PDA

View Full Version : Peter King: Drama builds in Denver



VonDoom
11-23-2015, 09:42 AM
The national media is all over the Osweiler/Manning angle today (I have another link I'm going to post in this thread once I'm done reading it). This was the lead story in Peter King's MMQB this morning:


Osweiler winning this game in Chicago wasn’t the biggest surprise in the league this year. But the way he won it was notable. Osweiler played with confidence and a self-assuredness that belied his experience. His experience, basically, was that he had none. In his last start, nearly four years ago, Osweiler and his Arizona State teammates got their clocks cleaned in the Maaco Bowl in Las Vegas. Asked late Sunday afternoon if he had any doubts about his ability to play well in an NFL game, Osweiler said from Chicago: “When you haven’t started a game in three-and-a-half years, those thoughts do creep in.”

Manning was intercepted in every game he played this year—a league-high 17 in all.

Osweiler was not intercepted in 12 drives in Chicago on Sunday.

Manning, with sore ribs and plantar fasciitis in a heel, was left home to rest and rehab by the Broncos, and I’m told he did a lot of both over the weekend. Everyone was mum on what the Broncos were likely to do this week, but let’s go on coach Gary Kubiak’s word. He said Manning is the starting quarterback when healthy. Eight days ago, Manning’s throws were weaker than they’d ever been, and he wasn’t comfortable moving on his sore heel. His ribs ached. Is there any chance all of those things heal enough to be fully healthy in a week? Kubiak can always say, “Peyton’s not fully there yet, so we’re giving him at least another week to get himself right.” Manning may not like that, but lions in winter don’t like being told it’s wintertime either.


My gut feeling is that the Broncos will let Manning heal and rehab at least one more week, though all voices on this topic, including Manning’s, were silent Sunday night. If this is the case, and Osweiler either plays valiantly and very close against New England, or beats the Patriots, then I think the Broncos have to face the reality that Osweiler should continue to play. Those, of course, are very big ifs.

This time is coming. It comes for every player. I would be careful about putting Manning out to pasture just yet, but I would also be pragmatic and smart. Every decision Kubiak and Elway make has to be for the team first and Manning—and all individuals—after that. What do we do now? Play Osweiler at least one more week is my guess. But whatever happens, the near future will be high drama in Denver.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/23/monday-morning-quarterback-nfl-week-11-brock-osweiler-broncos

VonDoom
11-23-2015, 10:14 AM
And here's Mike Tanier's piece on Osweiler, also leading off his column this morning:


But here's the thing: The Broncos are better off playing ultra-conservative offensive football. They are designed to win with defense and ball control. Even on a day when their defense was making mistakes and committing too many penalties, the Denver defense made the stops it had to make, in part because it had the field-position advantage that often comes with a turnover-free day.


The Kubiak offense may not make your toes curl with enthusiasm, but it's an efficient system when working in harmony with a defense built to win games and special teams that reward every trip inside the 35-yard line.

So Osweiler may not be a better quarterback than the Manning of September and October. But he's the best quarterback for the current Broncos situation. The Manning of the first two months was still pretty good at getting out of the trouble he kept getting himself into. Osweiler might avoid the trouble in the first place.


Leave the baggage aside. This is not about Manning's "legacy" or some soap opera. It's about six more games, playoff seedings, 17 interceptions, the type of foot injury that never really heals, three-and-a-half years preparing for an opportunity, and, yes, the coming post-Manning Denver Broncos reality.

Osweiler is the best choice for the Broncos right now. It's up to Kubiak, the defense and the rest of the organization to make sure that choice is good enough.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2592048-monday-morning-hangover-brock-osweilers-time-is-now

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 10:22 AM
All the drama is in the media. I doubt the team really cares.

Slick
11-23-2015, 10:37 AM
All the drama is in the media. I doubt the team really cares.

I agree but they'll start caring if Manning starts again and starts throwing ints that put the defense in bad situations.

tripp
11-23-2015, 10:42 AM
I was amazed how well the team responded to Brock on Sunday. They were all shouting his name after the game, and for the first time in 3 1/2 years, it felt like Manning was never on the team. I think this is still a delicate situation to handle by the FO and Kubiak.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 11:01 AM
I agree but they'll start caring if Manning starts again and starts throwing ints that put the defense in bad situations.

Im not going to play the what-if game.

Nomad
11-23-2015, 11:37 AM
Does it really matter? Most I've read have the BRONCOS losing to the Patriots regardless who's at QB. Kubiak won't be able to play conservative against the Patriots, if he does, he's already accepted defeat before being defeated. BRONCOS defense won't keep the Patriots from scoring.

I say open the playbook, and let's see what Osweiler has.

Krugan
11-23-2015, 12:18 PM
Hrmm, this whole thing is just seems like a bunch of bull to me.

The timing is jsut to perfect to be much more than just creating click bait.

Considering how bad the officiating has been this year, one would think that would be all they need.

Northman
11-23-2015, 12:35 PM
Does it really matter? Most I've read have the BRONCOS losing to the Patriots regardless who's at QB. Kubiak won't be able to play conservative against the Patriots, if he does, he's already accepted defeat before being defeated. BRONCOS defense won't keep the Patriots from scoring.

I say open the playbook, and let's see what Osweiler has.

Depends.

If Denver can control TOP and play good defense they really dont have to open it up all that much. If the defense doesnt come to play than yes Brock will have to cut it loose and possibly get in a shoot out. I say there's a 98% chance we lose this game and Brock may not look that fantastic this time around considering how good the Pats are and it only being his 2nd game. But, stranger things have happened and we may be able to win it especially being at home but i dont think we will come out trying to sling it right away. I still think ball control will be the gameplan and if things change than the adjustments will be made.

Slick
11-23-2015, 12:46 PM
I keep hearing how bad the *Patriot defense is but they've allowed less points than any defense in the league. I hope to hell Manning doesn't play. I would be extremely disappointed.

Nomad
11-23-2015, 12:47 PM
Depends.

If Denver can control TOP and play good defense they really dont have to open it up all that much. If the defense doesnt come to play than yes Brock will have to cut it loose and possibly get in a shoot out. I say there's a 98% chance we lose this game and Brock may not look that fantastic this time around considering how good the Pats are and it only being his 2nd game. But, stranger things have happened and we may be able to win it especially being at home but i dont think we will come out trying to sling it right away. I still think ball control will be the gameplan and if things change than the adjustments will be made.

I'd be shocked if the BRONCOS can play a TOP game with the Patriots. They move up and down the field quick, and score quick. BRONCOS No Fly Zone will definitely be tested. BRONCOS can't afford to be playing catch up.

Nomad
11-23-2015, 12:48 PM
I keep hearing how bad the *Patriot defense is but they've allowed less points than any defense in the league. I hope to hell Manning doesn't play. I would be extremely disappointed.

Manning won't play. I'd be shocked he can come back from that foot injury that quick.

I Eat Staples
11-23-2015, 12:51 PM
Does it really matter? Most I've read have the BRONCOS losing to the Patriots regardless who's at QB. Kubiak won't be able to play conservative against the Patriots, if he does, he's already accepted defeat before being defeated. BRONCOS defense won't keep the Patriots from scoring.

I say open the playbook, and let's see what Osweiler has.

I completely agree. A coach has to know his team's win condition going into the game. You can't beat New England by being conservative.

Against the Bears, you can get away with punting and letting Jay Cutler serve up a juicy INT on his own side of the field. Brady won't do that.

Mike
11-23-2015, 12:51 PM
If Denver starts Manning again this season, outside of an injury to Brock, then it would be a mistake. Brock should be the starter here on out, barring an injury.

Northman
11-23-2015, 01:00 PM
I completely agree. A coach has to know his team's win condition going into the game. You can't beat New England by being conservative.

Against the Bears, you can get away with punting and letting Jay Cutler serve up a juicy INT on his own side of the field. Brady won't do that.

The good news is the Patriots Oline is not as good as the Bears and Brady has been sacked just 2 times less than our QB's so that should bold well with our pass rush.

Nomad
11-23-2015, 01:01 PM
Perhaps the BRONCOS can hire Coughlin just for this game. :D

elsid13
11-23-2015, 01:04 PM
I was amazed how well the team responded to Brock on Sunday. They were all shouting his name after the game, and for the first time in 3 1/2 years, it felt like Manning was never on the team. I think this is still a delicate situation to handle by the FO and Kubiak.

Most of the players are in Brock age group and have things in common with him, beside football. Manning is a great player but it not like he going out drinking with them or listen to the same music or movies.

Nomad
11-23-2015, 01:07 PM
Most of the players are in Brock age group and have things in common with him, beside football. Manning is a great player but it not like he going out drinking with them or listen to the same music or movies.

I don't think any of them drive a Buick either.

BroncoJoe
11-23-2015, 01:08 PM
Patriots always come to play, so this game is a tossup for me. They are hurting though, and have several injuries at key positions. Hopefully, that along with it being in Denver will help. A 6:30 PM kickoff is 8:30 PM for them. Hopefully they are tired and we control Gronk.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 01:12 PM
Patriots always come to play, so this game is a tossup for me. They are hurting though, and have several injuries at key positions. Hopefully, that along with it being in Denver will help. A 6:30 PM kickoff is 8:30 PM for them. Hopefully they are tired and we control Gronk.

If we have the same ref's as the Chicago game, there's no way we can cover them. All Gronk would have to do is knock his defender down to get a defensive PI.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-23-2015, 01:14 PM
I thought Chris Harris suggesting Brock not turning the ball over was what they needed him to do was quite telling.

UnderArmour
11-23-2015, 01:21 PM
There really isn't any "drama" in Denver. What you have is one of the best QBs of all time obviously at the end of his career, and the national media wanting to cling onto his past accolades. Yes, his career deserves to be celebrated and yes, he will be in the Hall of Fame. But it's 2015 right now, and 2013 Manning is not walking into that locker room. Brock Osweiler right now is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning right now. The best thing Peyton Manning can do for the team is stand on the sideline, ready to go in as the 2nd string quarterback.

BroncoJoe
11-23-2015, 01:23 PM
There really isn't any "drama" in Denver. What you have is one of the best QBs of all time obviously at the end of his career, and the national media wanting to cling onto his past accolades. Yes, his career deserves to be celebrated and yes, he will be in the Hall of Fame. But it's 2015 right now, and 2013 Manning is not walking into that locker room. Brock Osweiler right now is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning right now. The best thing Peyton Manning can do for the team is stand on the sideline, ready to go in as the 2nd string quarterback.

:congrats:

turftoad
11-23-2015, 01:32 PM
Or... get him back to health for a playoff run for a change. Brock played well but I'm not crowning him as of yet.

VonDoom
11-23-2015, 02:00 PM
Chris Mortensen and now many others are reporting it - Brock to start vs NE. Kubiak press conference coming up

UnderArmour
11-23-2015, 02:59 PM
Or... get him back to health for a playoff run for a change. Brock played well but I'm not crowning him as of yet.

Get him to health for a playoff run so we have a reliable backup on the sidelines, sure. Manning has thrown an interception or more in every game this year. It's time to let go of the past. Health or not, his turnovers and inconsistent play hold the team back. He's not the best quarterback on the roster anymore. Even if Brock doesn't deserve to be "crowned" just yet, if the name on the back of the jersey was not Manning, 17 interceptions is just too many. I just don't trust Manning anymore and I don't think he can lead this team to anything other than a deficit on the scoreboard.

Cugel
11-23-2015, 03:10 PM
But here's the thing: The Broncos are better off playing ultra-conservative offensive football. They are designed to win with defense and ball control. Even on a day when their defense was making mistakes and committing too many penalties, the Denver defense made the stops it had to make, in part because it had the field-position advantage that often comes with a turnover-free day.

I seriously doubt that Kubiak doesn't believe this. He said as much in his post game speech when he said that despite the talent on the team they "won the right way" i.e. the Kubiak way.

It's not even in doubt whether you can win the regular season with this kind of conservative offense. The problem will come in the playoffs when they're facing Tom Brady.

Then, playing conservative football and running the ball and playing defense is not remotely going to be enough. They're going to need really good QB play as well.

Whether the Kubiak system is really well designed to win in the playoffs? That we'll have to see.

tomjonesrocks
11-23-2015, 03:14 PM
Denver has no chance in this game IMO - none. The Pats will score and score often and there hasn't been any indication all year Denver can put that many points up.

Might as well open the bag of tricks, onside kicks, everything. Bombs and hope for PI. Good luck with that run run pass stuff against this team.

BroncoJoe
11-23-2015, 03:18 PM
Damn, TJR.

Have you ever posted something positive?

VonDoom
11-23-2015, 03:19 PM
Denver has no chance in this game IMO - none. The Pats will score and score often and there hasn't been any indication all year Denver can put that many points up.

Might as well open the bag of tricks, onside kicks, everything. Bombs and hope for PI. Good luck with that run run pass stuff against this team.

In general, I agree with this - 17 points isn't going to be enough to beat this Pats team, and I don't see any way we can put up 30+ with ease.

However, I don't know if I'd get all crazy with play calling. One of the advantages that Belichick has is mystique - coaches psych themselves up trying to outfox Bill that they often end up beating themselves because they get away from their normal game plan. Remember, the Colts had a real chance to beat the Pats this year and then they pulled out that ill advised "trick" punt.

BroncoJoe
11-23-2015, 03:25 PM
Pats aren't invincible. We'll learn a lot about them tonight, hopefully.

Look at who they've played:

Pittsburgh
Bills
Jags
Cowboys
Colts
Jets
Dolphins
Redskins
Giants

Win Margins:
Steelers by 6
Bills by 8
Forget Dallas/Jags
Colts by 7
Jets by 7
Dolphins/Redskins got destroyed
Giants by 1

They really shouldn't be all that feared, based on those wins and opponents. I'm not writing off the Broncos.

tripp
11-23-2015, 03:30 PM
Patriots always come to play, so this game is a tossup for me. They are hurting though, and have several injuries at key positions. Hopefully, that along with it being in Denver will help. A 6:30 PM kickoff is 8:30 PM for them. Hopefully they are tired and we control Gronk.

For whatever reason, Patriots seem to be a touch unlike the Patriots in Denver. When we play them in Foxboro they have our number. If we can beat them with Kyle Orton in Denver, we have a chance Sunday night

Nomad
11-23-2015, 03:30 PM
I believe it's more of the fact that the Patriots put points up on the board quickly. We can hope the BRONCOS D will be ready. I do believe Kubiak is going to have to be more aggressive on offense.

Every game is winnable, and there is always a chance. That's why you gotta have faith in your team, and not pencil in a loss before the game starts.

Valar Morghulis
11-23-2015, 03:31 PM
I'm not writing off the Broncos.

Not with Boss-weiler at the helm

tomjonesrocks
11-23-2015, 03:31 PM
Guess we will see how the Pats look tonight. They haven't scored less than 27 all year.

Denver's scored more than 27 just once all year - vs GB.

Joel
11-23-2015, 03:34 PM
I seriously doubt that Kubiak doesn't believe this. He said as much in his post game speech when he said that despite the talent on the team they "won the right way" i.e. the Kubiak way.

It's not even in doubt whether you can win the regular season with this kind of conservative offense. The problem will come in the playoffs when they're facing Tom Brady.

Then, playing conservative football and running the ball and playing defense is not remotely going to be enough. They're going to need really good QB play as well.

Whether the Kubiak system is really well designed to win in the playoffs? That we'll have to see.
Lots of teams have won SBs that way; it's how the '72 Dolphins won back-to-back and posted the NFLs only perfect season. When you need a QB you NEED a QB, and very few teams are so elite and solid they can beat three increasingly playoff teams in a row solely with smothering D and reliable running: Sooner or later, every team needs a field marshall to lead a comeback or game-winning drive against excellent defense.

Let's not pretend Kubiak plays Martyball though; that's not what anyone thinks of when they think of Steve Young and John Elway, nor even Matt Schaub and Joe Flacco. It's possible and even desirable for one team to run AND pass well (it just requires a line solid at all five spots,) and EVERY team must at least occasionally do both to achieve the ultimate success. But genuinely good solid teams don't live on high variance play, because the more luck's involved the less their great talents and skills are involved.

No drama: Unless Oz blows up the Cheats and everyone else the next few weeks, Manning resumes starting if/when at/near 100%, but there's no guarantee he gets there by seasons end. The only drama would be if Manning's truly ready when but not UNTIL the playoffs start, and Oz is good but not great in the interim. I want Manning in the playoffs if he's 100%, but getting in rhythm with Oz will take long enough, especially with lots of new coaches, players and plays: Switching gears AGAIN in elimination games would be bad.

BroncoJoe
11-23-2015, 03:38 PM
Guess we will see how the Pats look tonight. They haven't scored less than 27 all year.

Denver's scored more than 27 just once all year - vs GB.

Look at who they've played though.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 03:42 PM
New England has given a lot of points to mediocre teams. Denver is the best defense New England will play all season. We are the only team above .500 left on their schedule. They aren't that scary.

Cugel
11-23-2015, 03:47 PM
While I am pessimistic over Denver's chances in this game, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they play well enough at home to win.

They aren't favored and shouldn't be favored, the Pats are a 5.5 point favorite, it's not as if the Patriots are invincible. The Giants proved they are anything but.

NY has a bad defense and not great offense. They are a 5-5 team. Yet, you saw that game. They should have won. Things happen in the NFL every week.

This ain't college football where everything is cosmetic "team A looked better beating team B by 20 while team C barely beat a bad team D, so A is better than C." You have to play the games.

Denver tends to play down to their opponents. We'll see if they can play up to them as well.

Cugel
11-23-2015, 03:53 PM
Lots of teams have won SBs that way; it's how the '72 Dolphins won back-to-back and posted the NFLs only perfect season. When you need a QB you NEED a QB, and very few teams are elite and solid they can beat three progressive better playoff teams in a row solely with smothering D and reliable running: Sooner or later, every team needs a field marshall to lead a comeback or game-winning drive against excellent defense.

Let's not pretend Kubiak plays Martyball though; that's not what anyone thinks of when they think of Steve Young and John Elway, nor even Matt Schaub and Joe Flacco. It's possible and even desirable for one team to run AND pass well (it just requires a line solid at all five spots,) and EVERY team must at least occasionally do both to achieve the ultimate success. But genuinely good solid teams don't live on high variance play, because the more luck's involved the less their great talents and skills are involved.

No drama: Unless Oz blows up the Cheats and everyone else the next few weeks, Manning resumes starting if/when at/near 100%, but there's no guarantee he gets there by seasons end. The only drama would be if Manning's truly ready when but not UNTIL the playoffs start, and Oz is good but not great in the interim. I want Manning in the playoffs if he's 100%, but getting in rhythm with Oz will take long enough, especially with lots of new coaches, players and plays: Switching gears AGAIN in elimination games would be bad.

I can't really disagree with anything you said. Kubiak isn't Dan Reeves either whose famously conservative offense stiffled John Elway for years, and who infamously said derisively "I don't coach the run-and-shoot". Well he doesn't win any SBs either.

But, remember that this "Kubiak" style of offense worked in the SB - when the Broncos had John Elway and not so much in the playoffs in Texas when they had Matt Schaub.

I don't know whether Osweiler is better than Shaub. Manning was elite in the past, but will he be capable of playing at an elite level with this OL, this season? For 1 game, two games, maybe 3 games in a row?

All this remains to be seen.

GEM
11-23-2015, 03:55 PM
You damn bunch of wusses.

Denver 27
New England 21

Joel
11-23-2015, 03:57 PM
Pats aren't invincible. We'll learn a lot about them tonight, hopefully.

Look at who they've played:

Pittsburgh, Bills, Jags, Cowboys, Colts, Jets, Dolphins, Redskins, Giants

They really shouldn't be all that feared, based on those wins and opponents. I'm not writing off the Broncos.
Their schedule's so embarrassingly soft they could have a perfect season unless we beat them (perhaps fitting, since people have said the '72 Dolphins schedule was soft, too.) Yet, FWIW, their only impressive team stats are all Brady: Their Ds are just above average (though they are 4th in sacks, cause for alarm with a green QB and awful pass protection) and now that we have nearly adequate run blocking even OUR rushing average ranks higher (19th) than their 3.9 yds/att (23rd.) But they cheat—a LOT—so....:uh:

Cugel
11-23-2015, 04:00 PM
Lots of teams have won SBs that way; it's how the '72 Dolphins won back-to-back and posted the NFLs only perfect season. When you need a QB you NEED a QB, and very few teams are elite and solid they can beat three progressive better playoff teams in a row solely with smothering D and reliable running: Sooner or later, every team needs a field marshall to lead a comeback or game-winning drive against excellent defense.

I was thinking back to the '85 Bears when I read this. You'll notice that the Broncos are being penalized at an insane and accelerating rate this season. They're getting PF penalties that are questionable at best, while the refs call nothing on their opponents, etc. They're getting called for pass-interference on routine plays now, just for covering tightly. And it's not just the 2015 Broncos. The 2013 Seahawks were the most penalized defense in the NFL that year too.

It occurred to me that if the NFL let defenses play like the '85 Bears, this Broncos defense would crush everybody. Imagine if you could hand-check receivers all over the field? Nobody would complete a pass on them. No QB would last a game trying to throw 40 times a game. They'd be carted off the field.

The refs are deliberately trying to stop the Broncos from intimidating offenses and calling ticky-tack penalties to do it. (Not counting the eye-poke, that should have been called).

So, you can't really win with the kind of suffocating defense teams won with back in the 70's or 80's because of the rule changes.

That requires better QB play.

Joel
11-23-2015, 04:16 PM
I can't really disagree with anything you said. Kubiak isn't Dan Reeves either whose famously conservative offense stiffled John Elway for years, and who infamously said derisively "I don't coach the run-and-shoot". Well he doesn't win any SBs either.
He won TWO, but only as an assistant rather than head coach; OTOH, he reached NINE, four as head coach. Apparently I only typed out rather than posting my response to the thread with this quote, but here it is for reference:


“I guess, looking back to where I’ve come from, it might surprise you, but I have a defensive base,” Elway said. “My first 10 years in the league with [coach] Dan Reeves, we were very good on defense, first with Joe Collier as defensive coordinator, and then with Wade Phillips. I guess my philosophy came watching how we were set up defense first when I played. Run the ball next, then the passing game complemented that. I wanted to be good on defense, and then I wanted to be as talented as I could be on offense. The way I saw it, if you’re good on defense, you always have a chance.”

The '80s Broncos never had the offensive line nor RBs to do what Reeves learned from Landry and wanted to replicate in Denver, so they were reduced to using a first ballot HoFer as one-man offense, which was good enough to win lots of regular season games against pot luck opponents, and sometimes even string together a few playoff wins, but always got them shelled against championship teams, who could sell out on that one guy and have enough extra left to win: Any of that sound like recent history? ;)


But, remember that this "Kubiak" style of offense worked in the SB - when the Broncos had John Elway and not so much in the playoffs in Texas when they had Matt Schaub.

I don't know whether Osweiler is better than Shaub. Manning was elite in the past, but will he be capable of playing at an elite level with this OL, this season? For 1 game, two games, maybe 3 games in a row?

All this remains to be seen.
Well, yeah, those are the questions, and having to answer them now rather than after Kubiak and Dennison had more than a single seasons picks and FA signings to rebuild the line are why I wanted them to replace Fox and Gase after the SB rather than a year later. But we can't live in my fantasies, even if it seemed like we might when Elway brought in the whole former Texans staff after all.

Kubiak and Dennison got a Pro Bowl out of even Griese and Plummer, and TWO out of Schaub, but even they can only scheme to minimize and conceal a bad QBs many weaknesses and merely relative strengths so long before everyone has lots of tape on the gimmicks and how to beat them: That's not an offense, it's a bandaid. But I'm optimistic Schaub taught Kubiak that the hard way by playing them both out of a job; Oz may not be the guy, but we'll find SOMEONE who is.

For THIS season though... who knows? The line's unlikely to get better by January, so it probably doesn't MATTER who starts in the playoffs.

Northman
11-23-2015, 04:24 PM
Denver has no chance in this game IMO - none. The Pats will score and score often and there hasn't been any indication all year Denver can put that many points up.

Might as well open the bag of tricks, onside kicks, everything. Bombs and hope for PI. Good luck with that run run pass stuff against this team.

Denver has also limited teams on the scoreboard with their defense. I think a lot of the offense's woes were because we kept turning it over and keeping the other teams in the game. While i do think we will lose to NE im not going to shit myself because i know the situation is much different now than it was when we started the season. But again, stranger things have happened and if Denver can limit their own mistakes and force Brady to make his own than we may be able to pull out a win. We are 8-2 so there really is no need for Denver to really prove anything in this particular game other than continue to give Brock reps and improve our own game as a team.

Mike
11-23-2015, 04:24 PM
Denver should call in Shanahan as a consultant for this game. Help with the game plan and script the first 15 plays or so. Even if they don't do that I still think Denver has a decent chance of pulling it off.

wayninja
11-23-2015, 04:30 PM
I still think we can win this.

Joel
11-23-2015, 04:35 PM
I was thinking back to the '85 Bears when I read this. You'll notice that the Broncos are being penalized at an insane and accelerating rate this season. They're getting PF penalties that are questionable at best, while the refs call nothing on their opponents, etc. They're getting called for pass-interference on routine plays now, just for covering tightly. And it's not just the 2015 Broncos. The 2013 Seahawks were the most penalized defense in the NFL that year too.
That's because they were and are INCREDIBLY dirty: They also had the most failed drug tests over a 5-year span, and 2013 was the season Dick Sherman got his adderall suspension overturned because he first said it was from a teammates bottle (using adderall during games is somehow legal if it comes from a teammate?) then got a doctor to write him a prescription after the fact (the rules say prescriptions only legalize taking when NOT playing, not during games.) They made a science of being the '70s Raiders.

Yet Seattle also reached and WON that SB, easily, despite leading the league in penalties and PED suspensions (Browner even got his 3rd in as many years overturned so he won ANOTHER SB against them last year, even though being forced to give up PEDs for good quickly made it obvious all he knew how to do was sucker punch people.)


It occurred to me that if the NFL let defenses play like the '85 Bears, this Broncos defense would crush everybody. Imagine if you could hand-check receivers all over the field? Nobody would complete a pass on them. No QB would last a game trying to throw 40 times a game. They'd be carted off the field.

The refs are deliberately trying to stop the Broncos from intimidating offenses and calling ticky-tack penalties to do it. (Not counting the eye-poke, that should have been called).

So, you can't really win with the kind of suffocating defense teams won with back in the 70's or 80's because of the rule changes.

That requires better QB play.
The rules have always favored offense, but have definitely favored it a lot more, and passing specifically, in recent years: That's why Ward popping Chicagos RB in the helmet hard enough he had to leave the game is totally legal but got him fined when he did it to WR. The league wants highlight reels and arcade scoring because they boost ratings and cushion falling ticket sales. It IS still possible to make playoff runs with good solid D though, and many teams do.

Even if all that weren't so though, we both know "better QB" is hardly the solution to all or even most problems. Sooner or later, every team faces an opponent good enough to at least slow even the best run game and make them drive the field down by 4+ with <2:00 to play: Good passing IS the only solution to THAT problem. But good teams don't live there, and too many things go too badly wrong too often passing to make a habit of it needlessly. If running gets you the same place more reliably and safely, why pass?

Sometimes you must take a calculated risk, but there shouldn't be many such times if you're good at you're job—and you shouldn't win a SB if you're NOT.

LawDog
11-23-2015, 04:43 PM
Guess we will see how the Pats look tonight. They haven't scored less than 27 all year.

Denver's scored more than 27 just once all year - vs GB.

Based on current rankings, NE has only played against two defenses in the top half of the league (Jets at #5, and Dallas at #11). 5 of their opponents defenses rank at 22nd in the league or worse.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 04:49 PM
Based on current rankings, NE has only played against two defenses in the top half of the league (Jets at #5, and Dallas at #11). 5 of their opponents defenses rank at 22nd in the league or worse.

And where does Denver rank?

Cugel
11-23-2015, 05:02 PM
we both know "better QB" is hardly the solution to all or even most problems. Sooner or later, every team faces an opponent good enough to at least slow even the best run game and make them drive the field down by 4+ with <2:00 to play: Good passing IS the only solution to THAT problem. But good teams don't live there, and too many things go too badly wrong too often passing to make a habit of it needlessly. If running gets you the same place more reliably and safely, why pass?

Frankly, everything begins with the OL. Without a solid OL you're not going to win in the playoffs if you even get there, any more than you can win without a solid D-line.

Running the ball is complimentary. It's not supposed to be the majority of your plays or yards. I don't think any team runs more than they pass in today's NFL.

They MUST be able to run because otherwise it's just too easy for the defense to focus just on blitzing the QB and covering receivers. Not even Aaron Rogers can win that way consistently, as Green Bay proved this last month.

They lost 3 in a row, while Eddie Lacy's face was on a milk carton. Rogers got blitzed and hit and beaten up.

Then Lacy came back and rushed for 100 yards, and they won.

Denver won't get the majority of their yards from running, but they have to be able to force the defense to defend it.

But, in the playoffs, teams are going to score points on the D, and to keep pace the Broncos are going to have to be able to move down the field quickly and score TDs passing, and not just in the final quarter either.

Rick
11-23-2015, 05:07 PM
I don't have stats to back it up but I would guess last 2 years the Seahawks ran more than passed, or at least more than most teams run, and they went to 2 superbowls, and arguably could be a 2 time defending SB champion, 1 against this very NE team, had they ran it on the last play instead of a pass.

Cugel
11-23-2015, 05:08 PM
And where does Denver rank?

Baltimore Ravens - 18th
KC Chiefs twice - 7th
Lions - 20th
Vikings - 9th
Raiders - 29th
Browns - 30th
Packers - 21st
Colts - 27th
Chiefs - 7th
Bears - 14th

Timmy!
11-23-2015, 05:12 PM
Guess we will see how the Pats look tonight. They haven't scored less than 27 all year.

Denver's scored more than 27 just once all year - vs GB.

Try again. Think week 2.

LawDog
11-23-2015, 05:13 PM
And where does Denver rank?

El Numero Uno

Cugel
11-23-2015, 05:14 PM
I don't have stats to back it up but I would guess last 2 years the Seahawks ran more than passed, or at least more than most teams run, and they went to 2 superbowls, and arguably could be a 2 time defending SB champion, 1 against this very NE team, had they ran it on the last play instead of a pass.

Seahawks 2014:

454 pass attempts for 3,250 yards.
525 rushing attempts for 2,762 yards.

More attempts but for a lot fewer yards. But, this includes Russell Wilson rushing 118 times for 869 yards. Subtract that and it's only 407 rushing attempts, fewer than their passes.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 05:14 PM
Baltimore Ravens - 18th
KC Chiefs twice - 7th
Lions - 20th
Vikings - 9th
Raiders - 29th
Browns - 30th
Packers - 21st
Colts - 27th
Chiefs - 7th
Bears - 14th

So we scored the most points against the best defenses? Interesting.

Cugel
11-23-2015, 05:20 PM
That's because they were and are INCREDIBLY dirty: They also had the most failed drug tests over a 5-year span, and 2013 was the season Dick Sherman got his adderall suspension overturned because he first said it was from a teammates bottle (using adderall during games is somehow legal if it comes from a teammate?) then got a doctor to write him a prescription after the fact (the rules say prescriptions only legalize taking when NOT playing, not during games.) They made a science of being the '70s Raiders.

Yet Seattle also reached and WON that SB, easily, despite leading the league in penalties and PED suspensions (Browner even got his 3rd in as many years overturned so he won ANOTHER SB against them last year, even though being forced to give up PEDs for good quickly made it obvious all he knew how to do was sucker punch people.)

It's wrong to lump blatant CHEATING (PEDs) in with penalties.

The Pats don't commit a ton of penalties, but they're the cheatin'est, weasliest. They don't miss a trick.

Notice that penalty that got called on the Bengals at the end of the Cardinals game? Defender is barking out fake signals trying to fool the offense into a false start, and they got called for a penalty? Cost them 15 yards and made the final FG much closer.

They were trying to fake the cadence of Palmer so that one of the offensive players would jump. That's illegal.

Well, the Pats are past masters of stuff like that: they have plays where their entire defensive line gets up and shifts to the right (which they are allowed to do), with the intent to cause one of the OL to flinch in his stance seeing the entire DL start to move.

It's technically legal. Is it within the intent of the rules? No. They even changed the rules to prevent the defense from jumping into the neutral zone and then jumping right back to accomplish the same thing.

That's just typical Patriots. They are always scheming ways to get around the rules and violate the spirit of all the rules in clever ways that nobody thought of before so it's not technically illegal.

Cheatin' ? Yes. "Dirty"? No.

Joel
11-23-2015, 05:33 PM
And where does Denver rank?
Before or after losing Ware and going from "out of its mind" to merely "mindless" @Indy? We've made two garbage lines look good in the last three weeks, and our No Fly Zone's apparently lost the ability to do anything but spear opponents after the whistle.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 05:35 PM
Before or after losing Ware and going from "out of its mind" to merely "mindless" @Indy? We've made two garbage lines look good in the last three weeks, and our No Fly Zone's apparently lost the ability to do anything but spear opponents after the whistle.

Did you not see the last game?

DenBronx
11-23-2015, 06:01 PM
Does it really matter? Most I've read have the BRONCOS losing to the Patriots regardless who's at QB. Kubiak won't be able to play conservative against the Patriots, if he does, he's already accepted defeat before being defeated. BRONCOS defense won't keep the Patriots from scoring.

I say open the playbook, and let's see what Osweiler has.


Agreed. Just play Osweiler and don't play conservative. No need to rush Manning back to embarrassment. IF we win then I think there's going to be a QB controversy not just among the fans but maybe in the locker room. After hearing and seeing the team really praise Brock it would be a tough situation.

I like Manning but he shouldn't rush back. Glad to see Brock getting a chance to prove himself before is deal is done. I wanted us to resign him early last offseason (that's how we got a bargain with Chris Harris) but now the price will only go up...unfortunately.

Northman
11-23-2015, 06:15 PM
Were people really expecting the team not to support Brock?

Joel
11-23-2015, 08:00 PM
Frankly, everything begins with the OL. Without a solid OL you're not going to win in the playoffs if you even get there, any more than you can win without a solid D-line.

Running the ball is complimentary. It's not supposed to be the majority of your plays or yards. I don't think any team runs more than they pass in today's NFL.
It's TOTALLY supposed to be the majority of plays; passing wasn't even LEGAL the first 30 years of football, nor more than a long shot desperation play the next 40. It's not supposed to be the majority of yards, no, because any team that doesn't net at least twice as much per pass (even including sacks) is doing something horribly wrong (yet the West Coast Offense lives off passes for no more than an above average run: All because Bill Walsh was had the Peyton Manning of his day before Manning was even born.)

PASSES CAUSE 6X MORE TURNOVERS THAN RUNS DO

I realize I say that a lot, but it bears repeating till it starts to sink in a bit. It takes some digging at Elias (via ESPN) to find fumbled catches and strip-sacks, then subtract them from "fumbles" and charge them to passing, but that's how it broke down in 2014. Another equally important stat:

THE NFL RUSHING AVERAGE HAS BEEN ~4.2 YDS ANNUALLY (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/) FOR TWO DECADES
(http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/)
It's been within 0.2 yds of that all but ONE season since our first SB win. That's logical given the earlier point: Running's boringly consistent, one reason great coaches love it as much as the commissioner whose full court PR drive wildly changing rules hates it. Even AVERAGE running "matriculates the ball down the field," steadily converting first downs till finding itself in the end zone, the opposing D spent and its own rested one taking the field against an offense that helplessly watched for half a quarter as it went down 7-0.

It's true that not ALL runs get as much as the AVERAGE run, but there's a 25% margin of error, more runs means a lot more runs near the average and every possession has at least FOUR plays unless it commits a turnover, which the average run does only about once in 200 snaps. I haven't found the NFL rushing averages standard deviation, but it could only be decisive if VERY low, and consistency (i.e. low standard deviation) is the runs hallmark.

Passing's a great thing; a vital thing, because, when its elite D finally cracks and leaves it down at a TD after the 2:00 Warning, even the most consistently good running team can't count on an All Pro RB Beast Moding an 80 yd walkoff TD: 4.2/att, give or take few. But passing shouldn't be the STAPLE of ANY good offense; not when it causes SIX TIMES more turnovers to only average 2.4 more yds and 1.8% more TDs (the 2014 NFL averages (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/).)

Running's AT LEAST as likely to score each possession, but far safer, than passing. So SIX TIMES the risk for EQUAL gain is ONLY worth t if there's not time many short runs to do the same job more safely. Running's very low variance and passing very high variance, so the odds a pass produces something awesome OR awful by sheer dumb luck are much higher: Luck's how teams lose games they shouldn't, so better teams should avoid it as much as possible; they beat less talented teams BY talent—unless the victims get LUCKY.


They MUST be able to run because otherwise it's just too easy for the defense to focus just on blitzing the QB and covering receivers. Not even Aaron Rogers can win that way consistently, as Green Bay proved this last month.
That's very true, but just one of MANY reason a teams rushing average must at least approach the leagues: Yes, it keeps opposing Ds guessing so the offense retains rather than ceding inititiative, but it also keeps opposing Ds TIRED and BEAT UP while the home teams remains fresh and healthy, kills the clock so the passing games Captains Comeback have NO time to earn their nicknames, and minimizes turnovers. ALL those things are critical to winning, but passing does NONE of them: An 80 yd TD bomb doesn't rest your D.


But, in the playoffs, teams are going to score points on the D, and to keep pace the Broncos are going to have to be able to move down the field quickly and score TDs passing, and not just in the final quarter either.
THAT'S the problem: Even the best running defensive team will sooner or later face a team as good or better that leaves it on the wrong side of the scoreboard with time running out, sidelining their RB and forcing them to get lots of points fast even if it means far greater turnover risks: In other words, to PASS. Teams that find themselves there a lot are bad almost by definition, and probably don't need to worry about what they'll do or how in the playoffs: They'll buy tickets or eat chips and drink beer on their couches.

Once the playoffs start though, 4 GOOD teams/week end the game in that all-or-nothing do-or-die situation, and without the luxury of bouncing back next week: It's win or go home EVERY week. There are no weak divisional foes to pound twice a year, just solid increasingly talented teams good enough to post double digit wins. Just as every opponent, they'll sell out on the only thing any one-dimensional team does well—be it running OR passing—and they're good enough that'll be the ball game for any team without a Plan B.

For what it's worth, I did find a blogger who hit all around the point without making it (http://outsidethehashes.com/?p=60): He charted pass yds/att against rush yds/att (http://outsidethehashes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/110125_rushpassdistribution1.gif) (rushing was as bell-shaped as expected, but passing somewhat suprising: In addition to the huge spike at 0 for the ~35% of incompletes, the curve for completed passes was much flatter than that of runs.)

More intriguingly, he ran drive simulator numbers for slightly low average, low variance vs. slightly high average, high variance running (http://outsidethehashes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/110128_samplerushdistributions.gif), and it wasn't even close: Averaging 4 yds/att with a standard deviation of 3 yds scored a little over a point less per drive than averaging 3 yds/att with a standard deviation of 2 yds. Raising each average a yard with the same standard deviations doubles the scoring edge for slow-but-steady; that's a compelling trend line, because:

Running and passing are the extremes of low average, low variance vs. high average, high variance plays: There've been a dozen 99 yd passes to only ONE 99 yd run, but 1/3 of ALL passes gain NOTHING. And give up the ball 6X more often. There are many good reasons to pass (e.g. trailing >FG at the end of a half, having well below average running, having well above average passing, or simply being GROSSLY inferior to an opponent who'll stomp you if played straight.) But, all else being equal: RUN unless you SUCK.

Joel
11-23-2015, 08:03 PM
It's wrong to lump blatant CHEATING (PEDs) in with penalties.

The Pats don't commit a ton of penalties, but they're the cheatin'est, weasliest. They don't miss a trick.

Notice that penalty that got called on the Bengals at the end of the Cardinals game? Defender is barking out fake signals trying to fool the offense into a false start, and they got called for a penalty? Cost them 15 yards and made the final FG much closer.

They were trying to fake the cadence of Palmer so that one of the offensive players would jump. That's illegal.

Well, the Pats are past masters of stuff like that: they have plays where their entire defensive line gets up and shifts to the right (which they are allowed to do), with the intent to cause one of the OL to flinch in his stance seeing the entire DL start to move.

It's technically legal. Is it within the intent of the rules? No. They even changed the rules to prevent the defense from jumping into the neutral zone and then jumping right back to accomplish the same thing.

That's just typical Patriots. They are always scheming ways to get around the rules and violate the spirit of all the rules in clever ways that nobody thought of before so it's not technically illegal.

Cheatin' ? Yes. "Dirty"? No.
Right, the Cheatriots are "merely" cheaters, but the Cheathawks DIRTY cheaters: One tapes your practices and deflates the ball, but the other shoots up 'roids and HGH, then slams a roid-raging forearm or helmet into your 5'9" 190 lb. WRs head from behind. A story on them in 2013 reported Seattle practices with pads over all WRs legal areas, so DBs learn how to aim for spots where organ-rupturing hits are legal, but THEIR WRs are safe. One picks your pocket, the other leaves you in an alley face down in a pool of your own blood.

Joel
11-23-2015, 08:11 PM
Did you not see the last game?
Yup, that's half of why I asked. Sooo many deep balls over the middle, and no defenders within 20 yds of the ball. And the stupid penalties. And Ward still spearing people. Yeah, I saw it: When's our onfield defensive leader due back to remind guys to behave like mature men, not smug thugs? There's more than a letters difference between Ware and Ward.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 08:53 PM
Yup, that's half of why I asked. Sooo many deep balls over the middle, and no defenders within 20 yds of the ball. And the stupid penalties. And Ward still spearing people. Yeah, I saw it: When's our onfield defensive leader due back to remind guys to behave like mature men, not smug thugs? There's more than a letters difference between Ware and Ward.

Wow. It's crazy how they played like shit against a good offense and still did so well.

Joel
11-23-2015, 09:07 PM
Wow. It's crazy how they played like shit against a good offense and still did so well.
In what sense is Chicago "a good offense"? People keep complaining about our low scoring offense, but we average nearly a full pt/game more than Chicago. They're at or below average in every passing category and tied with NO for the 25th worst rushing average. More importantly, their line's Swiss cheese, their QB's wildly inconsistent, ALL their starting WRs were out, so was their starting RB, and their 2nd string RB left during the game. They've got Bennett and whichever Cutler shows up that day: That's IT.

We held a bad offense (almost) a TD below their season average by finally making a stop on 4th and G and a 2 PAT. Not the same as holding Rodgers to <100 all purpose yards.

Dapper Dan
11-23-2015, 09:21 PM
In what sense is Chicago "a good offense"? People keep complaining about our low scoring offense, but we average nearly a full pt/game more than Chicago. They're at or below average in every passing category and tied with NO for the 25th worst rushing average. More importantly, their line's Swiss cheese, their QB's wildly inconsistent, ALL their starting WRs were out, so was their starting RB, and their 2nd string RB left during the game. They've got Bennett and whichever Cutler shows up that day: That's IT.

We held a bad offense (almost) a TD below their season average by finally making a stop on 4th and G and a 2 PAT. Not the same as holding Rodgers to <100 all purpose yards.

A team doesn't play their averages for every single game. Use whatever stats you like. That Green Bay offense has been pretty terrible in some games. We went against a Chicago coaching staff that has advanced knowledge of how most of our players operate. It was also in their house. Cutler also had his 2nd lowest Completion percentage of the season. He threw for ZERO touchdowns for the first time this season. You act like this defense is terrible because they are missing one player. That's crazy. You're putting WAY too much into this.

I Eat Staples
11-23-2015, 10:56 PM
The defense didn't play that well against Chicago, but they held them to field goals, and that's really all that matters.

Simple Jaded
11-23-2015, 11:29 PM
I love how all of a sudden we're so worried about putting the defense in bad situations, I thought they were supposed to be the strength of this team?

Simple Jaded
11-23-2015, 11:34 PM
Yup, that's half of why I asked. Sooo many deep balls over the middle, and no defenders within 20 yds of the ball. And the stupid penalties. And Ward still spearing people. Yeah, I saw it: When's our onfield defensive leader due back to remind guys to behave like mature men, not smug thugs? There's more than a letters difference between Ware and Ward.

Dude, the day my team starts playing "like mature men" is the day I quit watching, this isn't Polo, Pollyanna.

BroncoJoe
11-24-2015, 08:41 AM
Dude, the day my team starts playing "like mature men" is the day I quit watching, this isn't Polo, Pollyanna.

Agreed. We could do without the cheap shots, but good hard hitting - even if it creates a flag - is A-OK with me.

Joel
11-24-2015, 02:38 PM
Agreed. We could do without the cheap shots, but good hard hitting - even if it creates a flag - is A-OK with me.

Agreed. We could do without the cheap shots, but good hard hitting - even if it creates a flag - is A-OK with me.
Right: Hit hard but legal; play mean, not dirty. "Mature"=/="soft" nor "slick," but does mean teams simply outplayed should get mad at themselves and use at as motivation to play better, not get mad at OPPONENTS and take cheap shots at them just because they came to play and did their jobs as the thugs sucker punching them didn't.

Chicago's a bad team: Beating them solely because of a failed a 2 PAT is sad, and when the QB posts a 127.1 PR while the RBs average 4.9/att, the problem should be clear.

I Eat Staples
11-24-2015, 07:05 PM
Chicago's a bad team: Beating them solely because of a failed a 2 PAT is sad, and when the QB posts a 127.1 PR while the RBs average 4.9/att, the problem should be clear.

It is clear, Kubiak's conservative gameplan was the problem and this team won't go anywhere if he doesn't open it up.

I think and hope he will.

Northman
11-24-2015, 07:10 PM
Lol

Joel
11-24-2015, 07:12 PM
It is clear, Kubiak's conservative gameplan was the problem and this team won't go anywhere if he doesn't open it up.

I think and hope he will.
The conservative gameplan that produced a triple digit passer rating for a QB in his FIRST CAREER START, and just under 5 yds/att rushing? I think the problem was the guys giving up bombs down the middle of the field, then tacking on 15 yd personal fouls for good measure. I'll be glad when Ware's healthy again: Three time outs/half isn't enough for Wade to call everyone over to the sideline EVERY DOWN to get their heads screwed on straight. Don't be surprised if many "stud" defenders are gone next year.

Dapper Dan
11-24-2015, 07:25 PM
:lol:

MOtorboat
11-24-2015, 10:08 PM
The conservative gameplan that produced a triple digit passer rating for a QB in his FIRST CAREER START, and just under 5 yds/att rushing? I think the problem was the guys giving up bombs down the middle of the field, then tacking on 15 yd personal fouls for good measure. I'll be glad when Ware's healthy again: Three time outs/half isn't enough for Wade to call everyone over to the sideline EVERY DOWN to get their heads screwed on straight. Don't be surprised if many "stud" defenders are gone next year.

And yet, Denver still had to stop a 2-point conversion to win.

Win the ******* game, don't just hope to not lose.

I Eat Staples
11-25-2015, 01:03 AM
The conservative gameplan that produced a triple digit passer rating for a QB in his FIRST CAREER START, and just under 5 yds/att rushing? I think the problem was the guys giving up bombs down the middle of the field, then tacking on 15 yd personal fouls for good measure. I'll be glad when Ware's healthy again: Three time outs/half isn't enough for Wade to call everyone over to the sideline EVERY DOWN to get their heads screwed on straight. Don't be surprised if many "stud" defenders are gone next year.

We only scored 17 points DESPITE those numbers that you brought up. We should have scored more.

In fairness, if not for the stumble on 4th and goal, we would have had 24. But if you think playing conservatively is going to beat the Patriots you're crazy.

Yashahla17
11-25-2015, 04:47 AM
And yet, Denver still had to stop a 2-point conversion to win.

Win the ******* game, don't just hope to not lose.

Wow the boat actually said some real stuff.

Totally agree, go for the take out instead of just trying to squeak out with a win.

Yashahla17
11-25-2015, 04:50 AM
We only scored 17 points DESPITE those numbers that you brought up. We should have scored more.

In fairness, if not for the stumble on 4th and goal, we would have had 24. But if you think playing conservatively is going to beat the Patriots you're crazy.

I hated starting at the 45 yard line and then getting to 3rd and 1 and running it up the gut, thats the type of situation where you play action boot and go for,the kill shot down the field and at the least one of the tight ends would have been open underneath for the check down and first down. Our tight ends seemed to be open all day.

Tned
11-25-2015, 05:04 AM
That was a good get your feet wet performance. Offense will need to produce more this Sunday.

Cugel
11-25-2015, 10:52 AM
The conservative gameplan that produced a triple digit passer rating for a QB in his FIRST CAREER START, and just under 5 yds/att rushing? I think the problem was the guys giving up bombs down the middle of the field, then tacking on 15 yd personal fouls for good measure. I'll be glad when Ware's healthy again: Three time outs/half isn't enough for Wade to call everyone over to the sideline EVERY DOWN to get their heads screwed on straight. Don't be surprised if many "stud" defenders are gone next year.

There are more parts to Kubiak's offense we haven't seen yet. They just didn't want to put too much on Brock in his first NFL start, which was smart. They are going to have to go downfield more to beat the Pats and probably will try that.

They are getting the TEs more involved and we can expect to see a lot of 2 TE packages, with both TEs targeted as receivers.

SR
11-25-2015, 11:00 AM
There are more parts to Kubiak's offense we haven't seen yet. They just didn't want to put too much on Brock in his first NFL start, which was smart. They are going to have to go downfield more to beat the Pats and probably will try that. They are getting the TEs more involved and we can expect to see a lot of 2 TE packages, with both TEs targeted as receivers.

Agree 100%. Part of me also thinks that in addition to not wanting to put too much on Brock maybe Kubiak didn't want to show his cards, so to speak, with the *Patriots coming up. Getting VD in the mix last Sunday was huge. For Sanders is healthy enough to play, Brock's long ball will come in handy because he can sling it. I would expect to see a very aggressive defensive game plan and a little more stretching the field on offense.

Ravage!!!
11-25-2015, 11:05 AM
Does it really matter? Most I've read have the BRONCOS losing to the Patriots regardless who's at QB. Kubiak won't be able to play conservative against the Patriots, if he does, he's already accepted defeat before being defeated. BRONCOS defense won't keep the Patriots from scoring.

I say open the playbook, and let's see what Osweiler has.

I'm confused as to what your question mean, "what does it matter?"

Honestly.. what does it matter what people "pick" for the winner of thsi game? What does THAT matter?

We have to expect to lose this game...but so what? Win the division, continue to improve, and expect to see them later in the playoffs. Let Brock learn from this game, get experience and confidence so that when we do ahve to face the patriots, or whomever, later in the playoffs...he doesn't have the rookie "deer in the headlights" moments of playing against Brady and the Patriots feel.

Ravage!!!
11-25-2015, 11:08 AM
Agree 100%. Part of me also thinks that in addition to not wanting to put too much on Brock maybe Kubiak didn't want to show his cards, so to speak, with the *Patriots coming up. Getting VD in the mix last Sunday was huge. For Sanders is healthy enough to play, Brock's long ball will come in handy because he can sling it. I would expect to see a very aggressive defensive game plan and a little more stretching the field on offense.

I dont' know. I think the point is that we don't put much on Brock's plate, and give play calls that are simple to read. Don't ask him to do much, and don't want him to do much. Turnovers is what kills us. The Shanahan's did it with RGIII recently, and made him something good. Seattle has been doing with with Russell Wilson. The Broncos tried to do it with Plummer. DON'T ask the QB to make the big plays, and let them make the simple reads and take what's there.

How many times did Brady just throw the ball into the dirt against the Bills the other night? Just throw it down, and don't take the sack and don't turn the ball over.

Ravage!!!
11-25-2015, 11:10 AM
I hated starting at the 45 yard line and then getting to 3rd and 1 and running it up the gut, thats the type of situation where you play action boot and go for,the kill shot down the field and at the least one of the tight ends would have been open underneath for the check down and first down. Our tight ends seemed to be open all day.

God, we've seen that SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many times over the last few years, and I'm sooooo sick of it. Going deep on 3rd and 1 yrd. The long ball is HARD to complete unless its REALLY open, and when you only have 1 friggin yard to go to get the first down, it PISSES ME OFF to waste that easy opportunity on a HARD to complete pass. I find it stupid.

Joel
11-25-2015, 01:30 PM
And yet, Denver still had to stop a 2-point conversion to win.

Win the ******* game, don't just hope to not lose.
When the line can't convert ONE yard in HALF A DOZEN tries, that's down to player talent/skill, not coaching philosophy. We're doing better with outside runs when we go 2 TE and mass blocker at point of attack, but outside runs can be big losses without good blocking: Runs up the gut always get SOMETHING, and on 3rd/4th and 1 ANYTHING is good enough. Except our line's still garbage, so still struggles with that. But know what? Gambles with a QB in his FIRST PRO START can't solve that problem.

None of that explains leaving receivers WIDE OPEN 30 YDS DOWNFIELD for the second straight game. Good grief, the Bears had NOTHING but Bennett and the Colts NOTHING but Hilton, yet the #1 Ds No Fly Zone couldn't cover EITHER, and the #1 pass rush rarely got to Luck OR Cutler despite their pathetic pass protection. Lots of penalties when frustration at our OWN failings was vented on the OTHER team. What's the over/under on how many times Ward and Talib are suspended this year?

With Jackson it may be just losing his head, but cheap shots have always been calculated integral parts of Ward and Talibs game; that needs to end, one way or the other. Always hit hard and mean, but never dirty. All dirty football earns is a rep like the Raiders and Lions, not playoff wins (unless you're Seattle.)

Ravage!!!
11-25-2015, 01:36 PM
The other team is fulll of professional players and game plans, too. For every zone, there are holes. For every blitz, that leaves mismatches. The other team is trying to predict those holes/mismatches, and find them. It's what they get paid to do.

Joel
11-25-2015, 01:37 PM
We only scored 17 points DESPITE those numbers that you brought up. We should have scored more.

In fairness, if not for the stumble on 4th and goal, we would have had 24. But if you think playing conservatively is going to beat the Patriots you're crazy.
Different scenario, because the Cheats are much better than Chicago, so we need to take more high risk/reward shots to beat them: Played by the book, our chances against them aren't much better than Chicagos against us. That incidentally means stopping *NEs run is at least as important as stopping Brady, because Belicheat knows low-risk possession football minimizing our opportunities to get lucky favors him.

However, if Ward and Talib keep popping guys in the head, leading with their own and playing well beyond the whistle, WHATEVER our offense does won't matter. Nobody beats Brady by giving him free yardage. That doesn't mean playing "soft;" the Giants didn't play him soft in either SB, but stifled him and won by playing hard AND legal.

Joel
11-25-2015, 01:41 PM
The other team is fulll of professional players and game plans, too. For every zone, there are holes. For every blitz, that leaves mismatches. The other team is trying to predict those holes/mismatches, and find them. It's what they get paid to do.
So the improvisational offensive genius that is Fox and Gase just outschemed Wade? Or Cutler, Bennet and the few Bears WRs not on IR are just far better than our secondaries 3 Pro Bowlers? They know that's not so: That's why they were pissed at getting burned repeatedly—but pissed at the WRONG PEOPLE.

BroncoJoe
11-25-2015, 01:47 PM
The other team is fulll of professional players and game plans, too. For every zone, there are holes. For every blitz, that leaves mismatches. The other team is trying to predict those holes/mismatches, and find them. It's what they get paid to do.

Joel didn't see that in the stats or the book.

Joel
11-25-2015, 01:51 PM
God, we've seen that SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many times over the last few years, and I'm sooooo sick of it. Going deep on 3rd and 1 yrd. The long ball is HARD to complete unless its REALLY open, and when you only have 1 friggin yard to go to get the first down, it PISSES ME OFF to waste that easy opportunity on a HARD to complete pass. I find it stupid.
Yeah, that's a 2nd and 1 or 2 play (Shanny and Kubes used it a lot in the Elway years,) because it still leaves 3rd (or even 4th) down to convert on a run for even HALF the league average. For a DECENT line, that run's easy enough defenses usually sell out to stop it on 2nd down, so it's one of the rare times that long ball IS really open, and a 3rd/4th down conversion's still likely even when it isn't. But when there's no second chances and only a SINGLE yard to go, trust the line to mange 25% of the league average on the ground.

If, however, a teams line can't manage even ¼ of the league rushing average ONCE in HALF A DOZEN tries, well, that PA boot post probably doesn't end well either.

Joel
11-25-2015, 02:01 PM
Joel didn't see that in the stats or the book.
I saw Ward whining about he was afraid he'd get suspended a SECOND time in a little over half a season. Maybe if he quit blindsiding people in the head or spearing them and started COVERING them he wouldn't need to worry; how many times has Mike Adams been suspended? The last two weeks, we've given up so many deep balls with NO ONE near them it's hard to count them all WITHOUT a stat sheet. How 'bout we discuss the arguments made instead of the people making them? Just for variety.

Dapper Dan
11-25-2015, 02:07 PM
Remember that nice pass break up by TJ?

Ravage!!!
11-25-2015, 02:07 PM
So the improvisational offensive genius that is Fox and Gase just outschemed Wade? Or Cutler, Bennet and the few Bears WRs not on IR are just far better than our secondaries 3 Pro Bowlers? They know that's not so: That's why they were pissed at getting burned repeatedly—but pissed at the WRONG PEOPLE.

how about the right call, or the right call by the QB? It actually happens. Do you see rookie QBs getting passes completed to WRs in the NFL? I wonder why that is if the other team is "supposed" to be playing defense?

BroncoJoe
11-25-2015, 02:09 PM
I saw Ward whining about he was afraid he'd get suspended a SECOND time in a little over half a season. Maybe if he quit blindsiding people in the head or spearing them and started COVERING them he wouldn't need to worry; how many times has Mike Adams been suspended? The last two weeks, we've given up so many deep balls with NO ONE near them it's hard to count them all WITHOUT a stat sheet. How 'bout we discuss the arguments made instead of the people making them? Just for variety.

What this has to do with the Broncos having a 3rd down and 1 yard to go is beyond me, but it's par for the course with you.

GEM
11-25-2015, 02:30 PM
I'll just post this here as it's all related.

I really can't stand Les Shapiro, but here is a podcast discussing how he thinks John Elway is feeling about a Manning return. Interesting.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/11/25/9797960/broncos-podcast-did-john-elway-want-peyton-manning-back

BroncoJoe
11-25-2015, 02:35 PM
I'll just post this here as it's all related.

I really can't stand Les Shapiro, but here is a podcast discussing how he thinks John Elway is feeling about a Manning return. Interesting.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/11/25/9797960/broncos-podcast-did-john-elway-want-peyton-manning-back

Shapiro is a moron. I don't know what happened to the guy, but he's jumped of a cliff somewhere.

Northman
11-25-2015, 02:35 PM
I'll just post this here as it's all related.

I really can't stand Les Shapiro, but here is a podcast discussing how he thinks John Elway is feeling about a Manning return. Interesting.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/11/25/9797960/broncos-podcast-did-john-elway-want-peyton-manning-back

Im kind of in the middle of something and cant listen, can you give a quick synopsis of what is being said?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-25-2015, 03:30 PM
That was a good get your feet wet performance. Offense will need to produce more this Sunday.

Exactly...a conservative game plan should have been expected in his first start on the road.

Yashahla17
11-25-2015, 03:47 PM
I'll just post this here as it's all related.

I really can't stand Les Shapiro, but here is a podcast discussing how he thinks John Elway is feeling about a Manning return. Interesting.

http://www.milehighreport.com/2015/11/25/9797960/broncos-podcast-did-john-elway-want-peyton-manning-back
Wow i totally agree with this guy who was talking about elway being upset at himself and the player.

GEM
11-25-2015, 04:54 PM
Im kind of in the middle of something and cant listen, can you give a quick synopsis of what is being said?

They were having a conversation about who it hurts the most of Brock works out or doesn't. The other guy said Kubes. Shapiro said Elway, because if it works out Elway looks like a genius and he has a lot invested in Brock since everyone thought that Elway drafted him as a favor to friends. Said that he thinks Elway would have been fine with Manning leaving before and if he is done now, he's fine with that. That Elway thought at the end of last season that Manning was about done and time for the Broncos to move in another direction. Of course, nothing Elway said, just Shapiro's opinion of what he thinks Elway's thoughts are.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-25-2015, 04:59 PM
Nothing like a so called expert speculating about what is going on in the mind of another individual.

Isn't that what this message board is for?
:laugh:

GEM
11-25-2015, 05:00 PM
Nothing like a so called expert speculating about what is going on in the mind of another individual.

Isn't that what this message board is for?
:laugh:

I detected a crystal ball in front of him and some tarot cards. :D

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
11-25-2015, 05:04 PM
I detected a crystal ball in front of him and some tarot cards. :D

That's not what I was getting. I was under the impression he'd been huffing gasoline.
:D

GEM
11-25-2015, 05:15 PM
That's not what I was getting. I was under the impression he'd been huffing gasoline.
:D

Straight ether.