PDA

View Full Version : The Good and the Bad: Week 14



BroncoWave
12-13-2015, 07:28 PM
The Good:

Nothing. No one gets put in the good column when you lose to the ****ing Raiders at home.

The Bad:

Schofield. OMG he is horrible. But I almost don't blame him for not being good enough to block Mack. That is just negligent coaching not to put multiple blockers on him.

DT. Two massive drops and a fumble that likely cost us the game.

Vernon. Made some nice plays, but had the horrible drop at the end and didn't know which way to run half the time.

Running game. Completely non-existent. Bad blocking, bad running, bad everything.

Colquitt. Another shit week for him. Cut this guy already please.

McManus. Yes he hit 4 easy FGs in the first half, but his accuracy on long FGs has gone to shit again.

Punt returns. Whether it was muffs or penalties, we did nothing well there.

Playcalling. Utter shit the whole game. Really put us at a disadvantage in the red zone.

Brock (2nd half). He had a really nice first half, but man he shit the bed in the second half. I've said all along it would be a moronic mistake to bring Manning back, but I guess I can't complain too much about it now. I still think it would be the wrong call, but I would understand it.

That's about all I got for now. Just a shit-tastic performance all around.

gregbroncs
12-13-2015, 07:50 PM
I can't put Brock in the bad category. He had like 4-5 good passes in the 2nd half that were flat out dropped. I'd not put him in the good category either though. Too many times he held the ball too long this game to be considered good.

To me this game is 100% on Sanders, Thomas and Davis. Thomas dropped a TD catch, and 2 first down catches and topped it all by giving the raiders the ball. Sanders fumbled a punt that really hurt. And Davis dropped a pass that he might has scored a TD on, that also ended the game.

Simple Jaded
12-13-2015, 07:58 PM
Osweiler was fine, the tipped passes are getting real old tho.

I'd put Broncos fans under Bad, btw, if for no other reason that the sheer lack of understanding why the Btoncos don't throw the ball 51 times these days.

BroncoWave
12-13-2015, 08:01 PM
Osweiler was fine, the tipped passes are getting real old tho.

I'd put Broncos fans under Bad, btw, if for no other reason that the sheer lack of understanding why the Btoncos don't throw the ball 51 times these days.

Notice it was second half Oz I put in the bad column. He was really good in the first. Just held onto the ball too long and made too many poor throws in the second half. He definitely was victimized by some drops too though. The offense was just pathetic all around.

Simple Jaded
12-13-2015, 08:03 PM
DT has been Bad a lot this season, drops 2 TDs in a row and a huge 3rd down conversion.

BroncoWave
12-13-2015, 08:04 PM
Hey I just thought of one good thing. We came out relatively unscathed injury wise. Other than DT getting banged up Denver reported no injuries in the game.

Northman
12-13-2015, 08:07 PM
I can't put Brock in the bad category. He had like 4-5 good passes in the 2nd half that were flat out dropped. I'd not put him in the good category either though. Too many times he held the ball too long this game to be considered good.

To me this game is 100% on Sanders, Thomas and Davis. Thomas dropped a TD catch, and 2 first down catches and topped it all by giving the raiders the ball. Sanders fumbled a punt that really hurt. And Davis dropped a pass that he might has scored a TD on, that also ended the game.

I love Brock as much as anyone but he did shit the bed a few times in the second half. But, the reality is i would still go with Brock than go back to Manning when i know he would do much worse. The receivers certainly did Brock no favors today.

Simple Jaded
12-13-2015, 08:11 PM
Notice it was second half Oz I put in the bad column. He was really good in the first. Just held onto the ball too long and made too many poor throws in the second half. He definitely was victimized by some drops too though. The offense was just pathetic all around.

I don't get the "holding the ball too long" criticism on plays where the OL is getting beat cleanly. On the safety I think he held it too long, but it brings me back to the understanding of why Kubiak isn't as aggressive as fans want, QB holds too long and RT gets beat like a drum.

Btw, how is Manning going to fix this, for those making that assertion? He gets the ball out quicker but his mind is failing him this season, he's throwing off pre snap reads and it was biting him in the ass. Osweiler is taking the sack, lesser of two evils.

I Eat Staples
12-13-2015, 08:13 PM
I've said all along it would be a moronic mistake to bring Manning back, but I guess I can't complain too much about it now. I still think it would be the wrong call, but I would understand it.

That's where I'm at. I still think it would be wrong, but it's not completely indefensible like it would have been a couple weeks ago.

GEM
12-13-2015, 08:16 PM
Nothing good.

Right now, I'm ******* pissed off with the front office. How in the duck do you go into a reason with this shit show at offensive line? Elway had damn near pro bowlers at every damn position on the line during the SB runs...how the **** do you put these 3rd string no good dipshits on the field in front of an immobile 39 yr old and think it's going to go well. They can't even protect a mobile 24 yr old! So ridiculous!!

Simple Jaded
12-13-2015, 08:24 PM
Kubiak called three consecutive TD pass plays in a row, got nothing, he should be more aggressive.

Northman
12-13-2015, 08:25 PM
Kubiak called three consecutive TD pass plays in a row, got nothing, he should be more aggressive.

lol

NightTerror218
12-13-2015, 08:25 PM
Good- Ware back on field, team play first half, with exception of no TDs.

BAD- ENTIRE SECOND HALF.

Brock had clean pocket in first half and there were no drops. 10/10 to start game. Needed to finish drives though.

Different team showed up second half, defense fell off their game. Offense laid an egg all around.

I Eat Staples
12-13-2015, 08:28 PM
With everything that went wrong in the 2nd half, we still win the game if we scored TDs in the first half. You can't outgain a team 224 to negative ******* twelve and only be up 12-0.

Field goals lose games.

Simple Jaded
12-13-2015, 08:31 PM
Nothing good.

Right now, I'm ******* pissed off with the front office. How in the duck do you go into a reason with this shit show at offensive line? Elway had damn near pro bowlers at every damn position on the line during the SB runs...how the **** do you put these 3rd string no good dipshits on the field in front of an immobile 39 yr old and think it's going to go well. They can't even protect a mobile 24 yr old! So ridiculous!!

To be fair they lost 2 LT's after the FA and draft period, however, Schofield would be the swing T best case scenario.

Clady LT.
Garcia LG (but hopefully Elway signs Mathis anyway).
Paradis C.
Vasquez RG.
Sambrailo RT.

Schoefield, the Iowa kid and the G/C they just signed are top backups, not even remotely NFL level replacements, imo, but they are Broncos ZBS replacement. Schofield needs to be a G and you'll have a new appreciation for him if the other two ever get on the field.

This is where I do give Kubiak some blame, his cast offs have been a waste of time and Sambrailo is only considered a LT in his system.

Btw, all this gives me hope that Clady isn't as gone as some people insist he is.

tripp
12-13-2015, 08:56 PM
Defense was good as usual, held the Raiders to 15 pts which isn't anything to turn your nose at.

Offense was just terrible. Has been for the last 2 weeks. I don't have much confidence in our team at the moment. CJ needs to come back, and the run game needs to be existent if we want to win a game.

Cugel
12-13-2015, 09:14 PM
Defense was good as usual, held the Raiders to 15 pts which isn't anything to turn your nose at.

Offense was just terrible. Has been for the last 2 weeks. I don't have much confidence in our team at the moment. CJ needs to come back, and the run game needs to be existent if we want to win a game.

13 points. The safety was on the offence. The defence wasn't even on the field for that. Can't blame them. Normally giving up only 13 points wins you almost every game.

gregbroncs
12-13-2015, 10:05 PM
I love Brock as much as anyone but he did shit the bed a few times in the second half. But, the reality is i would still go with Brock than go back to Manning when i know he would do much worse. The receivers certainly did Brock no favors today.I expect that I guess. I'm not saying he was great, and I don't think he belongs in the good category. But he got virtually no help from the best offensive players on this team and very little help from the O-line. Also disappointed he couldn't get it in the end zone in the 1st half.

Simple Jaded
12-13-2015, 10:26 PM
As for Davis, that 4th pass is exactly why the Broncos and a lot of fans wanted him. I wanna see the All-22 of that, it looked like he had room to run.

gregbroncs
12-13-2015, 10:31 PM
As for Davis, that 4th pass is exactly why the Broncos and a lot of fans wanted him. I wanna see the All-22 of that, it looked like he had room to run.Looked like it too me as well. On the TV there was not a raider on the screen when he dropped it. But I couldn't see downfield if there were defenders around.

NightTerror218
12-14-2015, 12:12 AM
Honestly a game like this, I think the RT gets benched. No matter the team or who it is.

BroncoWave
12-14-2015, 12:20 AM
Honestly a game like this, I think the RT gets benched. No matter the team or who it is.

I kinda put that more on the coaches than on Schofield. Yes, he sucks and was clearly no match for Mack, but it was downright negligence by our coaches not to have a TE in to help block him. Like, there is nothing Sho could do about the fact that he can't block Mack, but the coaches sure could have helped him out.

This was probably our worst coached game offensively of the season.

NightTerror218
12-14-2015, 12:37 AM
I kinda put that more on the coaches than on Schofield. Yes, he sucks and was clearly no match for Mack, but it was downright negligence by our coaches not to have a TE in to help block him. Like, there is nothing Sho could do about the fact that he can't block Mack, but the coaches sure could have helped him out.

This was probably our worst coached game offensively of the season.

But this was not the first game, yes they should have helped but he has not be able to handle much. He got his shot to show what he has. Like Elway wanted.

Ziggy
12-14-2015, 01:44 AM
The defense was amazing. Despite turnovers and a crap punter giving the Raiders great field position throughout the entire game they gave up only 13 points. They held the Raiders to 126 total yards. I've never in my life seen a team lose a game when giving up under 130 yards on defense. It tells you just how bad our punter and offense is.

When Elway took over the GM position the weakness of this team was the defense. He's turned it into the best in the NFL. Now the offensive line is putrid. I guarantee you it's in the top 3 in the NFL within 2-3 years. It will get fixed. Max Garcia is a future pro bowler. Paradis will be decent. Don't be surprised to see Elway bring in a stud tackle in the offseason, and play Sambrailo at RT next season.

The coaching was horrible as well. How do you not help your right tackle from giving up 5 sacks by double teaming the other team's only pass rusher? Ridiculous. Von was double and triple teamed throughout the game. The Raiders made adjustments. The Broncos didn't. It sucks, but Del Rio outcoached Kubes.

MOtorboat
12-14-2015, 01:53 AM
Osweiler was fine, the tipped passes are getting real old tho.

I'd put Broncos fans under Bad, btw, if for no other reason that the sheer lack of understanding why the Btoncos don't throw the ball 51 times these days.

Lol. You blame passing the ball when the running game, from under center where it supposedly is perfect according to you, was averaging 1.6 yards per carry. And the only reason the average was that high was because Osweiler had 10 yards on 3 carries.

They had to throw the ball, otherwise they would have literally had 4th and 6 on every set of downs.

MOtorboat
12-14-2015, 01:55 AM
There was nothing good about this game.

That's a more embarrassing loss than 59-14. By far. Because this game meant something.

Lancane
12-14-2015, 02:21 AM
Honestly a game like this, I think the RT gets benched. No matter the team or who it is.

On most teams it would, give that they had some sort of depth...other then our interior the quality of our line is beyond mediocre.

Cugel
12-14-2015, 03:57 AM
I can't put Brock in the bad category. He had like 4-5 good passes in the 2nd half that were flat out dropped. I'd not put him in the good category either though. Too many times he held the ball too long this game to be considered good.

To me this game is 100% on Sanders, Thomas and Davis. Thomas dropped a TD catch, and 2 first down catches and topped it all by giving the raiders the ball. Sanders fumbled a punt that really hurt. And Davis dropped a pass that he might has scored a TD on, that also ended the game.

A game against the woeful Raiders should never have come down to 1 or 2 plays.

The team rushed for 34 yards in the entire game. That wasn't be design. That was 100% on the OL.

They are flat HORRIBLE. Running backs were getting met 1 yard in the backfield. No blocking at all. Osweiler was sacked 5 times and had to get rid of the ball in under 2 seconds on every play.

No. This OL was 100% of the problem. With even mediocre play the Broncos would have won, despite all the drops and the missed FGs. I have news for you - no kicker makes every 49 yard FG. They all miss some. Janikowski missed a FG too.

And WRs will drop some balls. Bad time to do it, but it happens every week.

But teams in a system designed to run the ball don't normally run for 34 yards. That's just horrible OL play.

Cugel
12-14-2015, 04:00 AM
On most teams it would, give that they had some sort of depth...other then our interior the quality of our line is beyond mediocre.

They're looking up at mediocre from the bottom of the ocean.

Cugel
12-14-2015, 04:03 AM
When Elway took over the GM position the weakness of this team was the defense. He's turned it into the best in the NFL. Now the offensive line is putrid. I guarantee you it's in the top 3 in the NFL within 2-3 years. It will get fixed. Max Garcia is a future pro bowler. Paradis will be decent. Don't be surprised to see Elway bring in a stud tackle in the offseason, and play Sambrailo at RT next season.

The problem is that you can't put the defense in a time-capsule and wait until then. They won't necessarily be this good in 2016. It's just a wasted season!

Elway should have gotten GOOD OL this season, and not waited until 2016.

He had a perfect chance to land Joe Thomas the best LT in football and utterly fumbled the ball.

Northman
12-14-2015, 07:09 AM
As for Davis, that 4th pass is exactly why the Broncos and a lot of fans wanted him. I wanna see the All-22 of that, it looked like he had room to run.

Yea, just wish he would of hauled in that pass. That was a real killer yesterday.

Northman
12-14-2015, 07:12 AM
Because this game meant something.

So did the last 3 games.

chazoe60
12-14-2015, 07:32 AM
Don't forget to put the new guy Keo into the bad category, he chose not to catch a punt he could have easily caught at the ten that rolled out at the two and led to a safety and he got beat like a drum on a TD.

Davii
12-14-2015, 08:53 AM
There was nothing good about this game.

That's a more embarrassing loss than 59-14. By far. Because this game meant something.

No. Not even close. More disappointing maybe, but certainly not more embarrassing.

ShaneFalco
12-14-2015, 09:48 AM
how many times did brock even scramble? Looked like he stood there like a statue for most of game even when pocket broke down.

EastCoastBronco
12-14-2015, 09:55 AM
The Good:

Von Miller
Malik Jackson
Derek Wolfe
They were the only ones "kicking and screaming" and mentally prepared to play this game.

The Bad:

Same old story.
This team is NEVER mentally prepared for "weaker teams".
We have no issues getting jacked up for the Packers and Patriots but play Colts or the Raiders and...Jesus H Christ.
Some things never change.

That being what it is, I feel we should be fine against Pitt and Cincy.
It's that last game against Phyllis and company that has me worried.

DT should just be benched until he digs his head out of his arse.
The guy is a liability to this team right now.

MasterShake
12-14-2015, 10:20 AM
The Good:

The Defense played great despite the bad situations they were put in for the most part. Our injuries (especially at safety) really hurt us though.

The Bad:

This offense does not function unless the running game is firing on all cylinders. This was eerily reminiscent of the St Louis game last year.

NightTrainLayne
12-14-2015, 10:43 AM
The Good: Our coaching staff showed the league how to beat the best Defense in the league with the worst Offensive Line in the league. That is something you don't see every day.

THe Bad: Our coaching staff beat the best Defense in the league with the worst Offensive Line in the league. I give the coaching staff most of the credit for this loss, along with the O-line. To not adjust and help out Schofield in some form, shape or fashion is inexcusable.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-14-2015, 10:53 AM
Don't forget to put the new guy Keo into the bad category, he chose not to catch a punt he could have easily caught at the ten that rolled out at the two and led to a safety and he got beat like a drum on a TD.

Wasn't that Ronnie Hillman?

Buff
12-14-2015, 11:16 AM
Don't forget to put the new guy Keo into the bad category, he chose not to catch a punt he could have easily caught at the ten that rolled out at the two and led to a safety and he got beat like a drum on a TD.

Renck said on the radio this morning that a lot of players were furious with Keo for biting on the double move on the Raiders TD. He basically had 2 jobs and failed at them both. Hopefully he's played his last game as a Bronco.

NightTerror218
12-14-2015, 11:47 AM
I think a lot of people are forgetting how many players are beat up. We had 17 on injury report this week. Had several starts sit.

Team will improve when it's at 100%.

News flash the raiders are the real deal with carr. No longer the 2 win team. Be prepared for rough matches from now on.

MOtorboat
12-14-2015, 11:50 AM
No. Not even close. More disappointing maybe, but certainly not more embarrassing.

100 percent disagree.

Nomad
12-14-2015, 11:58 AM
100 percent disagree.

Considering the 2 teams....BRONCOS '10 vs BRONCOS '15. Yesterday's loss had more of a sting to it. Hey, at least Orton scored 2 touchdowns in that game.

MOtorboat
12-14-2015, 12:04 PM
Considering the 2 teams....BRONCOS '10 vs BRONCOS '15. Yesterday's loss had more of a sting to it. Hey, at least Orton scored 2 touchdowns in that game.

Turned that game off at halftime, season was already over and never really thought about it again. Embarrassing, sure, but not nearly as bad as the Chiefs and Raiders games this year. Extremely embarrassing games.

Bronco4ever
12-14-2015, 12:50 PM
Good: At halftime, a friend asked me to play disc golf with him. I was already steaming because of our missed opportunities in the red zone, so I figured I should go. It was a decent enough day, so I wanted to do something outside. I'm thankful I missed out on that awful 3rd quarter.

Bad: Coming back to watch the 4th quarter.

EastCoastBronco
12-14-2015, 12:54 PM
Renck said on the radio this morning that a lot of players were furious with Keo for biting on the double move on the Raiders TD. He basically had 2 jobs and failed at them both. Hopefully he's played his last game as a Bronco.

#scapegoat

BroncoWave
12-14-2015, 01:06 PM
#scapegoat

Yeah, blaming the guy who has been out of football all year and just signed this week is pretty gay. How about our 70 million dollar WR or our star TE catch a football?

Northman
12-14-2015, 01:11 PM
Yeah, blaming the guy who has been out of football all year and just signed this week is pretty gay. How about our 70 million dollar WR or our star TE catch a football?

Lol, i said to someone else yesterday that the team should force DT, Sanders, and Davis to carry around a football for the entire week.

ShaneFalco
12-14-2015, 01:27 PM
34 yds rushing lolololol

Buff
12-14-2015, 03:29 PM
#scapegoat


Yeah, blaming the guy who has been out of football all year and just signed this week is pretty gay. How about our 70 million dollar WR or our star TE catch a football?

Well fwiw Vic Lombardi also implied that the defense was frustrated with the offense, particularly that Chris Harris seemed extra frustrated last night, and that some tension is likely brewing between the O and D. Either way - I think it's a pretty high performing defense that didn't take well to the newcomer who managed to blow his assignment.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-14-2015, 03:31 PM
Well fwiw Vic Lombardi also implied that the defense was frustrated with the offense, particularly that Chris Harris seemed extra frustrated last night, and that some tension is likely brewing between the O and D. Either way - I think it's a pretty high performing defense that didn't take well to the newcomer who managed to blow his assignment.

They should be frustrated. Our two high profile wr's fumbles cost us the game.

underrated29
12-14-2015, 03:33 PM
Lol, i said to someone else yesterday that the team should force DT, Sanders, and Davis to carry around a football for the entire week.

And schofield walks around with a condom on his head so he can learn about protection!

Simple Jaded
12-14-2015, 10:04 PM
I wonder if tension was brewing the last few seasons when the defense was habitually giving up 3rd and Forever and "holding" teams to 30-40 points?

chazoe60
12-15-2015, 12:51 AM
I wonder if tension was brewing the last few seasons when the defense was habitually giving up 3rd and Forever and "holding" teams to 30-40 points?

Part of the reason for that was the nature of our no-huddle fast paced offense which is a clear detriment to any defense. Part of the reason not the whole reason.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
12-15-2015, 01:04 AM
Part of the reason for that was the nature of our no-huddle fast paced offense which is a clear detriment to any defense. Part of the reason not the whole reason.

The 3 man rushes with soft zone coverage was a sight to behold as well.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 02:18 AM
I ahve to question the coaching, as well. If they couldn't figure out how to get some help to the RT, then that says a lot... but THEN... going for it on 4th down while STILL in FG range of the other team when they only have a 3 point lead and a HUGE 4:00 minutes left........ is absolutely TERRIBLE TERRIBLE coaching. Horrible. Shows a complete grasp of the situation, and a desperate grasping for something. Looked like amatuer hour out there. Got COMPLETELY outcoached by the Raiders in the second half.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 10:09 AM
I ahve to question the coaching, as well. If they couldn't figure out how to get some help to the RT, then that says a lot... but THEN... going for it on 4th down while STILL in FG range of the other team when they only have a 3 point lead and a HUGE 4:00 minutes left........ is absolutely TERRIBLE TERRIBLE coaching. Horrible. Shows a complete grasp of the situation, and a desperate grasping for something. Looked like amatuer hour out there. Got COMPLETELY outcoached by the Raiders in the second half.

Eh, I didn't mind the call of going for it on 4th. I mean, they called the absolute perfect play and VD screwed it up. At that point in the game we only had one timeout left so if we even give up one first down on defense then we are putting ourselves in a pretty precarious situation. And given the way the two punters played in that game, I don't even think we gain THAT much field position by punting, stopping them, and having them punt it back to us.

I find it hard to criticize a coach for playing to win late in the game instead of playing not to lose. We all hated foxball for years. Well, this is the opposite of that.

Northman
12-15-2015, 10:25 AM
Eh, I didn't mind the call of going for it on 4th. I mean, they called the absolute perfect play and VD screwed it up. At that point in the game we only had one timeout left so if we even give up one first down on defense then we are putting ourselves in a pretty precarious situation. And given the way the two punters played in that game, I don't even think we gain THAT much field position by punting, stopping them, and having them punt it back to us.

I find it hard to criticize a coach for playing to win late in the game instead of playing not to lose. We all hated foxball for years. Well, this is the opposite of that.

Agreed.

While i question at times going for it on 4th down that wasnt one of those moments. I know Kubes was thinking of trying to get a TD while killing the clock but he wanted to be sure to at least try and get the FG for a tie. If Davis makes that we have a 1st down on the Raider 40 at the very minimum with 3 minutes and something. Davis dropped a great pass and it pretty much sealed the deal there.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 10:47 AM
Yeah.. IF. The fact that the TE drops the ball doesn't have anything to do with the call. The call was BAD. Horrible coaching decision, that absolutely could have killed us in a moment that we STILL had a good chance. FOUR minutes left, and our defense had been stuffing them completely, and you go for 3rd and 10 on your own 30???

That's bad coaching, folks.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 11:00 AM
Yeah.. IF. The fact that the TE drops the ball doesn't have anything to do with the call. The call was BAD. Horrible coaching decision, that absolutely could have killed us in a moment that we STILL had a good chance. FOUR minutes left, and our defense had been stuffing them completely, and you go for 3rd and 10 on your own 30???

That's bad coaching, folks.

First of all, let's get a few facts straight. It was 4th and 5 from the 38, not 4th and 10 from the 30. At that point, there is 3:50 left in the game. With us only having one timeout left, if we just give up one single first down that all but ends it. The defense had not been playing nearly as well in the second half as they had in the first, so that was a legitimate concern at that point.

It's very easy to sit here in hindsight and call it "bad coaching", but there is nothing wrong with that strategy IMO. The coach called the perfect play and the players didn't execute. It seems like your anger is misplaced here. If VD makes that catch we aren't even having this discussion right now.

Slick
12-15-2015, 11:22 AM
He had to go for it on that 4th down because he used one of the timeouts when there was more than 4 minutes left. I didn't mind it. He was trying to leave Brock with more time to work with.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 11:28 AM
He had to go for it on that 4th down because he used one of the timeouts when there was more than 4 minutes left. I didn't mind it. He was trying to leave Brock with more time to work with.

No he didn't. 4 mnutes left, why would he have to go for it on your own side of the field? Im fully aware that the RESULT didn't lose us the game, but the call very well could have put us in a position that did lose the game had the other idiot QB didn't take a sack.

Even after they took over on downs, ran three plays, and punted, we STILL had enough time (plenty of time) to try and get into FG range. So 4 minutes was MORE than enough time to punt and get the ball back, and still have LOTS of time to get within range.

No.

Slick
12-15-2015, 11:41 AM
No he didn't. 4 mnutes left, why would he have to go for it on your own side of the field? Im fully aware that the RESULT didn't lose us the game, but the call very well could have put us in a position that did lose the game had the other idiot QB didn't take a sack.

Even after they took over on downs, ran three plays, and punted, we STILL had enough time (plenty of time) to try and get into FG range. So 4 minutes was MORE than enough time to punt and get the ball back, and still have LOTS of time to get within range.

No.

Had the Raiders gotten 1 first down Kubiak only had 1 time out to work with at that point. It would have been game over. Now if you want to say he shouldn't have used a time out when there was more than 4 minutes left, I can follow that logic.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 11:44 AM
No he didn't. 4 mnutes left, why would he have to go for it on your own side of the field? Im fully aware that the RESULT didn't lose us the game, but the call very well could have put us in a position that did lose the game had the other idiot QB didn't take a sack.

Even after they took over on downs, ran three plays, and punted, we STILL had enough time (plenty of time) to try and get into FG range. So 4 minutes was MORE than enough time to punt and get the ball back, and still have LOTS of time to get within range.

No.

I'd rather try to get just 5 yards than punt the ball away and HOPE that my offense gets the ball back. Either way though, 4th and 5 from your own 38 is right on the line where the EV is more or less the same for punting or for going for it, so neither decision is going to be a BAD coaching decision. They are both perfectly defensible.

Buff
12-15-2015, 11:54 AM
He had to go for it on that 4th down because he used one of the timeouts when there was more than 4 minutes left. I didn't mind it. He was trying to leave Brock with more time to work with.

But IMO this is why we shouldn't have burned a timeout with 5+ minutes left. The value of timeouts becomes exponentially higher as the game goes on - and we backed ourselves into a corner with that decision. I think Kubiak has been too quick to use his timeouts at the ends of games this year... Which still beats the alternative of a coach that is so clueless they don't use their timeouts at all - but he is overcompensating IMO.

Slick
12-15-2015, 11:59 AM
But IMO this is why we shouldn't have burned a timeout with 5+ minutes left. The value of timeouts becomes exponentially higher as the game goes on - and we backed ourselves into a corner with that decision. I think Kubiak has been too quick to use his timeouts at the ends of games this year... Which still beats the alternative of a coach that is so clueless they don't use their timeouts at all - but he is overcompensating IMO.

I agree, and I remember you mentioning it in the gameday thread and I agreed there too. I was trying to explain to Rav that once he did that, he kind of had to go for that 4th down at that point. It wasn't why Denver lost the game however so I'm not all bent out of shape about it.

Cugel
12-15-2015, 12:12 PM
Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
He had to go for it on that 4th down because he used one of the timeouts when there was more than 4 minutes left. I didn't mind it. He was trying to leave Brock with more time to work with.


The timeout question simply comes down to whether you want to take your timeouts on defense or offense. Either way the offense has to get the ball back and there's no guarantee the ever will.

In the Colts game Peyton Manning turned the ball over on his own 40 yard line with over 6 minutes left in the game, and the Broncos NEVER got the ball back at all. The Colts ran 6 minutes off the clock. They didn't even kick a FG. They ended in the victory formation.

Even if Osweiler gets the ball back with 2 minutes left and no time-outs, is really an offense with a QB you feel comfortable moving the ball 80 yards in under 2 minutes with no time outs?

With Peyton Manning and the old offense? Sure. He did that all the time. But this offense? Hell no.

They had a lot better chance making that 4th down play than executing an 80 yard drive needing a TD.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 12:14 PM
I agree, and I remember you mentioning it in the gameday thread and I agreed there too. I was trying to explain to Rav that once he did that, he kind of had to go for that 4th down at that point. It wasn't why Denver lost the game however so I'm not all bent out of shape about it.

Yeah, there are some games that are clearly lost by coaching decisions and this clearly was not one of them. There probably are certain calls that you can question, but this one was lost by player execution plain and simple. If just one of those big drops at any point in the game are caught, this is probably not a discussion we are having.

Slick
12-15-2015, 12:20 PM
If you'd have told me before the last 4 games that Denver would have gone 3-1 over that stretch with Brock starting, I would have said Hell yes! We're just upset that Denver lost to Oakland.

Buff
12-15-2015, 12:30 PM
The timeout question simply comes down to whether you want to take your timeouts on defense or offense. Either way the offense has to get the ball back and there's no guarantee the ever will.

In the Colts game Peyton Manning turned the ball over on his own 40 yard line with over 6 minutes left in the game, and the Broncos NEVER got the ball back at all. The Colts ran 6 minutes off the clock. They didn't even kick a FG. They ended in the victory formation.

Even if Osweiler gets the ball back with 2 minutes left and no time-outs, is really an offense with a QB you feel comfortable moving the ball 80 yards in under 2 minutes with no time outs?

With Peyton Manning and the old offense? Sure. He did that all the time. But this offense? Hell no.

They had a lot better chance making that 4th down play than executing an 80 yard drive needing a TD.

I think that game was another good example of Kubiak using his timeouts too early. I don't remember the exact details, but I think we used them with ~4 minutes left, while Indy had the ball around our 30-40 yard line. If you wait, maybe they throw a bonehead incompletion, or maybe you start using timeouts after they've picked up another first down and you have a shorter field to defend. Either way, I don't see the value in prematurely putting you defense's backs against the wall in unfavorable field position. The only argument for using them then was that you want to preserve as much time as possible for your offense - but there is no reason you need to leave them 3 minutes to work with and risk giving up a 1st down and letting them ice the game.

Northman
12-15-2015, 12:32 PM
If you'd have told me before the last 4 games that Denver would have gone 3-1 over that stretch with Brock starting, I would have said Hell yes! We're just upset that Denver lost to Oakland.

Agreed. It wont get easier with Pitt and Cincy (although Dalton being out helps) but considering everything that has gone on this year im satisfied with being 10-3 right now.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 12:32 PM
If you'd have told me before the last 4 games that Denver would have gone 3-1 over that stretch with Brock starting, I would have said Hell yes! We're just upset that Denver lost to Oakland.

Yeah, overall we have probably come out right about where we should be. Took one against NE that we probably shouldn't have won, dropped one to Oakland that we probably shouldn't have lost. Overall things tend to even out in the long run.

EastCoastBronco
12-15-2015, 12:37 PM
If CJ had played on Sunday we would have won, despite the rest of the offence trying to lose.

Cugel
12-15-2015, 12:39 PM
If you'd have told me before the last 4 games that Denver would have gone 3-1 over that stretch with Brock starting, I would have said Hell yes! We're just upset that Denver lost to Oakland.

#1 - It's the F'ing Raiders!

#2 - They suck, so it's the F'ing SUCKY Raiders.

#3 - Did I mention that I still hate the Raiders?

#4 - Jack Del Rio basically quit on the team last year, he was so eager to get out of town and get the Raiders job. *******!

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 12:42 PM
#1 - It's the F'ing Raiders!

#2 - They suck, so it's the F'ing SUCKY Raiders.

#3 - Did I mention that I still hate the Raiders?

#4 - Jack Del Rio basically quit on the team last year, he was so eager to get out of town and get the Raiders job. *******!

I mean, this isn't the same Raiders that we are used to sucking every year so it's probably about time people just get over that. They have a good up and coming QB with really good receivers and an elite pass rusher on defense. This isn't going to be a team we can just chalk up two easy wins for anymore.

Cugel
12-15-2015, 12:42 PM
I think that game was another good example of Kubiak using his timeouts too early. I don't remember the exact details, but I think we used them with ~4 minutes left, while Indy had the ball around our 30-40 yard line. If you wait, maybe they throw a bonehead incompletion, or maybe you start using timeouts after they've picked up another first down and you have a shorter field to defend. Either way, I don't see the value in prematurely putting you defense's backs against the wall in unfavorable field position. The only argument for using them then was that you want to preserve as much time as possible for your offense - but there is no reason you need to leave them 3 minutes to work with and risk giving up a 1st down and letting them ice the game.

Once again, with THIS offense? They need as much time as they could possibly get! This is an offense that struggles at the best of times to move the ball. It's not an offense that you can expect to just march down the field with Osweiler and throw it into the end-zone like Peyton Manning in 2013.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 12:53 PM
They had a lot better chance making that 4th down play than executing an 80 yard drive needing a TD.

You wouldn't need a TD, that's the point. You needed a FG and your defense had been completely stuffing the other team, forcing punt after punt after punt. Going for it on 4th down, in a position that EASILY would have put them in FG range had they not lost yardage, would have then forced your team to THEN need a TD. THAT isn't putting your team in the BEST positionf or success, but putting them in a TERRIBLE position of failure. THat isn't what I want from a coaching decision. Especially when this offense struggles to even get in FG range, the LAST thing you want to do is put them in a position to need a TD, which is what Kubiak's decision bascially SHOULD have forced...we got lucky.

Punt the ball, know the defense will hold as it has all game, and get the ball in better position to get into FG range. THAT would have been the smarter call. We got lucky that their QB made a worse decision than our own coach by taking the sack. ALthough it didn't matter, as our offense can't figure out how to score.

Cugel
12-15-2015, 12:55 PM
I mean, this isn't the same Raiders that we are used to sucking every year so it's probably about time people just get over that. They have a good up and coming QB with really good receivers and an elite pass rusher on defense. This isn't going to be a team we can just chalk up two easy wins for anymore.

They are still the 2nd worst team in the AFC West, ahead only of the woeful Chargers.

Their defense is nothing special. Their defense is 25th in the league, giving up an average of 373 yards a game and they are 28th against the pass. This isn't the 2013 Seahawks out there!

Just think about that! The Broncos couldn't score a TD on the 3rd to worst pass-defense in the league.

As for Carr, their offense Derek Carr wasn't a problem. He could do nothing all day against the Broncos defense. Carr threw for 135 yards, but they had 126 total net yards on the entire day (including rushing for 27 yards). They scored 13 points.

Denver had 310 yards. Holding a team to 13 points on defense will win almost every game --- unless your offense is totally horrible.

Well, the Broncos offense was officially horrible.

It had nothing to do with how great the Raiders were. They suck. Bad. Kalil Mack has a bull rush and nothing else. Other teams have managed to block him.

I heard Alfred Williams say that he never had a single day in his entire career, including high school or college, where he had 5 sacks in a day. Nobody gets 5 sacks in a game. Not DeMarcus Ware, not Von Miller, nobody.

Do you realize that J.J. Watt has never had a game with more than 3 sacks in his NFL career? Not ever? And he's the best defender in the NFL?

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 12:56 PM
You wouldn't need a TD, that's the point. You needed a FG and your defense had been completely stuffing the other team, forcing punt after punt after punt. Going for it on 4th down, in a position that EASILY would have put them in FG range had they not lost yardage, would have then forced your team to THEN need a TD. THAT isn't putting your team in the BEST positionf or success, but putting them in a TERRIBLE position of failure. THat isn't what I want from a coaching decision. Especially when this offense struggles to even get in FG range, the LAST thing you want to do is put them in a position to need a TD, which is what Kubiak's decision bascially SHOULD have forced...we got lucky.

Punt the ball, know the defense will hold as it has all game, and get the ball in better position to get into FG range. THAT would have been the smarter call. We got lucky that their QB made a worse decision than our own coach by taking the sack. ALthough it didn't matter, as our offense can't figure out how to score.

The defense hadn't been stopping them the whole second half, though.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 12:59 PM
They are still the 2nd worst team in the AFC West, ahead only of the woeful Chargers.

Their defense is nothing special. Their defense is 25th in the league, giving up an average of 373 yards a game and they are 28th against the pass. This isn't the 2013 Seahawks out there!

Just think about that! The Broncos couldn't score a TD on the 3rd to worst pass-defense in the league.

As for Carr, their offense Derek Carr wasn't a problem. He could do nothing all day against the Broncos defense. Carr threw for 135 yards, but they had 126 total net yards on the entire day (including rushing for 27 yards). They scored 13 points.

Denver had 310 yards. Holding a team to 13 points on defense will win almost every game --- unless your offense is totally horrible.

Well, the Broncos offense was officially horrible.

It had nothing to do with how great the Raiders were. They suck. Bad. Kalil Mack has a bull rush and nothing else. Other teams have managed to block him.

I heard Alfred Williams say that he never had a single day in his entire career, including high school or college, where he had 5 sacks in a day. Nobody gets 5 sacks in a game. Not DeMarcus Ware, not Von Miller, nobody.

Do you realize that J.J. Watt has never had a game with more than 3 sacks in his NFL career? Not ever? And he's the best defender in the NFL?

There are 3 games left and the Raiders still have a chance to post a winning record. That's not indicative of a team that "sucks" is "bad" or whatever word you want to use. Are they great? No, but this isn't the same Raiders that were winning 2-3 games every year.

And your logic that "They are the second worst team in the division so they suck" is laughable. You often see the #3 team in a division get a wild card spot, so that is horrible logic on your part.

Cugel
12-15-2015, 01:00 PM
You wouldn't need a TD, that's the point. You needed a FG

You needed a FG to TIE. You needed a TD to win. And I presume that winning is the point?

Going for it was the right decision, it just didn't work out. If they had punted and the Raiders get even 1 1st down, Osweiler could have gotten the ball back with under 1 minute left and no time outs needing to drive 50 yards for the chance of a tying FG.

Oh, and your kicker previously blew a 49 yard FG in the game, so he's not a sure bet.

No, going for it was definitely the right call.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 01:03 PM
The defense hadn't been stopping them the whole second half, though.

They had. THey had 13 TOTAL points. The opening drive.. TD

PUNT
PUNT
PUNT
PUNT

TD

(our missed FG)

PUNT

Missed FG

PUNT

Cugel
12-15-2015, 01:03 PM
There are 3 games left and the Raiders still have a chance to post a winning record. That's not indicative of a team that "sucks" is "bad" or whatever word you want to use. Are they great? No, but this isn't the same Raiders that were winning 2-3 games every year.

And your logic that "They are the second worst team in the division so they suck" is laughable. You often see the #3 team in a division get a wild card spot, so that is horrible logic on your part.

The Raiders are not getting in the playoffs, either this year or next year either. So, yes, they still suck. Not as bad as say the Cleveland Browns, but bad enough that they are an afterthought in the division.

KC has a better coach and a lot better defense.

The Broncos have the best defense in the NFL and a ton of weapons on offense.

Only the Chargers are roll-overs now, but the Raiders are at least 2 years away from competing for a division title. If the Broncos stumble next season, KC will walk away with the division.

And clearly Derek Carr is not a problem for this Broncos defense, any more than the Chiefs had any trouble with them. Chiefs scored 34 points on that Raiders defense and that was in Oakland. Alex Smith has finally developed as a passer and has 15 TDs for only 4 picks and a passer rating of 95.8. They are rushing the ball for 4.7 yards per attempt.

That's what a GOOD team looks like. Nobody wants the Chiefs in the playoffs. And they are going to win out, and because of the Raiders game fiasco, they might even win the division at 11-5 based on the division record tie-breaker with Denver.

Broncos now need to win 2 out of the next 3 games just to win the division. Forget about a bye and #1 seed, they are in danger of becoming a Wild-Card. Unless they beat the Chargers in the last game, they might not even get into the playoffs!

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 01:06 PM
They had. THey had 13 TOTAL points. The opening drive.. TD

PUNT
PUNT
PUNT
PUNT

TD

(our missed FG)

PUNT

Missed FG

PUNT

But they didn't need to score. They just needed pretty much one single first down to win the game. Just a few short weeks ago we punted to Indy with 6 minutes to go and never saw the ball again. If you can have your offense on the field with under 4 minutes when you need a score, that's the position I would rather be in.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 01:21 PM
But they didn't need to score. They just needed pretty much one single first down to win the game. Just a few short weeks ago we punted to Indy with 6 minutes to go and never saw the ball again. If you can have your offense on the field with under 4 minutes when you need a score, that's the position I would rather be in.

I don't know what game you were watching if you thought their offense could have simply held onto the ball. They hadn't been able to do shit on offense. THey needed MORE than 1 first down to win the game with over 4 minutes left in the game. At least GIVE our team a chance, and by putting their team in field range to put the game away, you basically take that chance away. Not something you want from a coaching decision. We STILL had time even after we gave them the ball and they punted. So punting the ball instead of going for it on 4th down, just still makes ZERO sense, unless you are panicing and taking chances that don't need to be taken.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 01:30 PM
The Raiders are not getting in the playoffs, either this year or next year either. So, yes, they still suck. Not as bad as say the Cleveland Browns, but bad enough that they are an afterthought in the division.

KC has a better coach and a lot better defense.

The Broncos have the best defense in the NFL and a ton of weapons on offense.

Only the Chargers are roll-overs now, but the Raiders are at least 2 years away from competing for a division title. If the Broncos stumble next season, KC will walk away with the division.

And clearly Derek Carr is not a problem for this Broncos defense, any more than the Chiefs had any trouble with them. Chiefs scored 34 points on that Raiders defense and that was in Oakland. Alex Smith has finally developed as a passer and has 15 TDs for only 4 picks and a passer rating of 95.8. They are rushing the ball for 4.7 yards per attempt.

That's what a GOOD team looks like. Nobody wants the Chiefs in the playoffs. And they are going to win out, and because of the Raiders game fiasco, they might even win the division at 11-5 based on the division record tie-breaker with Denver.

Broncos now need to win 2 out of the next 3 games just to win the division. Forget about a bye and #1 seed, they are in danger of becoming a Wild-Card. Unless they beat the Chargers in the last game, they might not even get into the playoffs!

It's the NFL dude, every team has good players. Sometimes 5 win teams beat 10 win teams. Shit happens. We beat a Pats team we should have lost to and lost to a Raiders team we should have beaten. Had you been told 4 weeks ago we'd go 3-1 over the next 4 weeks with Brock, I think you and every other Broncos fans would have taken it. Things even out over the long run. We are still in fine position. Beat a Bengals team without Dalton and a Chargers team that will have totally packed it in by week 17 and the 2 seed is ours.

But I guess if you want to go all Chicken Little that is your prerogative.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 01:32 PM
I don't know what game you were watching if you thought their offense could have simply held onto the ball. They hadn't been able to do shit on offense. THey needed MORE than 1 first down to win the game with over 4 minutes left in the game. At least GIVE our team a chance, and by putting their team in field range to put the game away, you basically take that chance away. Not something you want from a coaching decision. We STILL had time even after we gave them the ball and they punted. So punting the ball instead of going for it on 4th down, just still makes ZERO sense, unless you are panicing and taking chances that don't need to be taken.

The fact of the matter is, the EV is almost dead even between going for it and punting there. Neither call would have been an outright "horrible" decision. Just because it's not what you would have done doesn't make it a bad decision.

NightTerror218
12-15-2015, 02:39 PM
Raiders can beat the Chiefs week 17

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 02:55 PM
Scroll down to page 7 of this PDF. It's the next to last page. You will see a chart showing the best decision when comparing the distance to go on 4th down with the position on the field. The 3 fields of the graph are FG, punt, and go for it. With 5 yards to go and being 62 yards away from the endzone, you will see it's just over the line between punting and going for it. This graph does show punting as the better decision, but it's so close it's not necessarily a horrible decision either way. Especially when time is more of a factor as it was here.

http://www.yummymath.com/wp-content/uploads/4th_Down.pdf

underrated29
12-15-2015, 02:57 PM
Why should we have lost to the pats*?

I dont understand this one

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 03:00 PM
Why should we have lost to the pats*?

I dont understand this one

Well they were favored and led pretty much the entire game. You replay that game 10 times, it's probably one the Pats take 6 or 7 of them. We were pretty fortunate to come out on top, especially with all the calls we got in big moments. At the end of the day, we stole one from NE and had one stolen from us (mostly by our own doing) from Oakland. Like I said, things tend to even out in the end.

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 03:46 PM
Why should we have lost to the pats*?

I dont understand this one

There weren't very many people predicting a Broncos win. In fact, I can't think of any of the national commentators that picked the Broncos.

TimHippo
12-15-2015, 03:55 PM
Well they were favored and led pretty much the entire game. You replay that game 10 times, it's probably one the Pats take 6 or 7 of them. We were pretty fortunate to come out on top, especially with all the calls we got in big moments. At the end of the day, we stole one from NE and had one stolen from us (mostly by our own doing) from Oakland. Like I said, things tend to even out in the end.

Patriots game like a Packers game is a 50/50 game (40-60 because Manning on IR). Conference leaders.

Raiders are a gimmie game. You pencil that in as a win when you look at the schedule. So it's unacceptable to lose to them. That's an automatic win.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 04:04 PM
Raiders are a gimmie game. You pencil that in as a win when you look at the schedule. So it's unacceptable to lose to them. That's an automatic win.

Except it's not though. Just because a fan pencils in a game as a W doesn't mean it's a "gimmie" or an automatic win. I know Broncos fans don't want to accept it, but these aren't the same Raiders who were winning 2-3 games a year. They have now put together a competitive team that can hang with pretty much anyone. Should we have beaten them? Absolutely. Are we better than them? For sure. But they are only 1 game below .500 now and have come very close to having another win or two. They have a solid young core of players that is only going to get better.

Losing to them isn't the travesty that it was a few years ago. To me, they are no longer a team you can just pencil two wins in against. If you don't come to play against them, they can absolutely beat you.

TimHippo
12-15-2015, 04:11 PM
Except it's not though. Just because a fan pencils in a game as a W doesn't mean it's a "gimmie" or an automatic win. I know Broncos fans don't want to accept it, but these aren't the same Raiders who were winning 2-3 games a year. They have now put together a competitive team that can hang with pretty much anyone. Should we have beaten them? Absolutely. Are we better than them? For sure. But they are only 1 game below .500 now and have come very close to having another win or two. They have a solid young core of players that is only going to get better.

Losing to them isn't the travesty that it was a few years ago. To me, they are no longer a team you can just pencil two wins in against. If you don't come to play against them, they can absolutely beat you.

Except it it. Osweiler and the Broncos had a chance to keep control of home field advantage and blew it. Now things are out of their control and the Pats have the Titans, Jets, Dolphins remaining. Osweiler and the Broncos basically gave away home field advantage by losing to the lowly Raiders. Unacceptable for a Super Bowl contender.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 04:15 PM
Except it it. Osweiler and the Broncos had a chance to keep control of home field advantage and blew it. Now things are out of their control and the Pats have the Titans, Jets, Dolphins remaining. Osweiler and the Broncos basically gave away home field advantage by losing to the lowly Raiders. Unacceptable for a Super Bowl contender.

It's the NFL dude, shit happens. When the Packers went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl a few years back, one of their losses was to the 2-14 Chiefs. Look at some of the Ravens' losses down the stretch when they won the title a few years ago. They were ugly. There is no such thing as a win you just "pencil in" in the NFL. That's only a thing that exists in the eyes of unrealistic fans who don't really get how pro sports work.

TimHippo
12-15-2015, 04:15 PM
I mean yeah if you want to settle for mediocrity then yeah we split with Pats/Raiders so we are doing great. Not too shabby.

But that's not what super bowl championship teams do.

underrated29
12-15-2015, 04:15 PM
Well they were favored and led pretty much the entire game. You replay that game 10 times, it's probably one the Pats take 6 or 7 of them. We were pretty fortunate to come out on top, especially with all the calls we got in big moments. At the end of the day, we stole one from NE and had one stolen from us (mostly by our own doing) from Oakland. Like I said, things tend to even out in the end.


There weren't very many people predicting a Broncos win. In fact, I can't think of any of the national commentators that picked the Broncos.



Eh, so.

We beat them. They got away with as many calls as we did (or received). Its not like we had a bunch of dumb luck bounces go our way (like the time they beat us w the tony carter muffed punt in OT). They played 60 min, we played 60 min and we came out on top due to hard work and great play. We did not steal that one imo.

The chefs win.
The raiders win.
The browns win.

We stole those.

TimHippo
12-15-2015, 04:16 PM
It's the NFL dude, shit happens. When the Packers went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl a few years back, one of their losses was to the 2-14 Chiefs. Look at some of the Ravens' losses down the stretch when they won the title a few years ago. They were ugly. There is no such thing as a win you just "pencil in" in the NFL. That's only a thing that exists in the eyes of unrealistic fans who don't really get how pro sports work.

You shouldn't attack people by calling them unrealistic. If you disagree with something focus on the discussion instead of belittling posters.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 04:18 PM
I mean yeah if you want to settle for mediocrity then yeah we split with Pats/Raiders so we are doing great. Not too shabby.

But that's not what super bowl championship teams do.

The 2012 Ravens went 1-4 to close out the regular season including a loss to the lowly Redskins and getting blown out at home by us. Then they turn around to beat us in the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. The NFL is all about who gets hot in the playoffs. Just because you have a bad loss in the regular season doesn't mean you aren't a "championship team".

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 04:20 PM
You shouldn't attack people by calling them unrealistic. If you disagree with something focus on the discussion instead of belittling posters.

:lol: Wut? If you consider that a personal attack I think discussing football on the internet is the wrong thing for you. It's not belittling to call you out for saying stupid things. I'm not calling you stupid, just your takes on football.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 04:22 PM
Eh, so.

We beat them. They got away with as many calls as we did (or received). Its not like we had a bunch of dumb luck bounces go our way (like the time they beat us w the tony carter muffed punt in OT). They played 60 min, we played 60 min and we came out on top due to hard work and great play. We did not steal that one imo.

The chefs win.
The raiders win.
The browns win.

We stole those.

You have to admit though, the calls we got came at WAY bigger moments in the game than the calls they got. Like, 3 potentially game ending first downs of theirs were wiped out by penalties in the 4th quarter. We kinda did steal that game. I'll take it, but we were fortunate to win. If we line up and play them again Vegas will still have us as the underdogs, and they have all of those big tall casinos for a reason.

MOtorboat
12-15-2015, 04:28 PM
I mean yeah if you want to settle for mediocrity then yeah we split with Pats/Raiders so we are doing great. Not too shabby.

But that's not what super bowl championship teams do.

Oh, for ****'s sake.

Denver is a 10-3 football team that has played two bad games out of 13. Denver has the No. 2 seed in the conference. It's not a ******* mediocre football team.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 04:29 PM
Oh, for ****'s sake.

Denver is a 10-3 football team that has played two bad games out of 13. Denver has the No. 2 seed in the conference. It's not a ******* mediocre football team.

Stop personally attacking him, Mo!

TimHippo
12-15-2015, 04:38 PM
Stop personally attacking him, Mo!

Actually, that's not a personal attack. Mo and me, we cool.

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 04:51 PM
You shouldn't attack people by calling them unrealistic. If you disagree with something focus on the discussion instead of belittling posters.

Grow some balls, dude. This is like the 100th time you've accused someone of attacking you. Get over it.

Slick
12-15-2015, 04:57 PM
I mean yeah if you want to settle for mediocrity then yeah we split with Pats/Raiders so we are doing great. Not too shabby.

But that's not what super bowl championship teams do.

You really need to temper your expectations of this team. 10-3 is a fantastic record considering how awful the O line is and having lots of other key players injured.

Northman
12-15-2015, 05:43 PM
Grow some balls, dude. This is like the 100th time you've accused someone of attacking you. Get over it.

I think it should be quite clear by now the guy is just trolling. He's been doing this sillyness for weeks now. lol

chazoe60
12-15-2015, 05:51 PM
You shouldn't attack people by calling them unrealistic. If you disagree with something focus on the discussion instead of belittling posters.

Says the guy who posts a picture of Chaz Bono every time I post. Give me a break.

Timmy!
12-15-2015, 05:54 PM
You really need to temper your expectations of this team. 10-3 is a fantastic record considering how awful the O line is and having lots of other key players injured.

Pretty much. Things are actually set up pretty well for us. Beat a Daltonless Cincy and either pit (pretty tough) OR sandy eggo and we have a #2 seed and a week to heal. Now if that happens everybody will be worried about the pats, which makes sense. Thing is, Pit will likely be the 6 and likely smash cincy, earning them a date at new england in the divisional, where we get the winner of KC and whatever 8-8 team wins the south. #nostratimmy

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 05:55 PM
Pretty much. Things are actually set up pretty well for us. Beat a Daltonless Cincy and either pit (pretty tough) OR sandy eggo and we have a #2 seed and a week to heal. Now if that happens everybody will be worried about the pats, which makes sense. Thing is, Pit will likely be the 6 and likely smash cincy, earning them a date at new england in the divisional, where we get the winner of KC and whatever 8-8 team wins the south. #nostratimmy

#nostratimmy

I Eat Staples
12-15-2015, 06:12 PM
Gaining 5 yards is easier than forcing a 3 and out. I'd go for that every time in that situation.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 06:16 PM
Gaining 5 yards is easier than forcing a 3 and out. I'd go for that every time in that situation.

Totally agree. If there are less than 4 minutes left, you only have one timeout, and you are trailing, I would rather have my offense on the field than the defense. As great as our defense is, they were not having their best half of the season in the second half. I'd rather take my chances picking up 5 yards.

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 06:17 PM
Totally agree. If there are less than 4 minutes left, you only have one timeout, and you are trailing, I would rather have my offense on the field than the defense. As great as our defense is, they were not having their best half of the season in the second half. I'd rather take my chances picking up 5 yards.

Rav disagrees. You're stupid.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 06:21 PM
Rav disagrees. You're stupid.

Well shit. Time to go throw my computer in a lake.

chazoe60
12-15-2015, 06:22 PM
Well shit. Time to go throw my computer in a lake.

Don't forget to light it on fire and piss on it first. TIA

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 06:23 PM
Don't forget to light it on fire and piss on it first. TIA

Um, I accidentally misread your instructions and set myself on fire. Please give further direction.

chazoe60
12-15-2015, 06:25 PM
Um, I accidentally misread your instructions and set myself on fire. Please give further direction.

Do nothing. Embrace the darkness. Walk toward the light.



Let's get this party started.

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 06:25 PM
Um, I accidentally misread your instructions and set myself on fire. Please give further direction.

Jump in the lake.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 06:25 PM
You guys seriously need to stop personally attacking me. I am going to cry!

chazoe60
12-15-2015, 06:25 PM
Jump in the lake.

Dammit Joe, S T F U

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 06:28 PM
Dammit Joe, S T F U

That's not very nice.

Post reported.

LawDog
12-15-2015, 06:29 PM
Um, I accidentally misread your instructions and set myself on fire. Please give further direction.

I believe the next steps are to piss on yourself and then jump in a lake, or something.

BroncoJoe
12-15-2015, 06:31 PM
I believe the next steps are to piss on yourself and then jump in a lake, or something.

I think I'd rather jump in the lake, then piss on myself. Just a personal preference. I wouldn't want to bring my wang out whilst on fire.

LawDog
12-15-2015, 06:32 PM
I think I'd rather jump in the lake, then piss on myself. Just a personal preference. I wouldn't want to bring my wang out whilst on fire.

Sounds like you don't trust your targeting skills. #personalattack

Simple Jaded
12-15-2015, 07:39 PM
I ahve to question the coaching, as well. If they couldn't figure out how to get some help to the RT, then that says a lot... but THEN... going for it on 4th down while STILL in FG range of the other team when they only have a 3 point lead and a HUGE 4:00 minutes left........ is absolutely TERRIBLE TERRIBLE coaching. Horrible. Shows a complete grasp of the situation, and a desperate grasping for something. Looked like amatuer hour out there. Got COMPLETELY outcoached by the Raiders in the second half.

Way to over react, there Nancy Grace. "Bombshell! The HC I didn't want made a decision I don't like!"

Kubiak's critics have been all over him for his conservative offense, now he's got critics saying he's too aggressive.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2015, 07:41 PM
Way to over react, there Nancy Grace.

Kubiak's critics have been all over him for his conservative offense, now he's got critics saying he's too aggressive.

Its not an overraction, Piss Poor Example dude... it's an astute observation by someone that is willing to call it as they see it. Being "stupid" doesn't mean you are over aggressive, it's being stupid.

BroncoWave
12-15-2015, 07:43 PM
Its not an overraction, Piss Poor Example dude... it's an astute observation by someone that is willing to call it as they see it. Being "stupid" doesn't mean you are over aggressive, it's being stupid.

:lol: You're certainly as full of yourself as Nancy Grace.

Simple Jaded
12-15-2015, 10:13 PM
So Kubiak has to be aggressive but only when his critics can come to a consensus on how/when?

Maybe Kubiak figured his punter wouldn't make much of a change in field position had he punted.

Valar Morghulis
12-16-2015, 01:14 AM
So Kubiak has to be aggressive but only when his critics can come to a consensus on how/when? Maybe Kubiak figured his punter wouldn't make much of a change in field position had he punted.

I loved the decision to go for out. Great play call, nice attitude, great execution.....dropped.

That's not on kubes or oz. That's on Vernon.

Northman
12-16-2015, 07:14 AM
You guys seriously need to stop personally attacking me. I am going to cry!

Im already crying,


from laughter.