whole playbook, sure, pass to your hearts content. Just don't pass to "matriculate the ball down the field," resting our D and tiring theirs. and/or running out the clock when nursing a small late lead: It's not worth it, because it doesn't WORK. Killing the clock and STOPPING it are mutually exclusive (just ask the Oilers.)

[TXBRONC]

Why? The run game did not affect the bootlegs he did run. On 3 occasions he was able to pass to a wide open receiver but just flat out missed them. The run game has nothing to do with his accuracy when rolling out.

Manning threw his second touchdown of the season off a bootleg.

[MOtorboat]

Whatever you say, Joel.

My guess is that the NFL will continue throwing it 58 percent of the time and so will Denver. You can dream about the 70s all you want.

Denver is better when they let Manning loose.

[Northman]

Manning threw his second touchdown of the season off a bootleg.

Must of been luck because the 3 bootlegs i saw him do he wasnt anywhere near the receiver.

[Joel]

Apparently he does judging by the first two weeks of the season. The most one dimensional QB ive ever seen. Shocking really.

Don't you believe it. Manning was never one-dimensional before, and actively tried to avoid it his first two seasons in Denver. But making every offense one-dimensional (i.e. predictable) is half the Ds JOB, and our lines have let them pretty much since Manning got here. Every D from JHS up wants to make opponents throw shotgun Hail Maries ASAP; against us they do it by kickoff.

It wasn't a new problem when Seattle did it to us in the SB, humiliating us in front of the literally whole world (I sadly wasn't drunk enough to avoid noticing near the end of the 3rd qtr that were in danger of the first EVER SB shutout; thank heaven for DT setting a SB reception record despite playing most of the game with a separated shoulder.) It was here before Manning, which (ironically) is why I thought he should've gone to Kubiaks much better Texans line (that, and predicting Schaub would soon play himself and Kubes out of a job.)

It's just gotten so much WORSE annually. Gase understood it when he sent a 3rd OT out to protect Manning early last year, and tried to manufacture a run game midseason: He just couldn't DO it. Welcome home, Kubiak and Dennison; if only ya'll had gotten here a year sooner, because it'll probably take a whole season to shift to the new better system, and that's probably longer than Manning's got.

[Joel]

Whatever you say, Joel.

My guess is that the NFL will continue throwing it 58 percent of the time and so will Denver. You can dream about the 70s all you want.

Denver is better when they let Manning loose.
Not what I said at all; re-read it (or rather, READ it, don't skim for cherrypicked cause to complain.) Pass all you like, but for 30 yds a pop, not 3: Running's a far better way to do the latter.

[TXBRONC]

Must of been luck because the 3 bootlegs i saw him do he wasnt anywhere near the receiver.

He can throw it's just not his favorite thing nor isn't something Denver needs him to do ten times a game.

[Northman]

He can throw it's just not his favorite thing nor isn't something Denver needs him to do ten times a game.

If you are a QB running Kubes system you need to be able to consistently make that pass. Its quite obvious that had Manning been able to hit those 3 targets it would of changed the complexion of those drives. Its not his favorite thing because he struggles to complete it but the point of the bootleg is to take advantage of the defense in those moments. Guys like Elway and Plummer were so successful at doing the bootlegs and it showed when they ran them. Personally, Kubes should scrap the idea of having him do those since he just isnt consistent at it and focus more on what Manning's strengths are.

[TXBRONC]

If you are a QB running Kubes system you need to be able to consistently make that pass. Its quite obvious that had Manning been able to hit those 3 targets it would of changed the complexion of those drives. Its not his favorite thing because he struggles to complete it but the point of the bootleg is to take advantage of the defense in those moments. Guys like Elway and Plummer were so successful at doing the bootlegs and it showed when they ran them. Personally, Kubes should scrap the idea of having him do those since he just isnt consistent at it and focus more on what Manning's strengths are.

I don't think they should scrap it completely. Elway didn't do nearly as much throwing on the move as Plummer did. With Elway it was p.a. boot, set his feet and then throw it.

[NightTerror218]

When Manning drops back to pass, there's a 2.6 percent chance the pass is intercepted. There's a 65.4 percent chance Denver gains 11.7 yards.

The yardage per completion has dropped some this year but it's still wildly more efficient to throw the football.

You mean a pick 6

[Poet]

There are many times when it is okay to throw the ball for designed amounts of small yardage (in regards to where the receiver is when the ball is caught). For instance, the Chargers in weeks one and in two played small ball because of matchups. We can even point to the Patriots' two TE build with Welker/Edelmen/Woodhead/whatever small white guy they were using. The Steelers with a young Big Ben often played small ball with Ward, Heath Miller, Spaeth, and Duece McCalister/Willie Parker/Bettis.

The efficiency comes from the totality of the reality. Short dink and dunk passes can often be great against the cover two, but are or were most often shitty. The same can be said for passing against the prevent.

When Seattle's offense is clicking they're running the ball, maybe taking a few shots down the field, but when passing it's mostly modest attempts at yardage.

These instances are why I have to side with Mo - when you're throwing the ball the flexibility to choose what type of goals you're going for are far more flexible than running.

For instance, Cincinnati has the power back in Hill and the third down back in Bernard. But, Bernard has often been successful running up the middle, Hill can be horrifying to deal with on outside runs and dump off catches. Even with what might be the best one two punch in the league, when the Bengals go into their passing mode/s we can play small ball, attack the middle, the sidelines, push the ball down the field, etc. etc. etc.

Running the ball right now is a fine thing to do, passing is a fine thing to do. But when you run the ball the artistic equivalent is a coloring book as you have less room for creativity and flexibility. Passing is a pristine and untouched canvass. But, if one runs the ball, they're less likely to make a mistake, much like it's harder to **** up if you color in the lines like you're supposed to.

[Joel]

There are many times when it is okay to throw the ball for designed amounts of small yardage (in regards to where the receiver is when the ball is caught). For instance, the Chargers in weeks one and in two played small ball because of matchups. We can even point to the Patriots' two TE build with Welker/Edelmen/Woodhead/whatever small white guy they were using. The Steelers with a young Big Ben often played small ball with Ward, Heath Miller, Spaeth, and Duece McCalister/Willie Parker/Bettis.

The efficiency comes from the totality of the reality. Short dink and dunk passes can often be great against the cover two, but are or were most often shitty. The same can be said for passing against the prevent.

Sure, situationally--TACTICALLY--but not strategically: It's an OK gimmick, but an awful philosophy (notwithstanding what ya'lls old QB coach did with it; it worked much better with a couple HoF passers and Ds than with Virgil Carter, and I really like Virgil Carter, the Peyton Manning of his day.)


When Seattle's offense is clicking they're running the ball, maybe taking a few shots down the field, but when passing it's mostly modest attempts at yardage.

Well, "modest" is a relative term, and I'm not saying every pass should be a bomb, only that most should seek conversions or better. Again, if I'm gonna be in 2nd and 6 either way, I prefer the one with 80% less turnovers, where failure means 2nd and 8 instead of 2nd and 10, and abject failure 2nd and 12 instead of 2nd and 18. From what I've seen (and it galls me to say this) Seattles balance and range is about what I'd like: They don't throw much, by modern standards, but it's usually for 10+, not a quick out/slant. The marginal value I personally see in passes <10 yds is setting up 2nd/3rd and 3 runs.


These instances are why I have to side with Mo - when you're throwing the ball the flexibility to choose what type of goals you're going for are far more flexible than running.

For instance, Cincinnati has the power back in Hill and the third down back in Bernard. But, Bernard has often been successful running up the middle, Hill can be horrifying to deal with on outside runs and dump off catches. Even with what might be the best one two punch in the league, when the Bengals go into their passing mode/s we can play small ball, attack the middle, the sidelines, push the ball down the field, etc. etc. etc.

Running the ball right now is a fine thing to do, passing is a fine thing to do. But when you run the ball the artistic equivalent is a coloring book as you have less room for creativity and flexibility. Passing is a pristine and untouched canvass. But, if one runs the ball, they're less likely to make a mistake, much like it's harder to **** up if you color in the lines like you're supposed to.

An "illustrative" analogy, yes, but is the objective to attempt masterpieces at the cost of occasional obscenities, or consistently churn out marketable prints that maintain steady sales with low risk of bankruptcy? Maybe that's a mangled extension of the conceit, but the point is the REAL point is winning the most games and championships by whatever means does so, however banal, not setting records with high octane offense that explodes on the launchpad from time to time. The 2013 Seahawks offense was (is) boring as Hell, and ours shattered records: Which went home a champion?

[Poet]

Joel, sometimes I think that we're not that different. I chuckled at the 'illustrative' comment.

[jhildebrand]

With this year likely being Manning's last, this team has an obligation to continue to install the system Kubiak wants. That way there is less growing pains and it is easier for Brock to step in. The benefit this year in continuing to install the new system is opposing D's have to honor expect Denver will continue to install that system or prepare for two systems. It is a built in in-game adjustment! B]Going to an "either or" scenario only makes the opposing D's job easier.

[TXBRONC]

With this year likely being Manning's last, this team has an obligation to continue to install the system Kubiak wants. That way there is less growing pains and it is easier for Brock to step in. The benefit this year in continuing to install the new system is opposing D's have to honor expect Denver will continue to install that system or prepare for two systems. It is a built in in-game adjustment! B]Going to an "either or" scenario only makes the opposing D's job easier.

I totally agree. Scrapping the entire system for a year to accommodate Manning doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Northman]

With this year likely being Manning's last, this team has an obligation to continue to install the system Kubiak wants. That way there is less growing pains and it is easier for Brock to step in. The benefit this year in continuing to install the new system is opposing D's have to honor expect Denver will continue to install that system or prepare for two systems. It is a built in in-game adjustment! B]Going to an "either or" scenario only makes the opposing D's job easier.


I totally agree. Scrapping the entire system for a year to accommodate Manning doesn't seem like a good idea.

But its one they may have to make. In theory, i would agree that Kubes system should be installed but then they probably should of just let Manning walk if that was the case. I think many people questioned whether Manning would even be able to run Kubes system. Personally i thought Manning would flourish but apparently not. So the Broncos are faced with a conundrum of whether to force the square peg into the round hole or let Manning simply do what he does best and try to get the team back to the SB. The only important thing at this point is to continue to give reps to Brock since he will be able to run the system and should Manning fail or go down with injury they can plug Brock in and let the Oz era begin.

[TXBRONC]

But its one they may have to make. In theory, i would agree that Kubes system should be installed but then they probably should of just let Manning walk if that was the case. I think many people questioned whether Manning would even be able to run Kubes system. Personally i thought Manning would flourish but apparently not. So the Broncos are faced with a conundrum of whether to force the square peg into the round hole or let Manning simply do what he does best and try to get the team back to the SB. The only important thing at this point is to continue to give reps to Brock since he will be able to run the system and should Manning fail or go down with injury they can plug Brock in and let the Oz era begin.

I don't deny that it's still a possibility but not right now. Elite quarterback like Manning can make any system work. I think to some degree Manning is fighting it because he prefers to be in the shot gun and running the team from a spread formation. The biggest key to getting Manning comfortable is for offensive line to start being productive in the running game.

[NightTerror218]

Stats from Legwood Article on ESPN:

Defenses have sent an extra rusher at Manning on 43.5 percent of the team&rsquo;s dropbacks in the first two games, including penalty snaps. He is 15-of-33 passing (45 percent) for 116 yards with both of his interceptions -- both returned for touchdowns -- coming against the blitz.

By comparison, Manning was blitzed on 26 percent of his pass attempts in his record-setting season of 2013 and threw 13 of his 55 touchdown passes that season when he faced the extra rushers.

[jhildebrand]

But its one they may have to make. In theory, i would agree that Kubes system should be installed but then they probably should of just let Manning walk if that was the case. I think many people questioned whether Manning would even be able to run Kubes system. Personally i thought Manning would flourish but apparently not. So the Broncos are faced with a conundrum of whether to force the square peg into the round hole or let Manning simply do what he does best and try to get the team back to the SB. The only important thing at this point is to continue to give reps to Brock since he will be able to run the system and should Manning fail or go down with injury they can plug Brock in and let the Oz era begin.

I don't disagree with anything you said. I will say that they need to continue with the system install despite Manning. The other 10 on offense, especially the o line, need it the most. Also, the team needs this system come January. We all know how Manning looks then even when he is doing well. Manning will be fine. He is maybe the smartest player to play the game. He will be ok.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

There are many times when it is okay to throw the ball for designed amounts of small yardage (in regards to where the receiver is when the ball is caught). For instance, the Chargers in weeks one and in two played small ball because of matchups. We can even point to the Patriots' two TE build with Welker/Edelmen/Woodhead/whatever small white guy they were using. The Steelers with a young Big Ben often played small ball with Ward, Heath Miller, Spaeth, and Duece McCalister/Willie Parker/Bettis.

The efficiency comes from the totality of the reality. Short dink and dunk passes can often be great against the cover two, but are or were most often shitty. The same can be said for passing against the prevent.

When Seattle's offense is clicking they're running the ball, maybe taking a few shots down the field, but when passing it's mostly modest attempts at yardage.

These instances are why I have to side with Mo - when you're throwing the ball the flexibility to choose what type of goals you're going for are far more flexible than running.

For instance, Cincinnati has the power back in Hill and the third down back in Bernard. But, Bernard has often been successful running up the middle, Hill can be horrifying to deal with on outside runs and dump off catches. Even with what might be the best one two punch in the league, when the Bengals go into their passing mode/s we can play small ball, attack the middle, the sidelines, push the ball down the field, etc. etc. etc.

Running the ball right now is a fine thing to do, passing is a fine thing to do. But when you run the ball the artistic equivalent is a coloring book as you have less room for creativity and flexibility. Passing is a pristine and untouched canvass. But, if one runs the ball, they're less likely to make a mistake, much like it's harder to **** up if you color in the lines like you're supposed to.

That's alotta words.

[BroncoJoe]

I guess I don't get it. Sure, Manning has had 3 fantastic seasons here, and we've enjoyed a ton of wins. No Superbowl victory though. I'll take a 9-7 regular season with a SB win any day of the week/month/year.

Why not try something new? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results (Albert Einstein). Let's try something different!

[Shazam!]

I guess I don't get it. Sure, Manning has had 3 fantastic seasons here, and we've enjoyed a ton of wins. No Superbowl victory though. I'll take a 9-7 regular season with a SB win any day of the week/month/year.

Why not try something new? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results (Albert Einstein). Let's try something different!

While I agree with that, Peyton has never been supported by a Defense that can generate this kind of pass rush. Running his pass happy offense would definitely be different from 12-14.

However, I believe that with more time the run game would come around. If running Kubes WCO is not going to work for Peyton, Kubes MUST accommodate Peyton and make him comfortable. That's the only way this team has a chance.

[Joel]

Joel, sometimes I think that we're not that different. I chuckled at the 'illustrative' comment.
Well, I'm somehow a dad now, so puns are obligatory. We have some things in common, but some large critical differences. Kinda like how we share a loathing of all but one AFCC team for similar reasons, but differ strongly on the exception. ;) It's not personal though, and we probably agree on as much as we disagree. You make sound, factual and logical arguments (usually :tongue:) and I respect that.

The ultimate bottom line is that champions are champions because they do many different things well, so overcome many diverse challenges without getting painted into a predictable corner. That's why "run good, pass bad" or vice versa oversimplifies; just like I say about the draft, ALWAYS anything is always WRONG.

So I don't hate the WCO (just) because I hate short passes and the '9ers, and certainly not because I hate passing generally (I actually love it as only someone who grew up with the Run 'n Shoot can: It's just not a panacea.) I hate the WCO because it (badly) duplicates the running games role instead of complementing it. That's why LBs and safeties covering all the short routes is so bad for our (and anyones) run game: Instead of runs stacking the box to open up deep passes, shallow passes stack the box AGAINST runs. And, a full third of the time even with great QBs, gains 0 yds, loses 7, or worse.

Were someone here stupid enough to promote Martyball I'd disagree just as much, because that's just as one-dimensionally predictable. That's Martyballs real flaw; the premise is fine, was the college and pro norm for half a century, but the predictability is fatal. That's balances biggest asset, above and beyond all statistical ones.

Footballs rules give offense most advantages (e.g. periods can't end on defensive penalties, simultaneous possession automatically goes to receivers, etc.) but the biggest is INITIATIVE: Defense can't cross the LoS before offense snaps the ball at a time of its own choosing and (theoretically) known to it alone, after which defense must try to stop whatever offense is trying, on the fly without specifically knowing what that is. Offense need only keep moving forward a BIT on MOST plays till defense runs out of room to figure out how to stop it for good.

Most of those advantages vanish if a D KNOWS what an offense is doing BEFORE the snap, which becomes a pivotal defensive advantage. That's Prevents whole premise, after all, and it's only (suprisingly common) flaws are misapplication (by using it too early) or simply poor execution (by giving up sideline and/or deep passes.) The only reason Ds can pin their ears back and charge the QB during 2:00 Drills is that even the waterboy--on BOTH teams--reads the offense pre-snap; same reason killing the clock's a challenge even with great running. What offense wants to play a WHOLE game that way?

A personal favorite example: It's always annoyed the Hell out of me that teams invariably run into the line on 2nd and 2, when the D's EXPECTING that and PA end zone boms are usually wide open, with 3rd (or even 4th) and 2 for that easy short run if the bomb fails. It's part of how Shannys Broncos stole my heart. I mean, a team without the line surge to pick up 2 yds in as many tries has bigger problems (so how depressing was watching us fail to convert 2nd and 2 in THREE tries, while KC later trotted out the 2nd and 2 bomb?)

On top of all that, even the best running teams with the best defenses still find themselves trailing a good team late sometimes, and lose each one unless they have a decent 2:00 Drill. Just as even the 2013 Broncos and 2007 Pats need a running game good enough to tire Ds and keep them honest, slow pass rushes and close out late leads without stopping the clock. Even the best Plan A fails somedays: If it happens in an elimination game and Plan B's not pretty good, the season is DONE.

So I don't mean "never throw" nor even "never throw short." I wouldn't make a habit of the latter, but it's a nice change up, like 3rd and long draws--OTOH, those rarely CONVERT even when they fool the D, and that's how I view most short passing: It's less risky than a long throw, yet also produces less; even if it WORKS, how's it better than a much safer run that works more often? Some folks think a short pass combines a bombs rewards with a runs secure reliability, but it actually merges a runs reward with a bombs risks. Notwithstanding Montana, Rice and the most HoFers SF could buy before prompting the cap.

Champions need balance for the flexibility to overcome adversity when they face it (which is most elimination games) and unpredictability at all times (dare I say, "ALWAYS.") But there are trend lines and norms, and one is that, historically, methodically boring offenses have won more SBs than gambling flashy ones. A good team can gamble its way to double-digit wins games against a pot luck schedule and reach the playoffs, but GOOD teams can do that the boring way, too, and MORE reliably; once the regular season eliminates all weak teams, gambling tends to lose. Another painful example:

While I was eating up the Oilers and Wades dad with a spoon, MY dad was instilling a nigh equal love for Landrys Cowboys. Even he sometimes criticized Landry as too conventional, but people called it "razzle dazzle" for a reason. Trouble is, even with a defensive genius and half a dozen HoFer on each side of the ball, Dallas lost EVERY title game against boring methodical offenses like Lombardis Packers and Nolls Steelers (thumped the '72 Dolphins badly in '71 though.)

As THGoF put it, "razzle only dazzles when it wins;" Landrys offense (and Mannings, and Kubiaks) has lots of moving parts, most of them critical, so easily and quickly can (and too often DOES) go from "spectacular" to a mere "spectacle." It's fun to watch as long as one doesn't care who wins; for those who do, it stakes their season on very big heavy dice. The days when Lombardi could run a Packer Sweep for 5 yds over and over again after drawing it up on OPPONENT chalkboards are long gone, but commodities still beat start ups for everyone who prefers the view from BEHIND their penthouse window.

[Joel]

That's alotta words.
But many good ones, with good arguments and a good analogy, even if I don't buy the conclusion passing (particularly not short passing) is more flexible than running, not on the broadest level. There's such a thing as a valid false argument, as King surely knows. ;)

[Shazam!]

Joel, sometimes I think that we're not that different. I chuckled at the 'illustrative' comment.
Well, I'm somehow a dad now, so puns are obligatory. We have some things in common, but some large critical differences. Kinda like how we share a loathing of all but one AFCC team for similar reasons, but differ strongly on the exception. ;) It's not personal though, and we probably agree on as much as we disagree. You make sound, factual and logical arguments (usually :tongue:) and I respect that.

The ultimate bottom line is that champions are champions because they do many different things well, so overcome many diverse challenges without getting painted into a predictable corner. That's why "run good, pass bad" or vice versa oversimplifies; just like I say about the draft, ALWAYS anything is always WRONG.

So I don't hate the WCO (just) because I hate short passes and the '9ers, and certainly not because I hate passing generally (I actually love it as only someone who grew up with the Run 'n Shoot can: It's just not a panacea.) I hate the WCO because it (badly) duplicates the running games role instead of complementing it. That's why LBs and safeties covering all the short routes is so bad for our (and anyones) run game: Instead of runs stacking the box to open up deep passes, shallow passes stack the box AGAINST runs. And, a full third of the time even with great QBs, gains 0 yds, loses 7, or worse.

Were someone here stupid enough to promote Martyball I'd disagree just as much, because that's just as one-dimensionally predictable. That's Martyballs real flaw; the premise is fine, was the college and pro norm for half a century, but the predictability is fatal. That's balances biggest asset, above and beyond all statistical ones.

Footballs rules give offense most advantages (e.g. periods can't end on defensive penalties, simultaneous possession automatically goes to receivers, etc.) but the biggest is INITIATIVE: Defense can't cross the LoS before offense snaps the ball at a time of its own choosing and (theoretically) known to it alone, after which defense must try to stop whatever offense is trying, on the fly without specifically knowing what that is. Offense need only keep moving forward a BIT on MOST plays till defense runs out of room to figure out how to stop it for good.

Most of those advantages vanish if a D KNOWS what an offense is doing BEFORE the snap, which becomes a pivotal defensive advantage. That's Prevents whole premise, after all, and it's only (suprisingly common) flaws are misapplication (by using it too early) or simply poor execution (by giving up sideline and/or deep passes.) The only reason Ds can pin their ears back and charge the QB during 2:00 Drills is that even the waterboy--on BOTH teams--reads the offense pre-snap; same reason killing the clock's a challenge even with great running. What offense wants to play a WHOLE game that way?

A personal favorite example: It's always annoyed the Hell out of me that teams invariably run into the line on 2nd and 2, when the D's EXPECTING that and PA end zone boms are usually wide open, with 3rd (or even 4th) and 2 for that easy short run if the bomb fails. It's part of how Shannys Broncos stole my heart. I mean, a team without the line surge to pick up 2 yds in as many tries has bigger problems (so how depressing was watching us fail to convert 2nd and 2 in THREE tries, while KC later trotted out the 2nd and 2 bomb?)

On top of all that, even the best running teams with the best defenses still find themselves trailing a good team late sometimes, and lose each one unless they have a decent 2:00 Drill. Just as even the 2013 Broncos and 2007 Pats need a running game good enough to tire Ds and keep them honest, slow pass rushes and close out late leads without stopping the clock. Even the best Plan A fails somedays: If it happens in an elimination game and Plan B's not pretty good, the season is DONE.

So I don't mean "never throw" nor even "never throw short." I wouldn't make a habit of the latter, but it's a nice change up, like 3rd and long draws--OTOH, those rarely CONVERT even when they fool the D, and that's how I view most short passing: It's less risky than a long throw, yet also produces less; even if it WORKS, how's it better than a much safer run that works more often? Some folks think a short pass combines a bombs rewards with a runs secure reliability, but it actually merges a runs reward with a bombs risks. Notwithstanding Montana, Rice and the most HoFers SF could buy before prompting the cap.

Champions need balance for the flexibility to overcome adversity when they face it (which is most elimination games) and unpredictability at all times (dare I say, "ALWAYS.") But there are trend lines and norms, and one is that, historically, methodically boring offenses have won more SBs than gambling flashy ones. A good team can gamble its way to double-digit wins games against a pot luck schedule and reach the playoffs, but GOOD teams can do that the boring way, too, and MORE reliably; once the regular season eliminates all weak teams, gambling tends to lose. Another painful example:

While I was eating up the Oilers and Wades dad with a spoon, MY dad was instilling a nigh equal love for Landrys Cowboys. Even he sometimes criticized Landry as too conventional, but people called it "razzle dazzle" for a reason. Trouble is, even with a defensive genius and half a dozen HoFer on each side of the ball, Dallas lost EVERY title game against boring methodical offenses like Lombardis Packers and Nolls Steelers (thumped the '72 Dolphins badly in '71 though.)

As THGoF put it, "razzle only dazzles when it wins;" Landrys offense (and Mannings, and Kubiaks) has lots of moving parts, most of them critical, so easily and quickly can (and too often DOES) go from "spectacular" to a mere "spectacle." It's fun to watch as long as one doesn't care who wins; for those who do, it stakes their season on very big heavy dice. The days when Lombardi could run a Packer Sweep for 5 yds over and over again after drawing it up on OPPONENT chalkboards are long gone, but commodities still beat start ups for everyone who prefers the view from BEHIND their penthouse window.

Who the **** had time to read that shit.

[Joel]

Who the **** had time to read that shit.
There are many whole books on what makes an NFL champ, or the pros and cons of various offensive philosophies: That was shorter than (most of) them. ;)

[TXBRONC]

There are many whole books on what makes an NFL champ, or the pros and cons of various offensive philosophies: That was shorter than (most of) them. ;)

By what two or three words? :wave:

[Joel]

By what two or three words? :wave:
Yeah... but they're BIG words! Like, "antidisestablishmentarianism" and such. Irony: Practice and comprehension of that word are inversely proportional. ;)

[NightTerror218]

Stats from Legwood Article on ESPN:

Defenses have sent an extra rusher at Manning on 43.5 percent of the team&rsquo;s dropbacks in the first two games, including penalty snaps. He is 15-of-33 passing (45 percent) for 116 yards with both of his interceptions -- both returned for touchdowns -- coming against the blitz.

By comparison, Manning was blitzed on 26 percent of his pass attempts in his record-setting season of 2013 and threw 13 of his 55 touchdown passes that season when he faced the extra rushers.

Anyone else read this article and find this numbers suprising?

[Joel]

Anyone else read this article and find this numbers suprising?
That he was barely blitzed a quarter of the time in 2013? A bit; that he's been blitzed nearly half the time this year (since our line's garbage and everyone's known it since last October) didn't surprise me at all. Everyone knows we can't protect him well enough to move the ball through the air NOR get the push to move the ball on the ground, and that he's a statue, so our entire offense relies on him getting the ball out and on target to a couple Pro Bowl WRs before the rush gets to his spot. Most people know his arm's always been average, so time to set his feet is even more important than for most QBs, and that we throw lots of short passes, partly to compensate for our brief "protection" and his difficulty throwing accurate deep balls when he can't step into throws.

So the whole D charges Manning every down, every week, knowing there's nothing to stop them and we have nothing else, so they need only beat the throw to beat us. We've had a lot of A gap blitzes, too, because he has less time to see it and make a hot read, and the protection's as awful there as everywhere. Until/unless our line improves a lot, shutting us down will remain depressingly simple and easy.

We've "let Peyton be Peyton" for three years and all it's gotten is him beat to Hell: It's past time we HELPED Peyton be Peyton, and helped Anderson (or whoever) share Peytons load.

[Poet]

That's alotta words.

No, it's not. I believe that the posters on this message board are smart enough to realize that this is not a lot of words.

[slim]

While I agree with that, Peyton has never been supported by a Defense that can generate this kind of pass rush. Running his pass happy offense would definitely be different from 12-14.

However, I believe that with more time the run game would come around. If running Kubes WCO is not going to work for Peyton, Kubes MUST accommodate Peyton and make him comfortable. That's the only way this team has a chance.

This would make sense if he could still make all the throws and maybe not fall down whenever there is a free rusher.

[Joel]

No, it's not. I believe that the posters on this message board are smart enough to realize that this is not a lot of words.
You'll never survive in a courtroom if you deny the evidence. :tongue:

[Poet]

You'll never survive in a courtroom if you deny the evidence. :tongue:

Good lord man, half of winning in court IS about denying the evidence. My god! Do you think winning legal battles is actually about what actually happened?

[Joel]

Good lord man, half of winning in court IS about denying the evidence. My god! Do you think winning legal battles is actually about what actually happened?
I straddle the fine line between idealism and naïvete. Discrediting the evidence is one thing; denying concrete facts is very hard (except on football fan and (other) political sites, where it's a prerequisite. ;))

[Poet]

I straddle the fine line between idealism and naïvete. Discrediting the evidence is one thing; denying concrete facts is very hard (except on football fan and (other) political sites, where it's a prerequisite. ;))

I volunteer at an Innocence Project. It's good work, good for the soul, and as bad of a person as I am I need that. If I sat next to you and described a client's case to you, you'd say this guy is obviously innocencent. Then it read the trial transcripts and looked at how that 'truth' and 'fact' was described you'd be appalled. Or, maybe you wouldn't. The point is that a fact's use in court is commensurate with how it is presented and how well it survives mitigation. Things can be mitigated so strongly that they are not a fact to the jury...in that room...on that day/s.

For the posters who can't read over fifty words because our public schools have failed them...

TL;DR

Facts and logic don't mean shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii

[slim]

I'm not sure what is going on in here, but I think we need to ask Peyton to be more like Elway.

[Poet]

Peyton being Peyton doesn't mean you don't run the ball. Manning has had a long history of playing with a successful run game. It means you don't stick to the ideology of Kubiak's system verbatim.

[slim]

Peyton being Peyton doesn't mean you don't run the ball. Manning has had a long history of playing with a successful run game. It means you don't stick to the ideology of Kubiak's system verbatim.

Shut up.

[Poet]

Shut up.

You better swing, brother.

[slim]

You better swing, brother.

One and done....that is what happens when Peyton is Peyton.

I will pass. Thank you very much.

[Poet]

One and done....that is what happens when Peyton is Peyton.

I will pass. Thank you very much.

How the **** did you guys make it to the S.B. if that's the case?

[MOtorboat]

How the **** did you guys make it to the S.B. if that's the case?

That didn't actually happen.

[slim]

How the **** did you guys make it to the S.B. if that's the case?

Good Lord....did you even watch that game?

[slim]

That didn't actually happen.

Yes, that was a shining example of QB play.

[MOtorboat]

Yes, that was a shining example of QB play.

Let's go back to Griese, Plummer, Orton, Cutler and Tebow. I'm sure that will win that game two years ago.

[Poet]

Good Lord....did you watch even watch that game?

Slim, don't get made if basic facts rebut your argument. If that game is on Manning then I sure would like you to pull up great special teams and defensive moments to put that blame on PFM.

Now, let's try this again. If Peyton Manning is Peyton Manning, he can get to, and win, a S.B. You clearly are ignoring, or heavily minimizing, that reality.

[Shazam!]

Letting Peyton be Peyton means operate out of the shotgun and running the ball out of the shotgun. Conform a bit to the strength of your HoF QB. Peyton trying to be like Jake Plummer is not going to happen.

[slim]

Let's go back to Griese, Plummer, Orton, Cutler and Tebow. I'm sure that will win that game two years ago.

The past is the past.

Let's talk about this year. Peyton has zero deep accuracy and can't move 12 inches in the pocket. Tell me how that is supposed to go.

[slim]

Slim, don't get made if basic facts rebut your argument. If that game is on Manning then I sure would like you to pull up great special teams and defensive moments to put that blame on PFM.

Now, let's try this again. If Peyton Manning is Peyton Manning, he can get to, and win, a S.B. You clearly are ignoring, or heavily minimizing, that reality.

King, eat a dick.

I will not discuss this with you until you admit that TD is 1000 times the RB that Bettis ever was.

[Poet]

King, eat a dick.

I will not discuss this with you until you admit that TD is 1000 times the RB that Bettis ever was.

To quote the great SR "Grow up."

[Joel]

I volunteer at an Innocence Project. It's good work, good for the soul, and as bad of a person as I am I need that. If I sat next to you and described a client's case to you, you'd say this guy is obviously innocencent. Then it read the trial transcripts and looked at how that 'truth' and 'fact' was described you'd be appalled. Or, maybe you wouldn't. The point is that a fact's use in court is commensurate with how it is presented and how well it survives mitigation. Things can be mitigated so strongly that they are not a fact to the jury...in that room...on that day/s.

For the posters who can't read over fifty words because our public schools have failed them...

TL;DR

Facts and logic don't mean shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii
No doubt, but mitigation's less denial than explanation and justification (or rationalization.) Without acknowledging an events occurrence (and who was responsible) there's nothing to mitigate. After all, juries don't find anyone INNOCENT, do they? ;)

Sidebar: If an executive hired specifically for his civil law expertise put his client in two civil and one criminal trials in a single year and won NONE, would you expect him to remain employed?

[slim]

To quote the great SR "Grow up."

Suck it.

[MOtorboat]

The past is the past.

Let's talk about this year. Peyton has zero deep accuracy and can't move 12 inches in the pocket. Tell me how that is supposed to go.

I don't know what to tell you. He's the quarterback and will be the quarterback. He looked fine in the second half last week when they ran a better offense.

[Poet]

No doubt, but mitigation's less denial than explanation and justification (or rationalization.) Without acknowledging an events occurrence (and who was responsible) there's nothing to mitigate. After all, juries don't find anyone INNOCENT, do they? ;)

Sidebar: If an executive hired specifically for his civil law expertise put his client in two civil and one criminal trials in a single year and won NONE, would you expect him to remain employed?

Sometimes the jury will find you innocent. It would happen more if our system wasn't designed to force people to plea guilty.

Then again, one can simply say that A. did not happen because of B. and argue B. better and win when A. did happen. I have a sneaking suspicion we're close to agreement but are couching our stances differently.


For the sidebar - How much money is the executive making, or, more importantly, how much credit is he getting for the success, or lack of success, of the product/company/entity/thingy.

Slim, go away.

[slim]

I don't know what to tell you. He's the quarterback and will be the quarterback. He looked fine in the second half last week when they ran a better offense.

If you thought that was "fine" then I guess we have different expectations.

I'm pretty sure DT bailed him out at least 3 times in the second half...maybe more.

Anywho....let's all pray that a 40 year QB that can't move and can't throw accurately past 20 yards can lead us to the promised land.

Thank God for that D...

[Poet]

Hold on, D.T. bailed him out, and yet Manning was playing well before D.T. came alive in that game. Slim, if you're going to pick a narrative to control your thought process, that's cool, though.

[MOtorboat]

If you thought that was "fine" then I guess we have different expectations.

I'm pretty sure DT bailed him out at least 3 times in the second half...maybe more.

Anywho....let's all pray that a 40 year QB that can't move and can't throw accurately past 20 yards can lead us to the promised land.

Thank God for that D...

Maybe they'll start Osweiler so we don't have to experience any playoff losses at all.

[slim]

Hold on, D.T. bailed him out, and yet Manning was playing well before D.T. came alive in that game. Slim, if you're going to pick a narrative to control your thought process, that's cool, though.

Did you even watch the end of that game?

[slim]

Maybe they'll start Osweiler so we don't have to experience any playoff losses at all.

From your keyboard to God's ears...

[Poet]

Did you even watch the end of that game?

Holy shit, what the **** did I just type to you? I clearly accounted for that. I.E. yes D.T. went nuts at the end, but before that one drive Manning was still playing well in the second half.

[slim]

Holy shit, what the **** did I just type to you? I clearly accounted for that. I.E. yes D.T. went nuts at the end, but before that one drive Manning was still playing well in the second half.

Playing well?

They scored 2 TDs in the last minute of the game. WTF are talking about?

[Joel]

Peyton being Peyton doesn't mean you don't run the ball. Manning has had a long history of playing with a successful run game. It means you don't stick to the ideology of Kubiak's system verbatim.

That bolded part can't be overemphasized. Peyton's a life-long football nerd, almost literally from his cradle: He doesn't need to be told the merits of a solid integral run game, and could explain them at length to anyone. That's not the issue: The issues are 1) none of our linemen are playing well enough we can run, pass or even PUNT consistently well and 2) the ZBS' complexity exacerbates that problem for running.


Slim, don't get made if basic facts rebut your argument. If that game is on Manning then I sure would like you to pull up great special teams and defensive moments to put that blame on PFM.

Now, let's try this again. If Peyton Manning is Peyton Manning, he can get to, and win, a S.B. You clearly are ignoring, or heavily minimizing, that reality.

Aw, and you were doing so well: 2013 was the ONLY time (in THREE tries) we wern't one and done "letting Peyton be Peyton." That the SB beatdown WASN'T on Manning, DESPITE our being "forced to demand Peyton be Peyton" proves we'll never win a SB that way. The whole Seahawk gameplan was DESIGNED to stop Peytonness, flooding the short routes with CBs, LBs and safeties while their front four came through the middle of our line untouched and right into his face without blitzing: No time to throw deep, and no time for WRs to get there, and instant gang tackles short.

I can point to plenty of great defensive plays (despite HALF our starters being on IR) in that game; Elway himself publicly said our D "kept us in the game" till the 2nd half kick officially ended it. Our opening snap went through the end zone and our next possession ended in a pick, yet we somehow started our third possession down just a SINGLE score. If memory serves, we went three-and-out and put our gassed D back on the field, but Seattle still needed a phantom PI call on 3rd and G to finally reach the end zone: Otherwise Seattle would have been given a safety and started its first three possessions in our territory yet only led 11-0. Certainly the following pick-six wasn't the Ds fault, and that was pretty much the ballgame; running the 2nd half kick back to make it 29-0 just sealed the deal.

Letting Peyton be Peyton in a SB is only fun for Seattle and New Orleans; it's a darned good thing for Manning that Chicagos offense was so putrid under a guy so bad he lost the starting job to ORTON. None of that's a knock on Manning, just a reminder that he's JUST ONE MAN, same as Elway was when HE was shellacked in all 3 SBs. What a difference a team made....



Letting Peyton be Peyton means operate out of the shotgun and running the ball out of the shotgun. Conform a bit to the strength of your HoF QB. Peyton trying to be like Jake Plummer is not going to happen.

Without getting into that whole thing again, shotgun runs aren't as simple as just declaring them, because the D can see everything that's happening and the RB gets a standing start. It's not useless, and can often work well, but it's a bad place for the running game to live. Shotgun runnings biggest advantage is that the D expects passes from shotgun, so the advantage is lost when shotgun runs become so routine they start expecting THOSE instead. The real problem's that our line can't block well enough to run OR pass from under center, so shotguns have become a neccesity for Mannings survival.


The past is the past.

Let's talk about this year. Peyton has zero deep accuracy and can't move 12 inches in the pocket. Tell me how that is supposed to go.

He's never been mobile, and never been accurate deep when he can't set his feet nor see: Try blindly winging a ball flat-footed in <2 seconds to beat the rush and see how accurate you are 30 yds downfield. Shotguns were invented to buy time from blitzes, and Manning desperately needs that time now despite his quick release, not because he's old, but because our line's garbage. So much so that we don't do any better running; Manning's averaging about as much per pass attempt as the NFL average for RUNS--but OUR rushing average is only about HALF that.

[Joel]

Sometimes the jury will find you innocent. It would happen more if our system wasn't designed to force people to plea guilty.

Oh? I thought acquittals were always due to ruling of NOT GUILTY rather than INNOCENT. They sound like they should be the same, but we know better (and being not guilty of all specific charges wouldn't necessarily mean total innocence anyway; none of us is truly innocent, not even non-criminals.)


Then again, one can simply say that A. did not happen because of B. and argue B. better and win when A. did happen. I have a sneaking suspicion we're close to agreement but are couching our stances differently.

Yeah, but that's a lot harder when there's so much physical evidence of A. it's "self-evidently" a physical fact itself. MUCH easier to argue A. DID happen, but doesn't its occurrence doesn't matter because the accused wasn't proven responsible, or was proven responsible but excused because B., C. and D. either justified the accuseds behavior or at least made it reasonable.


For the sidebar - How much money is the executive making, or, more importantly, how much credit is he getting for the success, or lack of success, of the product/company/entity/thingy.

Eight figures annually, as cheerleader-in-chief, promoting, extolling & defending all company accomplishments as if his own, but responsible for none, only reporting superiors decisions and subordinates behavior.


Slim, go away.

Can't help ya there.

[Poet]

Oh? I thought acquittals were always due to ruling of NOT GUILTY rather than INNOCENT. They sound like they should be the same, but we know better (and being not guilty of all specific charges wouldn't necessarily mean total innocence anyway; none of us is truly innocent, not even non-criminals.)



Yeah, but that's a lot harder when there's so much physical evidence of A. it's "self-evidently" a physical fact itself. MUCH easier to argue A. DID happen, but doesn't its occurrence doesn't matter because the accused wasn't proven responsible, or was proven responsible but excused because B., C. and D. either justified the accuseds behavior or at least made it reasonable.



Eight figures annually, as cheerleader-in-chief, promoting, extolling & defending all company accomplishments as if his own, but responsible for none, only reporting superiors decisions and subordinates behavior.



Can't help ya there.

To answer the Goodell example, we'll just say that we have to hope his company offers a good severance package.

Acquittals do occur to people who are innocent of a crime, as well as those who are not-guilty in a legal sense. Your point, however, is well taken.

It depends on what the physical evidence is. If it's stuff that comes up in sexual assault cases, well that's just a free for all. Stuff like fingerprints and the like, well the context of how you present them is what's going to tend to win. It often boils down to who has the better narrative, or who has the narrative that the jury can better understand. That's before you get into stuff like expert witnesses dueling to see whose part of the dichotomy is superior.

Slim is a curse.

[Shazam!]

Peyton Manning is suddenly back to effective?

Suddenly can throw accurately and with time?

Shotgun baby!

[slim]

Peyton

Manning is suddenly back to effective?

Suddenly can throw accurately and with time?

Shotgun baby!
Yes! We actually scored an offensive touchdown in the first half.

#championship

[ShaneFalco]

https://media.giphy.com/media/12BnkqMKgDZgQw/giphy.gif

[MOtorboat]

Yes! We actually scored an offensive touchdown in the first half.

#championship

Scored two last week.

#facts

[slim]

Can you imagine if we score an offensive touchdown each half?

We will be unstoppable.

[MOtorboat]

Can you imagine if we score an offensive touchdown each half?

We will be unstoppable.

28 points a game will win most games.

#facts

[slim]

28 points a game will win most games.

#facts

There are two halves in a game.

#facts

[MOtorboat]

Two touchdowns.

#facts

[SR]

You guys are all idiots.

#MO

[slim]

Two touchdowns.

#facts

Per half per game

[MOtorboat]

Per half per game

So, you're changing the parameters of your argument just to bitch about Manning.

Yay!

[slim]

So, you're changing the parameters of your argument just to bitch about Manning.

Yay!

Right back at ya.

[MOtorboat]

Right back at ya.

I didn't change anything. You made a sarcastic post about scoring a first half touchdown when they scored two last week and now two this week. Three of the, as a direct result of Manning's arm.

Yet, you're STILL bitching.

[Poet]

Bootleg so bad.

[Poet]

I didn't change anything. You made a sarcastic post about scoring a first half touchdown when they scored two last week and now two this week. Three of the, as a direct result of Manning's arm.

Yet, you're STILL bitching.

Whatever conclusion Slim has he will stick to. Then he will reverse engineer everything to fit it. I presume he's really good at math.

[Ravage!!!]

Bootleg so bad.

SOOOOOO bad.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

No, it's not. I believe that the posters on this message board are smart enough to realize that this is not a lot of words.

Meaning I'm not?
:laugh:

It was a joke, nothing more. If anything at least mock the poor grammar and spelling.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

SOOOOOO bad.

It looked ugly, but it was a completion.

[Poet]

Meaning I'm not?
:laugh:

It was a joke, nothing more. If anything at least mock the poor grammar and spelling.

I hate you.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I hate you.

I like peanut butter.

[7DnBrnc53]

Check this out: http://superfraud.blogspot.com/2015/09/some-end-of-month-quickie-updates.html

Very interesting comment:


Peyton Manning is an utter mess. Limited, if any, feeling in his right hand. Can't get his cleats off without help from a trainer... This guy's gonna die on the field, just you watch.

[MOtorboat]

Superfraud.

Sounds legit.

[TXBRONC]

Check this out: http://superfraud.blogspot.com/2015/09/some-end-of-month-quickie-updates.html

Very interesting comment: Peyton Manning is an utter mess. Limited, if any, feeling in his right hand. Can't get his cleats off without help from a trainer... This guy's gonna die on the field, just you watch.

Manning says he has numbness in the finger tips of his right hand not that his entire hand is numb. I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about.

[tomjonesrocks]

Manning says he has numbness in the finger tips of his right hand not that his entire hand is numb. I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about.

Numbness in fingers for 3 seasons = dying on field.

Okay.

[7DnBrnc53]

Manning says he has numbness in the finger tips of his right hand not that his entire hand is numb. I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about.

Yeah, this guy is a hyperbolic type of person. He used to be a sports fan, but he stopped because of the Tuck Rule and NE's SB win. He thinks that the league fixed it for the Pats to win that year. He also thought that the league was going to fix it for Denver four years ago during the Tebow run, but stopped because it would be too unbelievable.

[MOtorboat]

Yeah, this guy is a hyperbolic type of person. He used to be a sports fan, but he stopped because of the Tuck Rule and NE's SB win. He thinks that the league fixed it for the Pats to win that year. He also thought that the league was going to fix it for Denver four years ago during the Tebow run, but stopped because it would be too unbelievable.

So he's a conspiracy theorist who pays attention to sports but feigns interest out of faux rage?

[7DnBrnc53]

So he's a conspiracy theorist who pays attention to sports but feigns interest out of faux rage?

I think that his rage towards football seems to be genuine. He has posts almost every week about different scandals that happen in high school football (and other levels), and he is constantly calling for the sport to be shut down because of the corruption. He says that he has witnessed football corruption since high school, when the football players were allowed to treat other students like complete crap.

[slim]

This seems like a bad idea.

[Timmy!]

Moar hillman tosses plz