Offense lets Broncos down

[Lonestar]

Armstrong:
By Jim Armstrong
The Denver Post

Posted: 12/14/2009 01:55:08 AM MST
Updated: 12/14/2009 01:55:49 AM MST


Josh McDaniels was right about one thing. The Colts, as the Broncos' coach was saying the other day, aren't superhuman.

But their quarterback was for the first 10 minutes Sunday. In the end, that's all it took, thanks to a Broncos offense that varied between one-dimensional — hello, Brandon Marshall — and non-dimensional.

When you're unbeaten through 13 games in the NFL, it isn't a matter of luck. That said, the Colts were fortunate to be playing against a Broncos offense that had every chance to, but couldn't get the job done. A big play here or there and the Broncos might have won.

No really, we're not exaggerating. The mighty Colts were ripe for an upset. Instead, they escaped with a 28-16 victory that was anything but typical of the way they usually go about their business.

How much did the Men of Manning struggle? Consider this: Late in the third quarter, Peyton Manning had completed 16 out of 34 passes, with three interceptions. Kyle Orton, meanwhile, was 20 out of 25 for 178 yards and a touchdown.

But the Broncos lost.

How? Simple. The Colts stormed their way to two touchdowns on their first two drives, with Manning nearly flawless along the way. Should we be surprised? Josh McDaniels was.

The Broncos won the coin toss and McDaniels, apparently thinking the Broncos' defense would stifle the Indy offense, elected to defer. Um, Josh, care for a do-over?

J-Mac was almost right. The Broncos' defense did stifle the Colts, picking off Manning three times. At one point, Manning, who opened the game with eight completions in 10 attempts, misfired on 13 out of 15 throws.

But the Broncos' offense couldn't make him pay.

Oh, Orton and Co. put up a bunch of numbers, as is customary for teams that fall behind early in today's NFL. Marshall set an NFL record with 21 catches for two touchdowns. But then, that was the problem: The Broncos were one-dimensional to a fault. It didn't help any that Correll Buckhalter was knocked out of the game early with a sprained ankle.

Their issues didn't end there. Twice, the Broncos had fourth-and-short situations, but were stuffed short of a first down. Another time, Orton threw an interception near the goal line. Then there's Matt Prater, who missed a field goal. Finally, there was the two-point conversion attempt in the fourth quarter that ended with Knowshon Moreno being stopped in the backfield.

So the Colts clinch home-field advantage in the playoffs and maintain their quest for perfection. No, it hasn't always been pretty, witness their five wins by a total of 12 points, but they're in position to run the table. The Broncos? They're 8-5 and figure to make the playoffs in McDaniels' first season, something Mike Shanahan couldn't do in his final three years in command.

Question is, can they make something happen once they get there? Answer: Not if their offense plays the way it did Sunday.

Jim Armstrong: 303-954-1269 or jmarmstrong@denverpost.com

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13989800

[shank]

topscribe, where you at? ;)


i do have to say that i'm sick and ******* tired of reporters acting like deferring the kickoff was a bad decision. we could have received and probably still would have gone 3 and out and then manning would have done the same exact thing... THEN we would have had to kick to them to begin the 3rd, making it potentially worse!

who receives first doesn't change the strategies or the plays of the teams. if we would have executed to end the first half and to begin the 2nd, deferring could have given us tons of momentum, but because it didn't work doesn't change a single damned thing.

[Ravage!!!]

topscribe, where you at? ;)


i do have to say that i'm sick and ******* tired of reporters acting like deferring the kickoff was a bad decision. we could have received and probably still would have gone 3 and out and then manning would have done the same exact thing... THEN we would have had to kick to them to begin the 3rd, making it potentially worse!

who receives first doesn't change the strategies or the plays of the teams. if we would have executed to end the first half and to begin the 2nd, deferring could have given us tons of momentum, but because it didn't work doesn't change a single damned thing.

Then you are saying McDaniels doesn't know what he's talking about. If it doesn't matter, then why choose the strategy to kick it? So it wasn't the reporters saying that it made a difference, it was our coach.

So what is it? Is there strategy in kicking, receiving, or deferring... or does McDaniels have no clue what he's talking about?

[shank]

no. i mean that us kicking to the colts first has nothing to do with why they scored on their first 2 drives, and why we did nothing with our first two drives.

reporters are acting like kicking the ball first is the reason why peyton manning scored and we didn't, which simply isn't true.


in all honesty, i don't understand when teams elect to receive the opening kick. who cares what happens in the very beginning of the game? at that point, you are at 0-0 and on even playing ground...

but at the beginning of the 2nd half, chances are that your team is either up or down. getting the ball first in the 2nd half either gives you the first opportunity to catch up to the other team, or it gives you an opportunity to pile on to your lead.

McD's reasoning is sound, and almost worked.


... it's late and i feel like i made sense, but you're going to have to let me know if i'm even close to making the point i'm trying to make.