PDA

View Full Version : packers still can't get over broncos sb defeat



titan
10-29-2009, 06:11 PM
Wolf still can't admit the Broncos were the better team that day. I remember this attitude among Packer fans - how the Broncos were somehow lucky to win SB 32. I think Vince Lombardi could tell you that the team who dominates the line of scrimmage will win the game 9 times out of 10 - GB had no answer for Terrell Davis that game. The Broncos had the better running game and really could have won by more than the final score (remember the Elway interception right after the Packers had fumbled a kickoff)?

==============

That defeat still hurts
Wolf says Holmgren to blame for Packers' failure to win Super Bowl XXXII

By Bob McGinn of the Journal Sentinel

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29487844.html


Even now, 10 years after the fact, the cut is deep, the memories fresh and the recrimination endless.

Each time that Ron Wolf tries to get past the Green Bay Packers' 31-24 upset defeat at the hands of the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII, he remembers how the course of history might have and, in his strong opinion, should have been altered.

The retired general manager holds former coach Mike Holmgren primarily responsible for the crushing setback in San Diego, possibly the most haunting in the franchise's 87-year existence.

"Certain calls were to be made that weren't made," Wolf said during a trip to Green Bay in August. "Mike Holmgren refused those calls. There would have been an adjustment on the blocking scheme and it would have been over.

"One of the great things about playing the game of football is you have to adjust. When you fail to adjust in critical situations you're going to lose, and that's what happened here. To be pig-headed about it, I mean, to have the answer and then not apply it, that's a little different."

Wolf was referring to the Packers' inability to handle the blitzing of Broncos defensive coordinator Greg Robinson that changed the complexion of the entire game.

It wasn't a great day for any number of key Green Bay participants, including the late Fritz Shurmur, coordinator of the defense; quarterback Brett Favre; and defensive end Reggie White. But Wolf kept coming back to Holmgren because the simplest solution was his and he didn't execute it.

How was Wolf, who seldom concerned himself with X's and O's, made aware that Holmgren mishandled the offense?

"I found this out about four years ago," Wolf said. "Two people told me about it that were in a position to know. I could tell you who they were but they wouldn't tell you. They were coaches."

A request made to Dave Pearson, the Seattle Seahawks' director of communications and broadcasting, for an interview with Holmgren wasn't acknowledged.
Holmgren's offensive line coach, Tom Lovat, said last week that he had never discussed the issue with Wolf.

Of the other offensive coaches on the staff in 1997, Wolf is closest to Andy Reid. Wolf has made at least one, sometimes two trips per year to Philadelphia from his home in Annapolis, Md., for friendly visits with the man who was the Packers' quarterbacks coach that year.

Wolf has not talked to Holmgren about what he has learned and says he never will. Their relationship, though cordial, was never quite the same after Holmgren left for Seattle in January 1999.

"It's over and I'm out of the game," he said. "It's all hearsay. The only ones who could substantiate it would be the people involved, the coaches or the players.

"I'm probably still not over it. It's like a dot in history now, and one of the teams was a one-year wonder. But for somebody to bring it up and explain to you what could have been done and what should have been done, it rekindles the fire every once in a while."

Granted, the Packers did score 24 points and gain 350 yards. On the other hand, Denver had 302 yards, including 179 on the ground. Terrell Davis rushed 30 times for 157 yards despite being sidelined for all but one play of the second quarter after a kick in the head caused his vision to blur.

"The whole thing was we couldn't stop the run," said Tom Lovat, Holmgren's offensive line coach at the time. "Anybody will tell you that."

As Wolf put it, that was the day "our defensive line went away." White made one tackle and was on the ground far too much, Gilbert Brown tired badly and Darius Holland, subbing for injured Gabe Wilkins at right end, was run ragged by tackle Gary Zimmerman.

Still, the Packers might have been able to outscore the Broncos because of their suspect secondary had it not been for four or five plays that went haywire largely because of the blitzing. Two of those blitzes caused turnovers, set up 10 first-half points and put the Packers in a 17-7 deficit from which they could never regain the lead.

When told of Wolf's remarks, safety LeRoy Butler said there was no doubt in his mind that the issue was Holmgren's refusal to keep more blockers in for pass protection.

"He's my favorite coach of all time," Butler said. "But he wanted five eligible (receivers) out. Keeping guys in was too boring for him. He was trying to show off."

In an interview two years ago, Robinson said the only other occasion in his career in which he ever blitzed more was one game against New England's Drew Bledsoe. In all, the Broncos rushed five or more on 48.9% of the Packers' 45 dropbacks and six or more on 24.4%.

"It's all about time," Robinson said. "They didn't have time. Mike Holmgren's a good coach and they were sound. But I don't think they were totally set up for the systematic approach that we took.
"Later in Mike's career, they changed and we had to do some adapting. That's kind of what his world went to. Protecting instead of letting them get out and trying to let the quarterback get rid of it."

Two year ago, Favre said the Broncos in that Super Bowl "kind of revolutionized the weak-safety or weak-corner blitz. The West Coast had never seen that. Seeing that type of blitz, you had to change your protection totally. Now everyone does it."

On the second play of the game, Robinson sent the house and a message to Favre with an all-out pressure; referee Ed Hochuli probably should have called intentional grounding. Green Bay capped that opening 76-yard drive with a 22-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Freeman, but after that it was a never-ending struggle for the offense.

"Historically, we were pretty damn good at sideline adjustments," guard Aaron Taylor said in 2006. "But I remember the entire game we didn't know where they were coming from. I think because we were so good on adjustments there was an element where we got out-coached. But I'm not putting it all on the coaches. As players, we didn't help ourselves out at all."

When the Packers got the ball back, Favre faked a second-and-5 handoff on a 5-step drop as both running backs went out through the middle. Cornerback Darrien Gordon blitzed off the weak side, forcing Favre to scramble right. He overthrew Robert Brooks and the ball was intercepted by safety Tyrone Braxton.

Denver then went 45 yards in eight plays to take the lead, 14-7.

"The problem early was Mike was 'scatting' the backs," tight end Mark Chmura said. "Say we'd have a '22 Scat Texas.' Scat means the back is out right away. If he takes the 'scat' off then the back checks for the blitz. We got burned on it I don't know how many times. Play-action will freeze that guy for a second but it's not going to prevent him from blitzing."

Early in the second quarter, Robinson blitzed seven against a six-man protection and safety Steve Atwater slammed into Favre in 1.59 seconds just as he was setting up to deliver on his fifth step. The ball was fumbled, the Broncos recovered and three plays later it was 17-7.

Agreeing that the weak-side blitzing in which the brazen Broncos left the middle of the field wide open was unheard of, Chmura still said adjustments should have been made to handle it after the first series.

"It should have been easy," he said. "Our max protections were 24 and 25, which kept two backs in. 74 and 75, we could do that out of two tight ends. And he just didn't do that. He tried to roll the dice because we had such an explosive offense."

In January 2002, the late Will McDonough of the Boston Globe wrote a column in which he remembered being one of several writers asking Holmgren about the Denver blitz at the NFL owners meetings a few months after the game.

"We practiced everything they threw at us," Holmgren was quoted as having said. "And we went over them many times with Brett. We told him, no matter what, when you see them coming, get the ball out of there. Don't hold on to it to make the big play. . . . There were many times he didn't do that in the game, and it cost us. It led to two turnovers. He saw it coming and didn't pay attention to it."

Retorted Chmura: "That's a flat-out lie. How can you get rid of the ball when the receiver is running a 15- or 20-yard in or dig? You can't scream to him and tell him, 'Blitz!' We weren't a sight blitz team. The receivers weren't responsible for seeing if there's blitz and breaking their route off accordingly. That's a bunch of crap."
For his part, Lovat said the remarks by Holmgren "pretty well sum up the whole scenario. If the protection didn't fit, rather than audible, which you don't want to do a lot of, Brett was told to get the ball out. He had outlets."

Later, Holmgren would shorten the drops for Favre and Matt Hasselbeck, most notably against Pittsburgh in Super Bowl XL. In Super Bowl XXXII, Favre threw 15 times off three steps, 16 times off five steps and nine times off seven steps.

Early that next off-season, Lovat recalled Holmgren and the offensive staff watching "that damn Super Bowl film" about 10 times. The Packers devised a 50 protection in which both backs could get to the side of the blitz without weakening the play.

"In other words, you're getting your blockers to the blitz and still not having to go maximum protection," Lovat said. "We took it to Seattle with us and it worked well. You don't see Robinson in the league anymore." He is head coach at Syracuse.

Should Holmgren and his coaches have been able to implement it that day at Qualcomm Stadium?

"No," Lovat replied. "This was an off-season discussion. Plus, the fact if they (the Broncos) hit you once they've got to be right the next time around. If you start on the sidelines pulling your horns in then you get so conservative you're playing into their hands."

Holmgren also has been criticized for giving Dorsey Levens just one carry after the 8-minute mark of the third quarter against an undersized front. On Wednesday, at Super Bowl XLII, Levens still seemed annoyed that he didn't get more than 19 carries (for 90 yards) in a bid to rescue a defense that Butler said had been reduced at the end to "huffin' and puffin' with their tongues hanging out."

"You take some of the pressure off Brett and give our defense a chance to rest and maybe we could shut down Terrell Davis from running all over us," Levens said. "I don't think we helped the defense out with the play-calling in the second half."
Robinson said he "didn't really care, to be honest with you," if Levens would have had a lot more carries.

"If they had decided they were going to try to bloody our nose, we were prepared for that," he added.

Mainly when the Broncos didn't blitz, Favre had occasion to pass for 256 yards and three touchdowns. His passer rating was 91.0.

"Brett always said if he had time he'd take that secondary apart," Butler said. "They couldn't cover Antonio or 'Chewy' (Chmura), really, or Dorsey out of the backfield."

The Broncos' offensive game plan was only slightly less imaginative than on defense. From the onset of preparation, coach Mike Shanahan determined that he wanted to feature Davis, and to do so he needed to coax Butler out of the box.

"LeRoy was killing people in the run game," Mike Heimerdinger, the Broncos' wide receivers coach at the time, said in '05. "Nobody ever really accounted for him. Mike's idea was to get him isolated and get him out of there. Once we had him on Shannon (Sharpe), we could go the other way and do some things."

If not for Butler's sure, saving tackles, Davis might have had 200 yards. But most of them were downfield, a situation that Butler implored Shurmur to correct schematically.

"I told Fritz what to do," Butler said. "I said, 'All we've got to do is go back to our normal eight-man front. Now I don't have to follow Shannon. Let the corners stay out there. I can cover the slot guy but I have no man responsibilities and I'm still in the box.'

"We ran it twice and I was able to get him (Davis) for a 2-yard gain and once I got a hit on the quarterback. He never ran it again.

"At halftime, we made no adjustments. We just sat there and drank Kool-Aid, and they bitched at us for a while."

Finally, it was time for the last act. The next morning, as he prepared to board a team bus for the airport, Holmgren admitted that he had lost track of the down with 1:47 left, when it actually was second and goal from the 1 instead of first and goal. Holmgren ordered his defense to let Davis score what turned out to be the winning points on the next play, a move designed to preserve his two timeouts and have time to tie the score.

Although the argument has been made that fumbles and penalties and slips and assorted other odd things still might have transpired to keep Denver out of the end zone, players such as Butler and Chmura agreed with Holmgren's decision.

So the Packers had their final shot. A screen to Levens gained 22. Another screen to the big back picked up 13. On second and 6 from the Denver 31, Freeman was hit in stride with a bullet pass at the 15 but suffered the costliest drop of his career. Having sent only four rushers on the first five plays, Robinson came with six on third down and caused Favre to throw hurriedly and incomplete to Robert Brooks at the 9.

Hochuli charged each team with a timeout after the play because each side had an injured player. Thus, Holmgren had an eternity (2:10) to make his call on fourth and 6 with 32 seconds left.

"The last call of the game was maybe the dumbest ever," Chmura said. "You should have seen the look in the huddle when Two Jet Winston comes in. We had never run this play all year long. We maybe practiced it three times in training camp and this is the best you can give us? A player knows when his number is called. Two Jet Winston is no one's number called."

Two Jet means a six-man protection with two wide receivers left and two receivers right, one of which was Chmura in the slot. Having lost two defensive backs on the previous play, Robinson went for broke with a seven-man rush.
"We had time to think because of the injuries," Robinson said. "It was, like, 'You've got to take a chance right now...... to see if we can end it.'"

To Favre's left, the unblocked man, Braxton, slipped through untouched. According to Chmura, all four receivers had been coached to run their routes at 12 yards.

"If he goes Two Jet Double Slant, the receivers are three steps and cutting in," Chmura said. "He's still got plenty of time. The only thing Brett could have done was check but that's really not his fault."

Chmura saw seven blitzers charging and decided Favre's only chance would be if he broke off the route at the first-down marker. But linebacker John Mobley, in man-to-man coverage, cut in front of Chmura and broke up the floater to end the game.

"I decided I better just give Brett an option, but we were coached we had to get to 12 so I didn't know what the hell the option was," Chmura said. "He had good coverage on me. It was just a bad call. Even Brett was confused."

John Elway finally had won a Super Bowl. His team, an 11½-point underdog, had broken the NFC's 13-game winning streak. It remains the greatest moment in Denver sports history even though the Broncos proved they were absolutely no fluke by pummeling Atlanta in the next Super Bowl.

Some will say the Packers were the victims of their own press clippings. The blame game will be played for as long as Packers fans toss back beers at neighborhood taverns.

In the locker room that night, Wolf would say unforgettably, "We're a one-year wonder, just a fart in the wind." And after being stunned 12 days ago in the NFC Championship Game, the Packers still haven't returned to the Big One.

"You try to analyze it," Wolf said. "There's probably never been a greater team in pro football than the 1985 Chicago Bears and they only won it one year. Then I decided, 'Maybe it's a Midwest thing. Maybe we idolize our players too much, give them too much adoration.'

"Suddenly there was a different kind of focus out there. And just what (Bill) Romanowski said. We were fat cats. Maybe they did want it more than we did.

"Winners can say whatever they want to say. Losers can only lament what might have been."

Dirk
10-29-2009, 06:17 PM
:Cry:
:deadhorse:

Ha...that is something else.

HORSEPOWER 56
10-29-2009, 06:47 PM
Pretty lame of them to try to lump their loss completely on the blitzing of the Broncos defense and their failure to adapt to it.

Here's a thought, maybe if their #1 ranked defense (they were that season) could've stopped Terrell Davis (150+ yds and 3 TDs) in three qtrs and not been left sucking wind by our dominant O-line then they wouldn't have given up 31 points? Just a thought. There was a LOT more to that game than just our defense blitzing.

So sad that they are still dwelling on it ten years later. It's not like they didn't win a SB the year before and they're on some long drought. This makes me think even less of the Packers than I already do - which is pretty much zero.

Day1BroncoFan
10-29-2009, 07:08 PM
He ordered his defense to let TD score? Is that true?
:doh:

TXBRONC
10-29-2009, 07:12 PM
Wolf, Chmura, and Butler whiners and poor sports.

scott.475
10-29-2009, 07:16 PM
He ordered his defense to let TD score? Is that true?
:doh:

Yep. Remember that play where he scored "standing up" and completely untouched up the middle? Ordered to let him score so they could get the ball back with more time on the clock. I understand it, but it doesn't sit well with me. You are brought up from kid as needing to go 100% every play, then told to take a play off during the biggest game in the sport.

Day1BroncoFan
10-29-2009, 07:21 PM
Yep. Remember that play where he scored "standing up" and completely untouched up the middle?

If they let him score on purpose then that was the all time strategic blunder.

I have heard that before but found it hard to believe they would let us score so they could beat us. :tinfoil3:

It almost worked though. :dur:

TXBRONC
10-29-2009, 07:23 PM
Pretty lame of them to try to lump their loss completely on the blitzing of the Broncos defense and their failure to adapt to it.

Here's a thought, maybe if their #1 ranked defense (they were that season) could've stopped Terrell Davis (150+ yds and 3 TDs) in three qtrs and not been left sucking wind by our dominant O-line then they wouldn't have given up 31 points? Just a thought. There was a LOT more to that game than just our defense blitzing.

So sad that they are still dwelling on it ten years later. It's not like they didn't win a SB the year before and they're on some long drought. This makes me think even less of the Packers than I already do - which is pretty much zero.

What's pathetic is that Wolf, Butler, and Chmura are saying all we had to do is make adjustments a,b, and c and we win. Those idiots don't know if their adjustments would have worked or not.

Day1BroncoFan
10-29-2009, 07:26 PM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't.

End of story. What was was. Now let us speculate about why we should have beaten NYG in the super bowl with the right adjustments, or not.

scott.475
10-29-2009, 07:27 PM
If they let him score on purpose then that was the all time strategic blunder.

I have heard that before but found it hard to believe they would let us score so they could beat us. :tinfoil3:

It almost worked though. :dur:

Holmgren himself has admitted it.

Day1BroncoFan
10-29-2009, 07:29 PM
Holmgren himself has admitted it.

Maybe he's lying.

sneakers
10-29-2009, 07:30 PM
Packers fans are always giving me crap about that here in Wisconsin.

TXBRONC
10-29-2009, 07:41 PM
Packers fans are always giving me crap about that here in Wisconsin.

Linving in Wisconsin it's easy for you to provide cheese to go with their whine.

Greatspirits
10-29-2009, 07:48 PM
That has to be the longest freakin article I've ever read!

scott.475
10-29-2009, 07:55 PM
That has to be the longest freakin article I've ever read!


Did you read the "I made a bad decision, so the Redskins are suing me" thread in the "Other" forum? (Okay, the title of the thread is "Dan Snyder...awful human being")

broncobryce
10-29-2009, 07:55 PM
Packers fans are always giving me crap about that here in Wisconsin.

Crap about what? Whoopin their ass in the superbowl? :laugh:

nevcraw
10-29-2009, 08:06 PM
Blah Blah Blah... Sour Grapes.. That games was won by destiny..

girler
10-29-2009, 09:43 PM
Pretty lame of them to try to lump their loss completely on the blitzing of the Broncos defense and their failure to adapt to it.

Here's a thought, maybe if their #1 ranked defense (they were that season) could've stopped Terrell Davis (150+ yds and 3 TDs) in three qtrs and not been left sucking wind by our dominant O-line then they wouldn't have given up 31 points? Just a thought. There was a LOT more to that game than just our defense blitzing.

So sad that they are still dwelling on it ten years later. It's not like they didn't win a SB the year before and they're on some long drought. This makes me think even less of the Packers than I already do - which is pretty much zero.

Wasn't Terrell playing blind with a migraine those 3 quarters too?

Reidman
10-29-2009, 09:55 PM
Are you kidding me??

We got crushed in 3 SB's in the same decade and they're sour over this one...?

TXBRONC
10-29-2009, 09:55 PM
Wasn't Terrell playing blind with a migraine those 3 quarters too?

Terrell would take some kind of medication for his migraines and it would take awhile to kick but when it did he play. After getting kicked in the head in the later portion of the first quarter which brought on the migraine Greek administered the medication and by the start of the second half Terrell was good to go.

scott.475
10-29-2009, 10:40 PM
Wasn't Terrell playing blind with a migraine those 3 quarters too?

About a quarter and a half. So you could factually say our RB outran their RB BLIND! Bahahahahaha.

TXBRONC
10-29-2009, 10:41 PM
About a quarter and a half. So you could factually say our RB outran their RB BLIND! Bahahahahaha.

Corny but I like it. :lol:

Superchop 7
10-29-2009, 11:13 PM
Most lingering fart of all time.

MadMax
10-29-2009, 11:18 PM
How old is this article, didn't Syracuse fire Gerg like 2 years ago? Anyways if they only lost because of a couple mistakes why didn't they make it back the next year? I also like how everyone in this article points the finger at somebody else, bunch a whiners.

Iron Horse72
10-29-2009, 11:43 PM
:laugh: a packer fan at work was talking smack about this same thing a while back

Saying we were lucky and all that, all I could say was "scoreboard"

Brand
10-29-2009, 11:53 PM
Well, many Denver fans are still butthurt over Michael Dean Perry........

Iron Horse72
10-29-2009, 11:55 PM
Well, many Denver fans are still butthurt over Michael Dean Perry........

Get your fat ass off the field!

sneakers
10-30-2009, 12:06 AM
It should be noted that this article was written on the 10 anniversary of Superbowl XXXII, not just other random date.

Shazam!
10-30-2009, 01:33 AM
Wolf would say unforgettably, "We're a one-year wonder, just a fart in the wind."

I agree with that.

They want to throw crazy, half-assed theories around, huh? Well, here's one from a Broncos' perspective-

They were fortunate they even won the Super Bowl in '96, because if the Broncos weren't sleeping for Jax in the playoffs that year, they would've creamed New England in the AFCCG, went to the Super Bowl, and kicked the shit out of the Packers that year too. Then who knows if they would've been in the Super Bowl the next year and survived such a vicious shellacking and Denver would've been the only team to ever three-peat.

Sure, the 1996 Broncos didnt win a Championship, but that was one of the greatest Broncos teams I ever had the priviledge of watching up until then. Even though it ended in horrible gut wrenching disappointment, looking back on them after two Championships the next two seasons puts a brighter light on them.

I just cannot stand the Packers or Brett Farve either. ****ing jerk.

frenchfan
10-30-2009, 02:28 AM
He ordered his defense to let TD score? Is that true?
:doh:Absolutely true... He did ordered that...
Though I think it made sense at that time... They couldn't stop TD the whole game (except when he was out because of his migraine)... So, he gambled by letting us score to save time to tie the game thanks to Favre...


Wasn't Terrell playing blind with a migraine those 3 quarters too?In fact he missed more than a quarter... I can't imagine how it would have been with a fully healthy TD during the whole game... Elway would not even have to attempt any pass... ;) :laugh:
The 1st SB won by a running only team...


This article is really a BS...
May be they didn't adjust, but they don't even know if the changes would have been better or worse...
Broncos O was incredible and the D had some fire on that day...

BTW, the D game plan of the Packs was to shut down Elway and not TD... They thought they were playing the "old" Broncos (you know, the team that relied only on a QB and lost 3 SBs)... No, the O was really balanced... Try to stop Elway, TD will crush you... Try to stop TD and Elway will open the air game... And trying doesn't always mean you're able to do it ;)
I remember Packs' D coordinator saying he couldn't believe Broncos could win the game with Elway throwing for only 121 yards... means that they wanted to stop Elway's passing game... Bad plan... Broncos came here to run over your face ;)

Then... Favre had bad numbers in the game?????? :confused: :shocked:
If Packs would have won the game, he would have been the MVP !
But may be Wolf is talking of another game after all... The one he has seen in his dreams...

And last... Broncos were better on that day, period... may be if we replay it 100 times we'll lose it 99 times (or not), but on that one, we were better... We played better... We won the matchups... That's SB... It's a one day game... Take your chance now or never...

Deal with it Wolf... be a MAN...

Dirk
10-30-2009, 05:26 AM
They might as well have said, "If TD and Elway hadn't played, we would have won that game".

Every game can be picked apart after the fact. You win or you lose....move on.

Northman
10-30-2009, 06:02 AM
Unfortuantely for the Pack had Denver not overlooked the Jaguars the year before they would of lost 2 in a row and Denver would have won 3. Denver was just that much better than them. Even had the Pack made it the next year they would have still been defeated by us.

Bronco Bible
10-30-2009, 06:02 AM
If they let him score on purpose then that was the all time strategic blunder.

I have heard that before but found it hard to believe they would let us score so they could beat us. :tinfoil3:

It almost worked though. :dur:

I have also had a difficult time believeing that one Day1:confused:

EastCoastBronco
10-30-2009, 07:38 AM
They had already made up their minds, based on how TD had been dominating, that we were going to get 7. What they didn't want was for the 7 to come on the third or fourth try...leaving no time on the clock. The plan was to let us score quick, then drive down and tie the game up and send it into OT. When I look back on it now, it makes total sense. We were running the ball down their throats and although our D was harassing Favre, they moved the ball pretty well on us.
Giving up the touchdown was a "desperate times call for desperate measures" call. Thank god on that last GB drive, Shanny told Robinson to keep the pressure on instead of going into a damn prevent. It could have been a different outcome.

scott.475
10-30-2009, 08:48 AM
Thank god on that last GB drive, Shanny told Robinson to keep the pressure on instead of going into a damn prevent. It could have been a different outcome.

Geez, no doubt. Remember those sideline highlights? Robinson: "What do you want me to do?" (to Shanahan). Shanny: "Keep doing what you've been doing"

Dreadnought
10-30-2009, 08:56 AM
Honestly? The 1997 Green Bay Packers were a better team based solely on the rosters. They were also thoroughly outcoached and outsmarted by Shanahan and Robinson, and outplayed by our guys on the field. And we won it even with Elway having what was honestly a pretty bad game.

The Packers expected to repeat merely by showing up and it didn't work out like that. I sympathize, because I have never gotten over the Jacksonville game myself.

Dirk
10-30-2009, 09:06 AM
Yeah that Jacksonville game was a major crash on my parade that year.

Something that always sticks in my mind was reading that Janet Elway prayed that if they weren't going to win the SB that year that they didn't make it. Because John and his family just couldn't take another loss in the SB.

That kind of summed it up for a lot of fans, but I would have still liked to have made it.

Dreadnought
10-30-2009, 09:14 AM
Yeah that Jacksonville game was a major crash on my parade that year.

Something that always sticks in my mind was reading that Janet Elway prayed that if they weren't going to win the SB that year that they didn't make it. Because John and his family just couldn't take another loss in the SB.

That kind of summed it up for a lot of fans, but I would have still liked to have made it.

I watched that damned game with a bunch of my family, every single one of them rooting for JAX and mad at me because I wouldn't. I have a cousin who had just married a JAX player - who I gather is a good guy, though I myself have never met him. So I had to endure them all cheering, including my own blessed Mother :tsk:

As if that is a good enough reason to root against the Broncos :tsk:

Dirk
10-30-2009, 09:15 AM
Wow...hostile environment! ;)

Shazam!
10-30-2009, 09:21 AM
I watched that damned game with a bunch of my family, every single one of them rooting for JAX and mad at me because I wouldn't. I have a cousin who had just married a JAX player - who I gather is a good guy, though I myself have never met him. So I had to endure them all cheering, including my own blessed Mother :tsk:

As if that is a good enough reason to root against the Broncos :tsk:

I would've went to a bar or listened in the car. Anything but that! Must've been torture.

NightTrainLayne
10-30-2009, 09:32 AM
If not for Butler's sure, saving tackles, Davis might have had 200 yards. But most of them were downfield, a situation that Butler implored Shurmur to correct schematically.

"I told Fritz what to do," Butler said. "I said, 'All we've got to do is go back to our normal eight-man front. Now I don't have to follow Shannon. Let the corners stay out there. I can cover the slot guy but I have no man responsibilities and I'm still in the box.'

"We ran it twice and I was able to get him (Davis) for a 2-yard gain and once I got a hit on the quarterback. He never ran it again.

"At halftime, we made no adjustments. We just sat there and drank Kool-Aid, and they bitched at us for a while."

The quote above from the article spurred a thought.

Of course, it's all just sour grapes. The article starts out as though just a small adjustment in their protection scheme would have solved Denver's rush and bingo, they win the game. But then it goes on to lament a couple of defensive adjustments that were lacking as well, and then play-calling, and yadda, yadda, yadda, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The fact of the matter is that Denver beat Green Bay by out-physicaling them, and dominating their defensive line.

But, back to the thought that this quote above spurred.

Did Davis' migraine that took him out of the second quarter (a quarter where we did not move the ball AT ALL), lull the Packers into thinking that they didn't need to adjust on defense? Going into half-time the whole world (me included) thought that Denver was in a world of hurt without Davis, and that the Broncos were going to have to scrap their game-plan in order to compete through the air. We simply couldn't run it without Davis in there in the second quarter.

I'm sure the Packers had the same thought. "Why dream up adjustments at halftime? Without Davis, we've got all the bases covered."

But Davis came back, and the rest is history.

Lastly, I don't know how you can consider a team that beat you in the Super-Bowl, and then went on an thirteen-game winning streak to start the next season was "lucky". That team won NINETEEN GAMES IN A ROW, INCLUDING PLAYOFFS!

Once again, the coastal media bias has rooked the Broncos. Instead of being remembered as one of the all-time great teams (who dismantled a team ready to be crowned as an all-time great in the Super-Bowl), the Broncos of '97 & '98 are merely a foot-note, and a decade later are subjected to dummies who would argue that it was mere "luck".

Don't fool yourselves Green Bay. That team thouroughly dominated the league for that stretch. You don't win back-to-back Super-Bowls, while racking up 19 wins in a row by luck.

Dreadnought
10-30-2009, 09:40 AM
The 98 version of the Broncos is one of the Alltime greats; 97 a bit less so IMO. 98 was when it all came together.

And yes, coastal bias enters in, but admittedly those were not great defensive teams by any stretch. In 97 we couldn't stop the run all that well during the regular season, giving up 4.7 YPC. Thats pretty bad, and I think folks could be forgiven for thinking the Pack was simply going to roll us.

broncofaninfla
10-30-2009, 09:42 AM
I'm surprised by the lack of class by some of the Packers mentioned in this article. Denver won this game fair and square, play it a 100 times and the end result would be the same. We were the better team that year.

Dreadnought
10-30-2009, 09:50 AM
I'm surprised by the lack of class by some of the Packers mentioned in this article. Denver won this game fair and square, play it a 100 times and the end result would be the same. We were the better team that year.

Lack of class? Absolutely. Chmurra especially came across as a total tool. Better team that year? I disagree 100% - but we were certainly the better team that day and thats what counted. And we certainly beat 'em fair and square. Watch video of big fat Gilbert Brown trying to suck oxygen if you don't believe it, because that game just about dug "the Gravedigger" a grave of his own.

NightTrainLayne
10-30-2009, 09:57 AM
The 98 version of the Broncos is one of the Alltime greats; 97 a bit less so IMO. 98 was when it all came together.

And yes, coastal bias enters in, but admittedly those were not great defensive teams by any stretch. In 97 we couldn't stop the run all that well during the regular season, giving up 4.7 YPC. Thats pretty bad, and I think folks could be forgiven for thinking the Pack was simply going to roll us.

I agree, but I would point out that the seeds of that '98 team were planted in the fall of '97. After the Broncos stumbled down the stretch, and only made it into the playoffs as a wild-card team, they came together, and won those terrifically difficult games AT Kansas City, and AT Pittsburgh to get to the Super Bowl. There weren't any huge roster moves in that off-season. The all-time great '98 team cut it's teeth in the waning weeks of the '97 season/playoffs. Somehow they came together, and built that confidence that took them on a nineteen game winning streak.

Shazam!
10-30-2009, 10:08 AM
In 97 we couldn't stop the run all that well during the regular season, giving up 4.7 YPC.

That stat is pure boloney. They gave up 2 big runs of like 70 or 80 yards to Napolean Kaufman @ Oakland in their first loss in 97 that inflated their YPC in one game. It does not reflect the entire season and stats should not be judged as the be all end all. Their run defense was much better than staistics deem. Take away that game and use the other 15 games, their average is much better. They were still ranked top 10 in points allowed. I've always had a beef with that stat.

NightTrainLayne
10-30-2009, 10:30 AM
That stat is pure boloney. They gave up 2 big runs of like 70 or 80 yards to Napolean Kaufman @ Oakland in their first loss in 97 that inflated their YPC in one game. It does not reflect the entire season and stats should not be judged as the be all end all. Their run defense was much better than staistics deem. Take away that game and use the other 15 games, their average is much better. They were still ranked top 10 in points allowed. I've always had a beef with that stat.

No, Shazam, we were not great at run defense. The biggest problem being that we would once or twice a game miss a gap assignment, and the opposition would bust a big one.

It seemed at times though that we did play well against the run. To some degree we'd either contain it, or let it get busted for a big play. The thing that really helped was playing with the lead in a lot of games that season, which kept other teams from running as much as they'd have liked to.

Cugel
10-30-2009, 10:36 AM
If they let him score on purpose then that was the all time strategic blunder.

I have heard that before but found it hard to believe they would let us score so they could beat us. :tinfoil3:

It almost worked though. :dur:

Everybody forgets the play BEFORE they let Davis score. On that play they tried their best to stop Davis . . . and he just ran right through them and got a first down to about the 6 yard line.

It was blindly clear that they weren't going to be able to keep Davis and the Broncos out of the end-zone on that series. Their D-line was totally winded and the Broncos were dominating the line of scrimmage.

If they had played full out, all that would have happened would have been that the Broncos would have run more time off the clock before scoring, leaving the Packers with less than 1 minute to drive the length of the field.

At worst the Broncos might have run almost all the time down and scored with less than 30 seconds left, leaving the Packers with NO chance at a last scoring drive. (Denver had time-outs and could manage the clock to suit themselves).

That was the right decision. Their defense was weak, their offense with Brett Favre much stronger than the Broncos defense. Their only hope at that point was to get the ball back quickly with a chance to win.

But, whining about what plays they didn't call is truly pathetic!

"Oooh! We should have gone to max protect! Holmgren was an idiot!" What a pile of crap! Who can say exactly what would have happened given this or that situation. And I notice that Mike Holmgren has had a pretty good career.

For some guy who's not even coaching anymore to rip him like that is just total B.S. He made a decision. That's what coaches do. There's no way you can say that doing something else would necessarily have worked better.

And in any case, they did what they did!

Can you imagine a bunch of Broncos fans whining about the '86 or '87 SBs and going over what they should have done differently? :laugh:

T.K.O.
10-30-2009, 10:42 AM
maybe thats why favre came back? he knew the broncos were headed for the superbowl....and wants his REVENGE.

i remember in 98' how everybody just knew the vikings would be in the sb and how bummed i was when the falcons squeeked in..... i mean it was great that we would beat the tar out of them and all.....but it wasnt the best afc vs the best nfc teams thats for sure.
it would be sooooooooo cool if favre got the vikes to the big dance.....only to lose again to the broncos !:D

Shazam!
10-30-2009, 10:56 AM
No, Shazam, we were not great at run defense. The biggest problem being that we would once or twice a game miss a gap assignment, and the opposition would bust a big one.

It seemed at times though that we did play well against the run. To some degree we'd either contain it, or let it get busted for a big play. The thing that really helped was playing with the lead in a lot of games that season, which kept other teams from running as much as they'd have liked to.

I never said they were great, just the monicker of 'the worst run defense in the NFL' simply did not apply.

TXBRONC
10-30-2009, 03:24 PM
Lack of class? Absolutely. Chmurra especially came across as a total tool. Better team that year? I disagree 100% - but we were certainly the better team that day and thats what counted. And we certainly beat 'em fair and square. Watch video of big fat Gilbert Brown trying to suck oxygen if you don't believe it, because that game just about dug "the Gravedigger" a grave of his own.

Pretty big assumption of Wolf to say "Well if Holmengren had made adjustments x,y, and z we would have won the game." And the same with Butler, whining that he's was begging Schurmer to let him move back to where he would normally line up and Denver would have moved Sharpe back to the line scrimmage." How the hell would he know?

Dreadnought
10-30-2009, 03:53 PM
Pretty big assumption of Wolf to say "Well if Holmengren had made adjustments x,y, and z we would have won the game." And the same with Butler, whining that he's was begging Schurmer to let him move back to where he would normally line up and Denver would have moved Sharpe back to the line scrimmage." How the hell would he know?

Yes - not to mention that in the same article they reference that the weakside DB blitz Robinson was sending was something that had never been seen by a West Coast offense - then they assert a simple quicky halftime adjustment could be devised and implemented :confused:

In the 15 minutes available? I tend to think not. Sounds like them grapes are awful sour, frankly...

Poet
10-30-2009, 04:02 PM
What's pathetic is that Wolf, Butler, and Chmura are saying all we had to do is make adjustments a,b, and c and we win. Those idiots don't know if their adjustments would have worked or not.

Executing those "adjustments" also have to be done. Anyone with basic intelligence can tell you how to beat a 4-3 and 3-4 scheme, knowing it is easy, DOING it is the hard part.

NightTrainLayne
10-30-2009, 04:21 PM
Yes - not to mention that in the same article they reference that the weakside DB blitz Robinson was sending was something that had never been seen by a West Coast offense - then they assert a simple quicky halftime adjustment could be devised and implemented :confused:

In the 15 minutes available? I tend to think not. Sounds like them grapes are awful sour, frankly...

If I remember right, there was a comment in the article that they did figure out a solution, but after watching the film several times. Now that solution is used all the time, and Greg Robinson can't even find a job in the NFL, but it was certainly not a half-time adjustment.

Northman
10-30-2009, 05:02 PM
Lack of class? Absolutely. Chmurra especially came across as a total tool. Better team that year? I disagree 100% - but we were certainly the better team that day and thats what counted. And we certainly beat 'em fair and square. Watch video of big fat Gilbert Brown trying to suck oxygen if you don't believe it, because that game just about dug "the Gravedigger" a grave of his own.

I still remember Hebron (I believe it was him) saying "He too big! He too big!) referencing how Gilbert was going to stop TD and the Oline. :lol:

Northman
10-30-2009, 05:04 PM
I agree, but I would point out that the seeds of that '98 team were planted in the fall of '97. After the Broncos stumbled down the stretch, and only made it into the playoffs as a wild-card team, they came together, and won those terrifically difficult games AT Kansas City, and AT Pittsburgh to get to the Super Bowl. There weren't any huge roster moves in that off-season. The all-time great '98 team cut it's teeth in the waning weeks of the '97 season/playoffs. Somehow they came together, and built that confidence that took them on a nineteen game winning streak.

You honestly couldnt of written a better script. The Revenge Tour was in full swing and it was just flat out destiny at that point.

TXBRONC
10-30-2009, 05:45 PM
Executing those "adjustments" also have to be done. Anyone with basic intelligence can tell you how to beat a 4-3 and 3-4 scheme, knowing it is easy, DOING it is the hard part.

That's what I'm saying dude. :D

scott.475
10-30-2009, 06:23 PM
Okay, so for two seasons teams had tape to watch on us, see what we would do, and on top of that NO WAY was some AFC wildcard team going to beat the already crowned back-to-back SB champ Packers...it had to be luck, or a curse, or a stupid head coach not listening to the players on his team (even though he already had one SB title)...anything, ANYTHING other than Broncos being a better team and outplaying the pre-crowned Packers.

Good heavens...

TXBRONC
10-30-2009, 08:19 PM
Everybody forgets the play BEFORE they let Davis score. On that play they tried their best to stop Davis . . . and he just ran right through them and got a first down to about the 6 yard line.

It was blindly clear that they weren't going to be able to keep Davis and the Broncos out of the end-zone on that series. Their D-line was totally winded and the Broncos were dominating the line of scrimmage.

If they had played full out, all that would have happened would have been that the Broncos would have run more time off the clock before scoring, leaving the Packers with less than 1 minute to drive the length of the field.

At worst the Broncos might have run almost all the time down and scored with less than 30 seconds left, leaving the Packers with NO chance at a last scoring drive. (Denver had time-outs and could manage the clock to suit themselves).

That was the right decision. Their defense was weak, their offense with Brett Favre much stronger than the Broncos defense. Their only hope at that point was to get the ball back quickly with a chance to win.

But, whining about what plays they didn't call is truly pathetic!

"Oooh! We should have gone to max protect! Holmgren was an idiot!" What a pile of crap! Who can say exactly what would have happened given this or that situation. And I notice that Mike Holmgren has had a pretty good career.

For some guy who's not even coaching anymore to rip him like that is just total B.S. He made a decision. That's what coaches do. There's no way you can say that doing something else would necessarily have worked better.

And in any case, they did what they did!

Can you imagine a bunch of Broncos fans whining about the '86 or '87 SBs and going over what they should have done differently? :laugh:

The whinning by those three does not reflect well on them.

Hey Wolf, Butler and Chumra way to throw Holmgren under the bus.

scott.475
10-31-2009, 12:09 AM
Maybe Chmura would feel a little better if he hit a high school party or two.

Northman
10-31-2009, 12:20 AM
Maybe Chmura would feel a little better if he hit a high school party or two.

Yea, im sure to Chmura that a hot tub is not complete without underage girls being in there.

BCJ
10-31-2009, 02:41 AM
If they let him score on purpose then that was the all time strategic blunder.

I have heard that before but found it hard to believe they would let us score so they could beat us. :tinfoil3:

It almost worked though. :dur:

strategic blunder? We were 1st down on the one. What makes you think that they could have stopped us not only 3 times, but then either block our field goal or stop us on 4th down if we went for it? If they did, there is no time left on the clock to try to score themselves. They did a strategic move to try to give Brett ample time to score and tie it up. They didnt adjust during the game is true but we adjusted not only before the game, but took advantage of their defensive line up. They were tired and you can go back and see when Sharpe has a holding call against him on a huge run by TD, the coaches decided to run the same play if they are in the same defensive formation. I think that next run gets us down to the 1 yard line.

Canmore
10-31-2009, 02:52 AM
Holmgren knew that there was no way that their defense was going to stop our running game the rest of the way. The only shot was to give Favre as much time as possible to score and tie the game back up and send it to overtime. From there, hope you win the coin toss and go down and score because if we got the ball we were going to ram it down there throats with TD. A calculated risk but the only one with a hope of winning the game.

Nomad
10-31-2009, 06:58 AM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, didn't.

End of story. What was was. Now let us speculate about why we should have beaten NYG in the super bowl with the right adjustments, or not.


Just like any other game, it's the end result and we came out with the W!!


To this day, I scratch my head at how the BRONCOS let the Redskins score 35 in a quarter during a SB. I smell a payoff;):D!!!

horsepig
10-31-2009, 09:46 AM
strategic blunder? We were 1st down on the one. What makes you think that they could have stopped us not only 3 times, but then either block our field goal or stop us on 4th down if we went for it? If they did, there is no time left on the clock to try to score themselves. They did a strategic move to try to give Brett ample time to score and tie it up. They didnt adjust during the game is true but we adjusted not only before the game, but took advantage of their defensive line up. They were tired and you can go back and see when Sharpe has a holding call against him on a huge run by TD, the coaches decided to run the same play if they are in the same defensive formation. I think that next run gets us down to the 1 yard line.

That is one of my fave all-time Bronco plays. Davis had a beautiful run to the one, barely missing the endzone and Sharpe gets a damn holding call, always a drive killer, especially in the red zone. They run the same play from 10 yards further out and TD gets right back to the one.

That play drove a real big nail into the heart of the Pack's already beat-down defense.

Lonestar
11-01-2009, 11:47 AM
Interesting article.

I have always wondered had we beat JAX that first year how we would have faired against GB in that game.

Would we have choked in it because we were not mentally tough like we got the next year because of the bitterness of getting our asses beat at HOME in the playoffs by an expansion team.

If we would have won then would John have retired after that season and wold we have lost more players to free agency.

Remember that the loser of the superbowls almost always stink it up the next year. Not sure why that is but seems to be pretty consistent.

Lots of things I have wondered about.

Sent via Blackberry by altell.

ursamajor
11-01-2009, 09:38 PM
And the Packers lost today to their QB God. It was a great day. Oh yeah the Bears won, but Favre beating the Packers again was VVEEEEERRRRYYYY NNNNIIIIICCCCCCEEEE!