PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: McDaniels points to offensive line in blame game



Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2009, 11:19 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14084390?source=rss

Having listened to plenty of coaches explain plenty of things over the years, Broncos coach Josh McDaniels may have offered his clearest statement yet on the Peyton Hillis issue.

Hillis' lack of playing time has been one of the biggest talking points of a Denver season gone awry, and through it all McDaniels has said things like "the run game is everybody" or "it's a lot of things" or "it's not the back."

Monday, in the wake of the Broncos' seventh loss in nine games and another outing when the Denver offense was shoved around, McDaniels had this to say about his team's running game:

"Let me just say this. (Sunday) we did not win the line of scrimmage, offensively, period. So when I say that, I'm not talking about the backs. We did not win the line of scrimmage offensively and (the Eagles) did a great job defensively being more physical than we were up front. You know, they knocked us back in the backfield quite a few times, held us on a third-and-1. ... Ultimately when we watch the running game, we're watching what's going on at the line of scrimmage.

"And when we're not winning the line of scrimmage, like I've said before, it doesn't matter what back you hand the ball to, you're not going to do a lot. I'm not taking blame off the backs, because they can certainly do a better job of reading certain plays and all the rest of that, but it starts with what we do up front. We know that as an organization, as an offense, and I think everybody knows that around the National Football League."

That's quite an admission this late in the season, but it does likely show why McDaniels has stood firmly against making a change at running back as he deals with an entire team — because it appears he believes he can't just go replace the running back for lack of production if he can't replace all or some of the offensive linemen as well.

And with the limited size of NFL rosters, no team in the league can make wholesale changes in the offensive front in midstream. That takes time, a couple of drafts and some money for free agency.

McDaniels did bench left guard Ben Hamilton in favor of Russ Hochstein earlier this season, but Hamilton is likely back in the lineup now because of Hochstein's season-ending knee injury.

But what McDaniels said publicly Monday, he has almost certainly said behind closed doors — likely even more sternly. So to change the running back, at least in his mind, would basically be letting the other guys off the hook. And he now has formally put the problems in the Denver running game squarely in the laps of his offensive linemen.

McDaniels said the Broncos have won the line of scrimmage on many occasions this season and he believes they can do it again. But for Broncos fans wondering why tired-looking rookie Knowshon Moreno continues to carry the ball a lot — Moreno averaged just 2.0 yards per carry Sunday against the Eagles — it appears McDaniels wants to see more out of the guys up front before he starts tinkering with the rotation in the backfield.

broken12
12-29-2009, 11:27 AM
oh come on, you cannot blame one phase of the team, this team only allowed 12 sacks last year, and with 8 different rb last year still were fair in the running game!

broken12
12-29-2009, 11:29 AM
is this saying that cutler made the offensive line look good last year?

BroncoWave
12-29-2009, 11:35 AM
Mods, at what point does this guy get banned for spamming every thread with Cutler talk?

GEM
12-29-2009, 11:37 AM
is this saying that cutler made the offensive line look good last year?

Good Lord, freaking stop already. Quit turning every single effing thread into a Cutler thing. Most here have moved on.

The offensive line woes this season have to do with different personnel and different schemes. We don't have the size to be running power schemes and pulling guards.

Would a mobile QB help when you have no line, sure. BUT CUTLER IS GONE. FFS.

GEM
12-29-2009, 11:40 AM
oh come on, you cannot blame one phase of the team, this team only allowed 12 sacks last year, and with 8 different rb last year still were fair in the running game!

With a completely different scheme. Let's not pretend that from one year to the next with the exact same scheme...that's not the way it is and you and I both know it. Use some logic in your posts, it's getting tiresome.

broken12
12-29-2009, 11:43 AM
With a completely different scheme. Let's not pretend that from one year to the next with the exact same scheme...that's not the way it is and you and I both know it. Use some logic in your posts, it's getting tiresome.

fine then, so what you are saying is the coach is trying to make lemonade with apples? thats the coaches fault for not using the team toward their strength,

GEM
12-29-2009, 11:47 AM
fine then, so what you are saying is the coach is trying to make lemonade with apples? thats the coaches fault for not using the team toward their strength,

That is quite true and I fully agree.

Dreadnought
12-29-2009, 11:50 AM
fine then, so what you are saying is the coach is trying to make lemonade with apples? thats the coaches fault for not using the team toward their strength,

What she was saying is if thats your point please make it without turning this into another damned referendum on the Bears QB.

Hell, I don't like much about McDaniels and the job he has done and even I am tired of it. There is only so many ways to jump up and down and shout it before you have made your point and have gone to the beating dead hosses phase.

CoachChaz
12-29-2009, 11:52 AM
fine then, so what you are saying is the coach is trying to make lemonade with apples? thats the coaches fault for not using the team toward their strength,

So let me see if I follow along. We hire a guy that does not use ZBS alot and isnt versed in the WCO. He comes in and makes some changes, yet assumes the o-line is still capable of blocking a guy right in front of him (what an idiot).

but to play it safe...until he has all the people he needs to run his offense and team...he should just keep doing what HASNT worked for the past few years, even though it's nothing he's ever run before.

Yeah...that makes sense.

weazel
12-29-2009, 11:56 AM
fine then, so what you are saying is the coach is trying to make lemonade with apples? thats the coaches fault for not using the team toward their strength,

this has been beaten to death as well. He will have to try to find players that fit his scheme, lets see what the off season brings us...

broken12
12-29-2009, 12:00 PM
So let me see if I follow along. We hire a guy that does not use ZBS alot and isnt versed in the WCO. He comes in and makes some changes, yet assumes the o-line is still capable of blocking a guy right in front of him (what an idiot).

but to play it safe...until he has all the people he needs to run his offense and team...he should just keep doing what HASNT worked for the past few years, even though it's nothing he's ever run before.

Yeah...that makes sense.

hasnt worked? there was only 12 sacks last year, and yes if it isnt working it is the coaches job to adapt to something that does. he has the offensive line coach there and dont tell me that the pats oline is more physical than ours. the reason this teams offense doesnt work is the qb, with the pats you gotta cover the deep ball so you cannot jam and stuff the box due to the qb taking advantage if you do, here there is no threat of going deep thus making us dink and dunk down the field and gasssing out in the red zone! our offensive line was one of our strengths and only one personnel change shouldnt change that! what hasn't worked all year and to keep jamming it in there is just dumb if you ask me! so yeah alot of the blame goes to the guy with the headset!

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2009, 12:02 PM
Mods, at what point does this guy get banned for spamming every thread with Cutler talk?

Very good point - I TOTALLY AGREE - it is getting VERY OLD

Dean
12-29-2009, 12:12 PM
Here are some evaluations of our offensive line. We definitely have problems but how do those compare with other teams' offensive lines is the real question.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position

These are by no means the final word on how a player or unit performs but at least it is unbiased.

elsid13
12-29-2009, 12:13 PM
So let me see if I follow along. We hire a guy that does not use ZBS alot and isnt versed in the WCO. He comes in and makes some changes, yet assumes the o-line is still capable of blocking a guy right in front of him (what an idiot).

but to play it safe...until he has all the people he needs to run his offense and team...he should just keep doing what HASNT worked for the past few years, even though it's nothing he's ever run before.

Yeah...that makes sense.

Coach, NE has been running a version of the ZBS for the last three years, so it not like he doesn't understand it. He also kept Dennison and Turner on board, which at some point tells you, he kinda felt that wanted to use it as part of his system. McCoy the offense coordinator also ran it in Carolina. So it not like McDaniels was surprised on what it can do.

Another point, he had all off season to get his "guys" on board for the line. He brought in Wiegmann(remember he was FA) ,Gorin and Hochstein. At the same time he filled up on running backs in Free Agency not line help.

Let not give a him or Xanders a free pass talent level on the line. They had opportunities to add depth and talent.

Mike
12-29-2009, 12:27 PM
So let me see if I follow along. We hire a guy that does not use ZBS alot and isnt versed in the WCO. He comes in and makes some changes, yet assumes the o-line is still capable of blocking a guy right in front of him (what an idiot).

but to play it safe...until he has all the people he needs to run his offense and team...he should just keep doing what HASNT worked for the past few years, even though it's nothing he's ever run before.

Yeah...that makes sense.

Don't you know that after 10 years of accepting mediocrity under the last regime, 1 year under the new is totally unacceptable? :coffee:

topscribe
12-29-2009, 12:30 PM
hasnt worked? there was only 12 sacks last year, and yes if it isnt working it is the coaches job to adapt to something that does. he has the offensive line coach there and dont tell me that the pats oline is more physical than ours. the reason this teams offense doesnt work is the qb, with the pats you gotta cover the deep ball so you cannot jam and stuff the box due to the qb taking advantage if you do, here there is no threat of going deep thus making us dink and dunk down the field and gasssing out in the red zone! our offensive line was one of our strengths and only one personnel change shouldnt change that! what hasn't worked all year and to keep jamming it in there is just dumb if you ask me! so yeah alot of the blame goes to the guy with the headset!

Baloney. Wiegmann got old. That's effectively a personnel change. Hamilton
has lost it. That's a personnel change. Harris was placed on IR. That's a
personnel change. That's 60% of the personnel at that position.

When the line holds up, the QB can do his job. When it doesn't, he cannot as
effectively. Again, that's Football 101.

In 4 of the 7 losses, the O-line just folded (Pitt, Bal, SD, Phil). In yesterday's
presser, McDaniels came out and said the Broncos have been "losing at the
line of scrimmage" on offense.

More Football 101: Games are won and lost in the trenches. So please remove
the blinders and realize that one player does not win or lose games.

-----

NameUsedBefore
12-29-2009, 12:40 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and say it might have something to do with the fact that he took the league's best runblocking scheme and wrecked it.

That's just a hunch, though.

T.K.O.
12-29-2009, 12:46 PM
i get the feeling some of you think we might miss the playoffs or something...:tsk:

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2009, 01:07 PM
i get the feeling some of you think we might miss the playoffs or something...:tsk:

Even if we do miss the playoffs this year, I feel the future is much brighter than it has been in previous years

CoachChaz
12-29-2009, 01:12 PM
Don't you know that after 10 years of accepting mediocrity under the last regime, 1 year under the new is totally unacceptable? :coffee:

Yeah...what was I thinking

CoachChaz
12-29-2009, 01:22 PM
hasnt worked? there was only 12 sacks last year, and yes if it isnt working it is the coaches job to adapt to something that does. he has the offensive line coach there and dont tell me that the pats oline is more physical than ours. the reason this teams offense doesnt work is the qb, with the pats you gotta cover the deep ball so you cannot jam and stuff the box due to the qb taking advantage if you do, here there is no threat of going deep thus making us dink and dunk down the field and gasssing out in the red zone! our offensive line was one of our strengths and only one personnel change shouldnt change that! what hasn't worked all year and to keep jamming it in there is just dumb if you ask me! so yeah alot of the blame goes to the guy with the headset!

Doesnt matter if we gave up 0 sacks last year...we still sucked. And I've said it a hundred times before...you'll never convince me that professional offensive linemen are incapable of transitioning from the ZBS to a straight block. Even if they were...we've still used the ZBS A LOT. Just watch the Philly game again.

But if you want to put the blame on how it affects the passing game, then you are really going out of the box, beause I dont care what scheme your line uses...pass protection is pass protection. The line just isnt playing as well as they did last year and because fans cannot possibly admit that maybe they just had a great year last year and now they are back to reality...then it obviously has to be blamed on the coach.


Coach, NE has been running a version of the ZBS for the last three years, so it not like he doesn't understand it. He also kept Dennison and Turner on board, which at some point tells you, he kinda felt that wanted to use it as part of his system. McCoy the offense coordinator also ran it in Carolina. So it not like McDaniels was surprised on what it can do.

Another point, he had all off season to get his "guys" on board for the line. He brought in Wiegmann(remember he was FA) ,Gorin and Hochstein. At the same time he filled up on running backs in Free Agency not line help.

Let not give a him or Xanders a free pass talent level on the line. They had opportunities to add depth and talent.

When I refer to McD not knowing something, I refer to the WCO. I know he knows ZBS and as I said above, he uses it a lot. As far as getting his guys...sure, he was able to add a few pieces as backups, but I'm talking about starter quality players to completely execute the offense and game plan he has in mind. I dont doubt that some of those guys are here, but the interior line does not consist of those players...yet. It will and once it does, I have no doubt the offense will be much better and openied up alot more

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 01:26 PM
Coach, NE has been running a version of the ZBS for the last three years, so it not like he doesn't understand it. He also kept Dennison and Turner on board, which at some point tells you, he kinda felt that wanted to use it as part of his system. McCoy the offense coordinator also ran it in Carolina. So it not like McDaniels was surprised on what it can do.

Another point, he had all off season to get his "guys" on board for the line. He brought in Wiegmann(remember he was FA) ,Gorin and Hochstein. At the same time he filled up on running backs in Free Agency not line help.

Let not give a him or Xanders a free pass talent level on the line. They had opportunities to add depth and talent.


i think MCD felt fine with the ZBS/power hybrid, and with his players before the season then they had to play and sucked end of story....the blame falls on the OL....

lets get real orton is indeed a reason for a higher sack count because of his lack of mobility and lack of pocket awareness

but our interior OL sucked last year as well for the most part, hamilton and kuper both have been so so in run blocking, and weigman wasnt even that great at it last year, there forte was at pass protection, this year and much of last year they are being asked to man up on ocasion(we did run shotgun runs last year quite a bit as well) and they just get owned plain and simple

there is no conspiracy here the fact of the matter is our inside guys get routinely beat they just arent that good....

the zbs we have used this year but now in december we have tried to power out some teams becasue thats what it takes to run the ball in december, and our OL just cant hack it....we have 4 guys on the OL that just arent that good at blocking without help.....it will be addressed and the problem will remedy itself if we get guys that can power block but still have the atleticsm to work the ZBS in september and october which is when we used most of that running, that shit usually just doesnt get the same results when its time to buckle down and power through physical teams in november and december....

pnbronco
12-29-2009, 01:28 PM
Don't you know that after 10 years of accepting mediocrity under the last regime, 1 year under the new is totally unacceptable? :coffee:

Me too. What is driving me nuts is that this coach seems to be paying the price for those other 10 years.

CoachChaz
12-29-2009, 01:31 PM
Me too. What is driving me nuts is that this coach seems to be paying the price for those other 10 years.

Couldnt have been said better

topscribe
12-29-2009, 01:33 PM
Don't you know that after 10 years of accepting mediocrity under the last regime, 1 year under the new is totally unacceptable? :coffee:

What is ironic is that, before the season, most had the Broncos at 4 or 5 wins.

And now there are so many of us crying the blues . . . :tsk:

-----

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 01:33 PM
also whats wrong with holding players accountable....they get paid big dollars....do your job...(its clear to everyone the OL hasnt been good regardless of any excuses)...its not always the coaches, scheme, or playcalling....eventually players have to execute there job...in the real world you dont do your job you get called out on it or worse...why should it be different in the football world....

props to MCd for not listening to talking heads and going off tape.....

broncofaninfla
12-29-2009, 01:35 PM
There are a lot of varibles that contribute to how poorly our offensive line played this season. The scheme change is on the coach, the play calling is again the coach, the inability to execute it is on our players and opposing defenses. Mcd could have and should have done a better job of scheming and play calling to who we currently have on our roster. Lets face it, these guys did a pretty damn good job last year in a different scheme. But schemes change from year to year even with the same coaches. I'm not impressed with Mcd's game planning and play calling on offense and IMO he is a big reason why we have failed but a lot of this is on the players as well.

pnbronco
12-29-2009, 01:48 PM
Look I have no idea what a zbs is or any other formation is for that matter. I do know that we have had problems with getting the ball into the red zone for many years now. I have a feeling if we had not gone through so many RB last year maybe this would have been addressed more.

I have heard for years that it all begins in the trenches and it is something that will need to be addressed in the future. I mean I remember reading on some game thread before Ben was replaced and that he and Casey were getting thrown around like rag dolls. I love Ben, he is such a good guy but in a physical game age does catch up to all of us.

When I read about having all off season to address this I almost fell off my chair. I would be in another state and hear on a sports station what a Soap Opera Dove Valley was. Also no matter how much you work on things in practice you can never duplicate what actually happens in a game. What you are trying to do with practice to produce the muscle memory. Execution is still up to the indivual player.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2009, 01:48 PM
There are a lot of varibles that contribute to how poorly our offensive line played this season. The scheme change is on the coach, the play calling is again the coach, the inability to execute it is on our players and opposing defenses. Mcd could have and should have done a better job of scheming and play calling to who we currently have on our roster. Lets face it, these guys did a pretty damn good job last year in a different scheme. But schemes change from year to year even with the same coaches. I'm not impressed with Mcd's game planning and play calling on offense and IMO he is a big reason why we have failed but a lot of this is on the players as well.

So, are you saying that a coach should put in a scheme, based on the players ability on the OL, rather than the players on the OL adapting to the coach's scheme?

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 01:52 PM
There are a lot of varibles that contribute to how poorly our offensive line played this season. The scheme change is on the coach, the play calling is again the coach, the inability to execute it is on our players and opposing defenses. Mcd could have and should have done a better job of scheming and play calling to who we currently have on our roster. Lets face it, these guys did a pretty damn good job last year in a different scheme. But schemes change from year to year even with the same coaches. I'm not impressed with Mcd's game planning and play calling on offense and IMO he is a big reason why we have failed but a lot of this is on the players as well.

no offense but this is BS, we actually ran a hybrid last year to(we tried alot of traps and otehr shoutgun inside runs we see now......the nomenclature, formations etc may have changed but the end result was block the man in front of you...last year we ran more spread offense runs and we did the same this year...our interior OL just isnt that good in the run game they werent last year either......the only reason we had a better rush offense last year was becasue shanny new how good runs outside were after using them for years, MCd is still learning that and hasnt used outside stuff asd a staple like shanny did.....watch the tape last year and you will see our interior OL got stuffed a ton then to.....


and yes as a rookie coach MCd has some things to learn about playcalling and when to use certain play selection, but at the end of the day our OL just didnt excute that well and our interior has been a mess since the new england game. the OL just isnt that talented at run stuff....and becasue of age or whatever the pas protection hasnt been good either..

im not even a huge MCD fan....but lets be real here our offense issues are 15% kyle orton, 10% running backs, 10% MCD and 65% the interior OL..period!!!

Mike
12-29-2009, 02:02 PM
So, are you saying that a coach should put in a scheme, based on the players ability on the OL, rather than the players on the OL adapting to the coach's scheme?

Well, there is a logic to adapting your plan to fit your players strengths...at least until you get the type of players it takes to the scheme you want to run.

MasterShake
12-29-2009, 02:05 PM
I usually hate the offseason, but I still think we have one of the most promising young teams out there. I'm kind of excited to see who we sign, who stays, who goes etc.

That being said... I hope one of the scenarios pans out this weekend and we get to see the Broncos in the playoffs!

I think we a few tweaks on the oline, some better QB play (either from Orton learning the system more and being more comfortable or otherwise) we can tack on a few wins to this years record and be a playoff caliber team. Honestly, I thought it would take 2-3 seasons to get to where we are now after losing Shanny and Cutler.

I think Oakland, Denver, and Kansas City will soon be near the level of San Diego (or past them as they are getting older at key positions) and the AFCW will once again be a feared division. I miss the years when winning the West actually meant something more than winning more than 8 games! :lol:

broncofaninfla
12-29-2009, 02:09 PM
Don't you know that after 10 years of accepting mediocrity under the last regime, 1 year under the new is totally unacceptable? :coffee:

I think a lot of this is fans are used to the offense being an asset and the defense being a liability and expected the same from a former succesfull OC only that was far from the case. Our offense has been very ineffective this season and play calling downright embarrasing at times. Nolans defense was the asset this season and our offense is now a liability. It's a different Broncos team. Time will tell if we are headed in the right direction. Both sides are the ball need to be addressed but we clearly have more work to do on the offense than we do the defense.

For me I'm not impressed at all with Mcd's game planning or play calling on offense but I am impressed with how effective Nolan's schemes were and it is my understanding that Mcd plays a part in that as well.

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 02:11 PM
Well, there is a logic to adapting your plan to fit your players strengths...at least until you get the type of players it takes to the scheme you want to run.

this is true and i will give we have a different scheme in ways than last year but as a OL guy eventually you gotta just man up and beat the guy in front of you regardless of what scheme is run.....

i mean i understand growing pains with new systems coaches etc...but when i wacth our interior OL guys get blown off there feet 5 yds into are QB by Cb's, LB's and solo DL...that had nothing do do with scheme and all with them m getting there ass handed to them and that has been a norm from our inside OL since 2005....

we just need more powerful, athletic and talented guys inside period!!!!

MasterShake
12-29-2009, 02:14 PM
this is true and i will give we have a different scheme in ways than last year but as a OL guy eventually you gotta just man up and beat the guy in front of you regardless of what scheme is run.....

i mean i understand growing pains with new systems coaches etc...but when i wacth our interior OL guys get blown off there feet 5 yds into are QB by Cb's, LB's and solo DL...that had nothing do do with scheme and all with them m getting there ass handed to them and that has been a norm from our inside OL since 2005....

we just need more powerful, athletic and talented guys inside period!!!!

We need to model our line after the Colts. Just a bunch of athletic fatasses that can give the QB an extra second or two.

NightTrainLayne
12-29-2009, 02:17 PM
no offense but this is BS, we actually ran a hybrid last year to(we tried alot of traps and otehr shoutgun inside runs we see now......the nomenclature, formations etc may have changed but the end result was block the man in front of you...last year we ran more spread offense runs and we did the same this year...our interior OL just isnt that good in the run game they werent last year either......the only reason we had a better rush offense last year was becasue shanny new how good runs outside were after using them for years, MCd is still learning that and hasnt used outside stuff asd a staple like shanny did.....watch the tape last year and you will see our interior OL got stuffed a ton then to.....


and yes as a rookie coach MCd has some things to learn about playcalling and when to use certain play selection, but at the end of the day our OL just didnt excute that well and our interior has been a mess since the new england game. the OL just isnt that talented at run stuff....and becasue of age or whatever the pas protection hasnt been good either..

im not even a huge MCD fan....but lets be real here our offense issues are 15% kyle orton, 10% running backs, 10% MCD and 65% the interior OL..period!!!

This is a post that I made earlier today over at the Freak on essentially the same topic. I don't feel like reworking it, so here it is:


This is just solely from memory, but I do remember seeing some rankings of the O-line from late in the season last year in which our middle was rated surprisingly low. We had good success running outside, but between the tackles, over the guards and center we were below average (sound familiar).

That's just from memory, but why I remember it, is because I remember being surprised. At the same time we had the same short-yardage problems last year. We simply don't have the horses on the O-line to do anything but play tricks with the ZBS.

That's a great system to allow you to pick up smaller talented guys that other teams discard, or don't want, but in the end, these last few years we haven't been able to run the ball when we needed to. Even in 2005 the Steelers made us one-dimensional in the AFC Championship game, and Plummer couldn't pull it off.

Shanny's gone, and with him the ZBS. Kudos should actually be given to McD for keeping Dennison and Turner, and trying to make a hybrid system in the interim. A truly bull-headed stubborn coach wouldn't have done that, and we'd be in even worse shape.

But if Shanny is gone, I want the new guy (whoever he is) to run his system. Trying to hire someone to run Shanny's system would be ludicrous. If we were going to do that, then we should have kept Shanny. Nobody's going to run Shannys' system better than Shanny, and I'm not going to even pretend to ask McD to do so.

What's ironic about this, is that last season Bates and Shanny tried to copy the Patriots Offense that McD ran in 2007! They started moving away from the ZBS and started spreading the field and :gasp!: running a bunch of bubble screens to Marshall.

Why did Shanny do this? Was he realizing that his system had run it's course and that he needed to evolve? I don't know, but we learned really quickly last year that our O-line couldn't get the short yards when we needed it, and we couldn't score TD's in the red-zone, mainly becuase we couldn't run it in short-yardage effectively.

The seeds of our problems on the O-line were planted a few years ago, and began to bear fruit last season. This season's performance, especially given a new HC and new system should be expected.

When McD gets the guys he wants and can move completely to his offense instead of this ZBS hybrid we will be better off. It just takes some patience, and some trust.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2009, 02:19 PM
We need to model our line after the Colts. Just a bunch of athletic fatasses that can give the QB an extra second or two.

This may be the key based on a comment Dilfer said after last night's game - i.e. offense in the NFL has become almost totally passing.

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 02:20 PM
This is a post that I made earlier today over at the Freak on essentially the same topic. I don't feel like reworking it, so here it is:

outstanding post!!!!!:salute:

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 02:20 PM
We need to model our line after the Colts. Just a bunch of athletic fatasses that can give the QB an extra second or two.

sadly i think orton needs more than a extra second or 2:shocked:


HAHAHA

MasterShake
12-29-2009, 02:23 PM
This may be the key based on a comment Dilfer said after last night's game - i.e. offense in the NFL has become almost totally passing.

With the new rules protecting QB's and WR's, is it any wonder that suddenly we get teams with good tandems (New Orleans, Indy, NE, etc.) consistently almost pitching perfect seasons? It took almost 40 years for NE to do it, then suddenly this year we had almost 2 teams do it.

I kind of hate how they neutered the defense lately.

pnbronco
12-29-2009, 02:24 PM
outstanding post!!!!!:salute:

I fact there have been a lot of great posts in this thread, thank you guys. I do enjoy intelligent conversation and I feel like I've learned a lot. Still not sure what a Z....is but I don't get paid to know that, so I'm not worried.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-29-2009, 02:25 PM
sadly i think orton needs more than a extra second or 2:shocked:


HAHAHA

Guess we won't know that for sure - beef up the OL and let's see how he does then, with one year of a totally new scheme under his belt.

Mike
12-29-2009, 02:32 PM
I think a lot of this is fans are used to the offense being an asset and the defense being a liability and expected the same from a former succesfull OC only that was far from the case. Our offense has been very ineffective this season and play calling downright embarrasing at times. Nolans defense was the asset this season and our offense is now a liability. It's a different Broncos team. Time will tell if we are headed in the right direction. Both sides are the ball need to be addressed but we clearly have more work to do on the offense than we do the defense.

For me I'm not impressed at all with Mcd's game planning or play calling on offense but I am impressed with how effective Nolan's schemes were and it is my understanding that Mcd plays a part in that as well.

I find it puzzling that people are so willing to throw in the towel on a first year coach who hasn't really had a chance to run the offense he wants with his kind of players. To be honest, I don't believe that we really know what kind of offensive scheme McD wants to run. He is in year 1 of a rebuild and is making due with the players he has.

Denver's offense has been extremely predictable and (outside of a handful of games last year) stagnant for the past several years. And both playcalling and execution have been ineffective during those same years. Yet, people were satisfied with that.

Maybe his way will work, maybe it won't, but after 10 years of stagnation I am willing to give the guy more than 1 year before I judge. I know everyone wants to win now, but to expect that is not realistic.

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 02:32 PM
Guess we won't know that for sure - beef up the OL and let's see how he does then, with one year of a totally new scheme under his belt.


i dont know for sure, but i have a pretty good idea:cool:....although its clear he still has lingering issues with that ankle as well....;)

topscribe
12-29-2009, 02:36 PM
We need to model our line after the Colts. Just a bunch of athletic fatasses that can give the QB an extra second or two.

Here are Orton's figures with what he has right now:

62.7% comp
3,371 yds
20 TD
9 INT
89.3 QBR

What would they be if he did have another second or two?

-----

Northman
12-29-2009, 02:36 PM
What she was saying is if thats your point please make it without turning this into another damned referendum on the Bears QB.

Hell, I don't like much about McDaniels and the job he has done and even I am tired of it. There is only so many ways to jump up and down and shout it before you have made your point and have gone to the beating dead hosses phase.

Yea, they call it trolling.

Elevation inc
12-29-2009, 02:39 PM
Here are Orton's figures with what he has right now:

62.7% comp
3,371 yds
20 TD
9 INT
89.3 QBR

What would they be if he did have another second or two?

-----


better:elefant:

spikerman
12-29-2009, 05:54 PM
More Football 101: Games are won and lost in the trenches. So please remove
the blinders and realize that one player does not win or lose games.

-----

I agree with this 100% which is why I was surprised and disappointed that McDaniels focused more on the secondary than he did on the d-line in the offseason. He coached against Denver in last year so he had to have known what a liability the front 7 were. I was hoping for more of an effort to improve the D-line. Championship teams are built from the inside out. Hopefully this offseason he'll make the lines (both of them) a priority.

Nomad
12-29-2009, 06:03 PM
Well now McD knows what to focus on in the offseason!! Shame on him if he doesn't!!

topscribe
12-29-2009, 06:14 PM
I agree with this 100% which is why I was surprised and disappointed that McDaniels focused more on the secondary than he did on the d-line in the offseason. He coached against Denver in last year so he had to have known what a liability the front 7 were. I was hoping for more of an effort to improve the D-line. Championship teams are built from the inside out. Hopefully this offseason he'll make the lines (both of them) a priority.

Mainly because when Champ was the only noteworthy person in the secondary
and the Broncos had a pretty good D-line, teams such as the Colts carved up
Denver like a Thanksgiving turkey. The fact of it is, the present D-line isn't
lousy. It is a lot better than it was last year, when they couldn't buy a sack.
It needs upgrading, yes . . . but they did bring in the available talent. It's just
that there wasn't all that much talent available.

Now, the O-line, as it is, is lousy . . .

-----

spikerman
12-29-2009, 06:31 PM
Mainly because when Champ was the only noteworthy person in the secondary
and the Broncos had a pretty good D-line, teams such as the Colts carved up
Denver like a Thanksgiving turkey. The fact of it is, the present D-line isn't
lousy. It is a lot better than it was last year, when they couldn't buy a sack.
It needs upgrading, yes . . . but they did bring in the available talent. It's just
that there wasn't all that much talent available.

Now, the O-line, as it is, is lousy . . .

-----The Patriots proved that you could win with a lesser secondary as long as you had a good front seven. The reason Champ and everybody else got chewed up was because the defensive line couldn't pressure the QB or stop the run (I definitely don't remember it being "good"). Yes, Denver had more sacks this year, but they're still giving up big chunks of yardage on the ground and most of those sacks are coming from the linebacker position. Even when the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl they did it with a great front seven along with a secondary that was nothing special. If I had to choose between shoring up the secondary or the line I would take the line every time.

The Broncos front seven isn't awful, but it is definitely nothing special. I would just like to see it be more of a focus in the offseason. I think a lot of guys starting this year (especially on the line) are probably more suited to backup roles.

I agree that it's time to get bigger and better on the offensive side too.

Timmy!
12-29-2009, 06:35 PM
The O-line has been getting crushed for about a month now.

hamrob
12-29-2009, 11:19 PM
Good Lord, freaking stop already. Quit turning every single effing thread into a Cutler thing. Most here have moved on.

The offensive line woes this season have to do with different personnel and different schemes. We don't have the size to be running power schemes and pulling guards.

Would a mobile QB help when you have no line, sure. BUT CUTLER IS GONE. FFS.Bingo! So, why do we stick with the power run formations? Why wouldn't we run the ZBS until next year...if we don't have the personnel?

That's on McDaniels...he needs to quit crying and learn how to coach to the talent he has.

NightTrainLayne
12-29-2009, 11:21 PM
Bingo! So, why do we stick with the power run formations? Why wouldn't we run the ZBS until next year...if we don't have the personnel?

That's on McDaniels...he needs to quit crying and learn how to coach to the talent he has.

We've been running quite a bit of ZBS plays. . .

KyleOrtonArmySoldier#128
12-29-2009, 11:30 PM
Bingo! So, why do we stick with the power run formations? Why wouldn't we run the ZBS until next year...if we don't have the personnel?

That's on McDaniels...he needs to quit crying and learn how to coach to the talent he has.

What are you talknig about half our playbook of the last 8 weeks has been zone blocking. Are you watching the football games or just waiting for an excuse to bash the Head Coach?

I love Shanahan, but he's gone, yes I remember the SB magic, but I also remember three shitty seasons in a row, He had to go.

Like McD or not, he'll be year for at least the next five years so you'd better either get used to him or turn in your Broncos gear. :salute:

topscribe
12-29-2009, 11:36 PM
The Patriots proved that you could win with a lesser secondary as long as you had a good front seven. The reason Champ and everybody else got chewed up was because the defensive line couldn't pressure the QB or stop the run (I definitely don't remember it being "good"). Yes, Denver had more sacks this year, but they're still giving up big chunks of yardage on the ground and most of those sacks are coming from the linebacker position. Even when the Giants beat the Pats in the Super Bowl they did it with a great front seven along with a secondary that was nothing special. If I had to choose between shoring up the secondary or the line I would take the line every time.

The Broncos front seven isn't awful, but it is definitely nothing special. I would just like to see it be more of a focus in the offseason. I think a lot of guys starting this year (especially on the line) are probably more suited to backup roles.

I agree that it's time to get bigger and better on the offensive side too.

Champ didn't get chewed up. They didn't even throw Champ's way. They
didn't have to. Bly and his predecessors made sure of that.

And sacks are supposed to come from the LBs in a 3-4.

But I watched Manning carve up the secondary in 2004 and 2005. The pass
rush was fine. But Wayne & co. were constantly wide open.

I, too, want to see an upgrade especially in the line on defense. But that
doesn't mean they didn't try to get people in here. It's just that there wasn't
that much talent available. But they brought in whom they could.

-----

Rick
12-29-2009, 11:52 PM
Exactly, if the D-Line is doing what it is supposed to do in the 3-4 the LBers are making solid pressure at the very least and at best are laying the QB on the ground in the pass and are flowing to the ball carrier on the run.

If the line is not doing it's job the LBers are doing virtually nothing, but the line itself seldom gets totals. Thier totals are again when the guys behind them are able to do thier jobs.

Ziggy
12-30-2009, 12:31 AM
The talent to upgrade the D-line is available this season, depending on the outcome of the CBA. Wolfork or Seymour would instantly upgrade the front 7. Casey Hampton, and a few others will also be attainable. Players like that weren't out there last season in FA, unless of course you wanted to shell out $100 million for a player with an attitude. I think McD goes after upgrades on both lines this offseason. If he doesn't, I'll very disappointed, but I have no problem with the folks that he brought in last year as a whole.

JDL
12-30-2009, 12:36 AM
Here are Orton's figures with what he has right now:

62.7% comp
3,371 yds
20 TD
9 INT
89.3 QBR

What would they be if he did have another second or two?

-----

Not much better. He gets A LOT of time in the pocket actually, but is incapable of moving around the pocket effectively. Clady has been given a lot of crap since the Hali day... three of his sacks were in part caused by Orton... twice Orton rather than throwing the ball away tried to move outside the pocket and got tackled on the far numbers by Clady's guy. Clady is facing speed rushers and it is his job on most plays if the speed rusher goes outside, to push him all the way outside and have Orton step up. Another instance, Orton stepped right into another OL, the DL was blocked, reached his hand out tried to grab Orton, he stumbled and fell down.

There is no denying Orton is not 1) mobile or 2) athletic/graceful in the pocket. He panics when he can't find someone, stops surveying the field and looks around trying to figure out where to go. He does not have a natural feel for buying time in the pocket, he doesn't sense the proper time to step up or roll out. He is simply not very good in this aspect of being a QB. It kills his OL though and for people to act like this is not occurring drives me batty... lol... the QB HAS to step up!!! or get rid of the ball after a certain period.

The other issue is that he doesn't throw it deep very often so defenders do not push off the LOS much and if he doesn't find someone right away makes him susceptible to late blitzes where LBs are not driven far off the ball enough.

This BS that it is ALL the OLs fault just has to stop. There are running lanes 1st of all, Buckhalter finds them all the time. We just happen to be breaking in a rookie RB that is having problems always identifying when he should break outside or cut it back... he seems unsure of himself. We have a QB with the aforementioned issues. We lack any real deep threat overall to really spread the D out.

This is the culmination of many issues. Clady/Kuper/Harris make a FANTASTIC core of an OL and there are a lot of very ungrateful fans here who don't get how many team's fans would kill for that. Wiegmann hasn't been as good but that has been his MO through his career. LG has been an issue no doubt. But, teams have dealt with far worse injury issues than us, the Pats have done it for years and had ok pass blocking.

The one thing though that HAS to change is the expectation we can run it in the Pats system... that went away when McDaniels came... the Pats have never been dominant and rarely good at rushing the ball.. only twice achieving the innocuous mark of being top 10 in rushing since 2000. They look like they will finish around 11/12 again this year. We are 15th... we are doing what the Pats have done almost EVERY year with their blocking system and people are ripping the OL for not executing the Pats run blocking system better? Please people...that's dumb.

Better OL will only marginally improve a marginal at best run blocking scheme that McDaniels has tried to institute. It is one of my great disappointments actually, because I long for the days of TDs dominating running, our OL working to perfection in a tremendous run blocking scheme and just mowing people down with our rushing attack. That's over... this is going to be a passing team and thankfully there are a lot of very good pass blockers (that is why Hamilton was replaced, NOT his run blocking.)

All I can say though is that if we are going to be this spread formation pass-oriented offense...

1) bring someone in here who can f-ing teach an OL how to block a screen because we are f-ing embarrassing at it.

2) we HAVE to have a QB who can throw a slant pass to someone other than Brandon Marshall whose size makes up for Orton's inaccuracy.

Orton is a solid backup and when he starts he can win you games, but he is NEVER going to lead a potent offense due to his limitations (ability to move in the pocket, throw deep or throw slants accurately, slow delivery - leads to fumbles because he has to load up his throws.) He is a straight drop back, straight route (curls, stops, seams, screens) passer who works hard and is pretty good at recognizing pre-snap coverages and not turning the ball over. Has pretty good leadership as well.


These are the issues with the offense and quite frankly fatter OL are not going to radically change the fortune of this offense.

JDL
12-30-2009, 12:43 AM
What are you talknig about half our playbook of the last 8 weeks has been zone blocking. Are you watching the football games or just waiting for an excuse to bash the Head Coach?

I love Shanahan, but he's gone, yes I remember the SB magic, but I also remember three shitty seasons in a row, He had to go.

Like McD or not, he'll be year for at least the next five years so you'd better either get used to him or turn in your Broncos gear. :salute:

They've actually been rarer than that. Most of our rushing plays have been some combination of zone blocking/trap blocking... a weird mixture that the Pats try to run. It has been exceedingly rare to see all of our OL fire off the ball in the same direction, backside blockers cutting their guys and having our RBs cut it back (the staple of Denver's ZBS.) Heck, I can't remember Moreno even trying to cut a play black... he seems to have been told to go to GAP A and to finish in GAP A or else... and when nothing is there but an OL blocking a DL, he just runs into the back of the OL hoping something materializes. Teams are wise to that and are flooding the front sides of our plays... same thing happened to MJD against Indy that happened to us, funny thing is that MJD cut it back and KILLED the Colts on the backside, absolutely murdered them and made them pay for overpursuing/overplaying the frontside of a play.

You have to really pay attention to these nuances, the OL ARE actually blocking their guys, but LBs and now even CBs have been so unconcerned with our ability to 1) beat them deep and 2) cut it back that they just crush the front side of plays with more people than we can block... I can't count the number of times I've seen GAPING holes on the backside of a play, plays that go for no gain/1yd or so that should have been 5 or 6yd gains more if the RB makes a guy miss. You do that a few times and those front side holes will start opening up more as LBs and DBs are forced to be more disciplined.

ursamajor
12-30-2009, 01:19 AM
More Football 101: Games are won and lost in the trenches. So please remove
the blinders and realize that one player does not win or lose games.

Very true, No QB will play anywhere near their potential if the O-Line is not holding up.

topscribe
12-30-2009, 02:23 AM
They've actually been rarer than that. Most of our rushing plays have been some combination of zone blocking/trap blocking... a weird mixture that the Pats try to run. It has been exceedingly rare to see all of our OL fire off the ball in the same direction, backside blockers cutting their guys and having our RBs cut it back (the staple of Denver's ZBS.) Heck, I can't remember Moreno even trying to cut a play black... he seems to have been told to go to GAP A and to finish in GAP A or else... and when nothing is there but an OL blocking a DL, he just runs into the back of the OL hoping something materializes. Teams are wise to that and are flooding the front sides of our plays... same thing happened to MJD against Indy that happened to us, funny thing is that MJD cut it back and KILLED the Colts on the backside, absolutely murdered them and made them pay for overpursuing/overplaying the frontside of a play.

You have to really pay attention to these nuances, the OL ARE actually blocking their guys, but LBs and now even CBs have been so unconcerned with our ability to 1) beat them deep and 2) cut it back that they just crush the front side of plays with more people than we can block... I can't count the number of times I've seen GAPING holes on the backside of a play, plays that go for no gain/1yd or so that should have been 5 or 6yd gains more if the RB makes a guy miss. You do that a few times and those front side holes will start opening up more as LBs and DBs are forced to be more disciplined.

Sorry, but when the DL arrives at the RB at about the same time the ball
does, that is not what I call blocking. That is what I saw. And that is backed
by what McDaniels said. I believe I can trust his trained eyes more than I can
yours. No offense--it's just that he's a HC in the NFL, and you're not . . .

-----

Elevation inc
12-30-2009, 03:17 AM
Not much better. He gets A LOT of time in the pocket actually, but is incapable of moving around the pocket effectively. Clady has been given a lot of crap since the Hali day... three of his sacks were in part caused by Orton... twice Orton rather than throwing the ball away tried to move outside the pocket and got tackled on the far numbers by Clady's guy. Clady is facing speed rushers and it is his job on most plays if the speed rusher goes outside, to push him all the way outside and have Orton step up. Another instance, Orton stepped right into another OL, the DL was blocked, reached his hand out tried to grab Orton, he stumbled and fell down.

There is no denying Orton is not 1) mobile or 2) athletic/graceful in the pocket. He panics when he can't find someone, stops surveying the field and looks around trying to figure out where to go. He does not have a natural feel for buying time in the pocket, he doesn't sense the proper time to step up or roll out. He is simply not very good in this aspect of being a QB. It kills his OL though and for people to act like this is not occurring drives me batty... lol... the QB HAS to step up!!! or get rid of the ball after a certain period.

The other issue is that he doesn't throw it deep very often so defenders do not push off the LOS much and if he doesn't find someone right away makes him susceptible to late blitzes where LBs are not driven far off the ball enough.

This BS that it is ALL the OLs fault just has to stop. There are running lanes 1st of all, Buckhalter finds them all the time. We just happen to be breaking in a rookie RB that is having problems always identifying when he should break outside or cut it back... he seems unsure of himself. We have a QB with the aforementioned issues. We lack any real deep threat overall to really spread the D out.

This is the culmination of many issues. Clady/Kuper/Harris make a FANTASTIC core of an OL and there are a lot of very ungrateful fans here who don't get how many team's fans would kill for that. Wiegmann hasn't been as good but that has been his MO through his career. LG has been an issue no doubt. But, teams have dealt with far worse injury issues than us, the Pats have done it for years and had ok pass blocking.

The one thing though that HAS to change is the expectation we can run it in the Pats system... that went away when McDaniels came... the Pats have never been dominant and rarely good at rushing the ball.. only twice achieving the innocuous mark of being top 10 in rushing since 2000. They look like they will finish around 11/12 again this year. We are 15th... we are doing what the Pats have done almost EVERY year with their blocking system and people are ripping the OL for not executing the Pats run blocking system better? Please people...that's dumb.

Better OL will only marginally improve a marginal at best run blocking scheme that McDaniels has tried to institute. It is one of my great disappointments actually, because I long for the days of TDs dominating running, our OL working to perfection in a tremendous run blocking scheme and just mowing people down with our rushing attack. That's over... this is going to be a passing team and thankfully there are a lot of very good pass blockers (that is why Hamilton was replaced, NOT his run blocking.)

All I can say though is that if we are going to be this spread formation pass-oriented offense...

1) bring someone in here who can f-ing teach an OL how to block a screen because we are f-ing embarrassing at it.

2) we HAVE to have a QB who can throw a slant pass to someone other than Brandon Marshall whose size makes up for Orton's inaccuracy.

Orton is a solid backup and when he starts he can win you games, but he is NEVER going to lead a potent offense due to his limitations (ability to move in the pocket, throw deep or throw slants accurately, slow delivery - leads to fumbles because he has to load up his throws.) He is a straight drop back, straight route (curls, stops, seams, screens) passer who works hard and is pretty good at recognizing pre-snap coverages and not turning the ball over. Has pretty good leadership as well.


These are the issues with the offense and quite frankly fatter OL are not going to radically change the fortune of this offense.

quit blaming the OL???? we havent had a good interior since 2005...wake up.....when a CB blows up your center and RG and gets to orton or moreno 3 yds deep in the backfield, your telling me to lay off the OL.and blame orton and moreno among otehr excuses???...thats happened all year...block the guy in front of you its simple really and its been a issue here inside since 2005

Elevation inc
12-30-2009, 03:22 AM
They've actually been rarer than that. Most of our rushing plays have been some combination of zone blocking/trap blocking... a weird mixture that the Pats try to run. It has been exceedingly rare to see all of our OL fire off the ball in the same direction, backside blockers cutting their guys and having our RBs cut it back (the staple of Denver's ZBS.) Heck, I can't remember Moreno even trying to cut a play black... he seems to have been told to go to GAP A and to finish in GAP A or else... and when nothing is there but an OL blocking a DL, he just runs into the back of the OL hoping something materializes. Teams are wise to that and are flooding the front sides of our plays... same thing happened to MJD against Indy that happened to us, funny thing is that MJD cut it back and KILLED the Colts on the backside, absolutely murdered them and made them pay for overpursuing/overplaying the frontside of a play.

You have to really pay attention to these nuances, the OL ARE actually blocking their guys, but LBs and now even CBs have been so unconcerned with our ability to 1) beat them deep and 2) cut it back that they just crush the front side of plays with more people than we can block... I can't count the number of times I've seen GAPING holes on the backside of a play, plays that go for no gain/1yd or so that should have been 5 or 6yd gains more if the RB makes a guy miss. You do that a few times and those front side holes will start opening up more as LBs and DBs are forced to be more disciplined.

Correction ryan clady is blocking his guy....hochstein/kuper/weigman/polumbus are getting owned every game.....Lb's, solo DL, and cb's for christs sake are blowing up plays 4 yds deep through the middle and right side.....so yeah your right its orton/playcalling/scheme/and moreno.....its all there fault defenders are 4 yds deep by the time the ball has hit the Qb's hands or Rb's hands....:rolleyes:

pnbronco
12-30-2009, 08:18 AM
I heard something interesting on "the Fan" yesterday and I wasn't listening that close at the time, plus I was getting a headache too. What I heard was that we have won only one game when Ryan Harris did not start and only lost one game when he did start.

Dreadnought
12-30-2009, 10:41 AM
Sorry, but when the DL arrives at the RB at about the same time the ball
does, that is not what I call blocking. That is what I saw. And that is backed
by what McDaniels said. I believe I can trust his trained eyes more than I can
yours. No offense--it's just that he's a HC in the NFL, and you're not . . .

-----

Well, a lot of HC's don't know what they are doing Top, so thats a pretty invalid refutation of a case that JDL built calmly, effectively, and rationally. Rich Kotite comes to mind as one HC I might not listen to, Joe Bugel and Marty Morningwheg two others. They may actually be good football guys in their area of expertise but that doesn't translate to some mystical level of knowledge we can't aspire to. In short, you'll have to refute JDL's points on their own merits rather than "argument from authority."

My thinking? The OL is serving as a convenient scapegoat. Something clearly went wrong with the offense this year, and that has mainly gotten worse as the season progressed. While conceding that the OL has not played especially well, lets look at some other options;

1) Its on McDaniels...Nope, that can't be it if you were set against Shanahan, because you might have too much emotionally invested in the idea that this guy will turn us around and that Shanny was somehow "mediocre" anyways. Plus he is going to be coach another year or three anyways, and the idea that he might be a dud is too awful to think about. Best not think it.

2) Its on Orton...Nope, that can't be it, because he is a good guy, and works hard, and if you decided our previous QB was an A-hole (either while he was here or you convinced yourself after he was gone, makes no difference) its personally important that Orton be better.

3) The system is flawed...nope, can't be it unless either McD or Orton aren't as good as hoped for, so this possibility can't be safely considered

4) Knowshon Marino is a mediocrity...nope, McD drafted him, and anyways he was gonna be the guy who moved us to the next level after years of the plug n' play RBBC we have had here since Portis. Maybe you can blame Hillis, yeah, thats the ticket.

5) The OL sucks...that could work. They mostly aren't McD's guys after all, and their failure can be used to explain the fact that nothing else in this offense really works either. I think its easily the safest most convenient explanation for our collapse this year for a lot of fans. Just claim the plan is fine but that the guys aren't executing it properly. All I can think of is the old saying about good craftsmen blaming their tools.

My own thoughts? All of the above is true. McD, his offensive scheme, Moreno, Orton, and the OL have all failed this year. Thank God for Brandon Marshall, Corell Buckhalter, and our huge improvement in forcing turnovers or we would have scored even less.

NightTrainLayne
12-30-2009, 12:37 PM
Well, a lot of HC's don't know what they are doing Top, so thats a pretty invalid refutation of a case that JDL built calmly, effectively, and rationally. Rich Kotite comes to mind as one HC I might not listen to, Joe Bugel and Marty Morningwheg two others. They may actually be good football guys in their area of expertise but that doesn't translate to some mystical level of knowledge we can't aspire to. In short, you'll have to refute JDL's points on their own merits rather than "argument from authority."

My thinking? The OL is serving as a convenient scapegoat. Something clearly went wrong with the offense this year, and that has mainly gotten worse as the season progressed. While conceding that the OL has not played especially well, lets look at some other options;

1) Its on McDaniels...Nope, that can't be it if you were set against Shanahan, because you might have too much emotionally invested in the idea that this guy will turn us around and that Shanny was somehow "mediocre" anyways. Plus he is going to be coach another year or three anyways, and the idea that he might be a dud is too awful to think about. Best not think it.

2) Its on Orton...Nope, that can't be it, because he is a good guy, and works hard, and if you decided our previous QB was an A-hole (either while he was here or you convinced yourself after he was gone, makes no difference) its personally important that Orton be better.

3) The system is flawed...nope, can't be it unless either McD or Orton aren't as good as hoped for, so this possibility can't be safely considered

4) Knowshon Marino is a mediocrity...nope, McD drafted him, and anyways he was gonna be the guy who moved us to the next level after years of the plug n' play RBBC we have had here since Portis. Maybe you can blame Hillis, yeah, thats the ticket.

5) The OL sucks...that could work. They mostly aren't McD's guys after all, and their failure can be used to explain the fact that nothing else in this offense really works either. I think its easily the safest most convenient explanation for our collapse this year for a lot of fans. Just claim the plan is fine but that the guys aren't executing it properly. All I can think of is the old saying about good craftsmen blaming their tools.

My own thoughts? All of the above is true. McD, his offensive scheme, Moreno, Orton, and the OL have all failed this year. Thank God for Brandon Marshall, Corell Buckhalter, and our huge improvement in forcing turnovers or we would have scored even less.

I certainly think that it's fair to say that all those areas have contributed to the problems on our offense this season.

Let's face it though. Historically, a new coach, with a new coaching scheme = growing pains. Almost any regime change in the history of the NFL has gone through an adjustment period. How many first-year HC's have gone deep into the playoffs?

The 6-0 start was both a blessing and a curse. It was great to have some early success and let the team build some confidence, but as other teams began to figure out our weaknesses we've had a tough time overcoming some of those.

All that being said, in the past three games we've played really well against two top-notch playoff teams who are likely to go deep in the playoffs. .. .and we laid a complete egg against one of the poorer teams in the NFL.

That last-second loss to Philly, and the fact that we were in the game in the fourth quarter at Indianapolis give me a lot of hope going forward.

Our results after the bye don't show it, but I think this team is actually getting better when you account for some of the injuries we've had.

If Orton doesn't get hurt, we win at Washington.

If Harris doesn't get hurt along with Weigman and Hamilton seemingly disappearing we probably beat up Oakland again. We rushed for over 200 yards against Oakland early in the season when everyone was healthy. . .couldn't run at all at home against them missing Harris, and with Hochstein taking over for Hamilton who was playing horribly before being taken out.

This team is learning how to win, and what it takes to complete a full season in the NFL, while learning a completely new system, of which several of the players on both sides of the ball (but especially some on the O-line) are not a great fit for.

Logically, there's a reason the Chiefs let Weigman go. There's a reason Hamilton won't find work again in the NFL outside of a team that runs a ZBS, and probably at this point only as a back-up.

Polumbus is simply a back-up, and not a great one at that. Since Harris has been out Polumbus and Kuper have simply not been able to beat any defense at the point of attack. I think Kuper is fine, but not when sandwiched between two other marginal players. .. probably not many guards would be good in that situation.

Put those problems together with new coach, new system, new QB, new RB and you've got a recipe for lackluster or inconsistent offensive results.

This team will be better next year, both offensively and defensively as McD is able to get more players that "fit" what he wants to do, and as those who already fit become more comfortable with what's expected of them.

Superchop 7
12-30-2009, 12:39 PM
A couple of things.......

I would rather build the interior of my o-line than try to find tackles. This should not be difficult to fix.

I love arguing about Orton, but, for once.....I won't. If you look at his first quarter passing stats, the guy is red hot, this is a QB that should be used in a "pass to set up the run" manner.

If you take a guy like that, raise his cardio conditioning a notch or two, he just might be hot the whole game. I think that when he gets tired, his passes are noticably off the mark. When he is tired, his mechanics get sloppy. When he is tired, he doesn't feel like running for first downs.

So Kyle, ride your bike and swim like a fish.

topscribe
12-30-2009, 01:07 PM
Well, a lot of HC's don't know what they are doing Top, so thats a pretty invalid refutation of a case that JDL built calmly, effectively, and rationally. Rich Kotite comes to mind as one HC I might not listen to, Joe Bugel and Marty Morningwheg two others. They may actually be good football guys in their area of expertise but that doesn't translate to some mystical level of knowledge we can't aspire to. In short, you'll have to refute JDL's points on their own merits rather than "argument from authority."

My thinking? The OL is serving as a convenient scapegoat. Something clearly went wrong with the offense this year, and that has mainly gotten worse as the season progressed. While conceding that the OL has not played especially well, lets look at some other options;

1) Its on McDaniels...Nope, that can't be it if you were set against Shanahan, because you might have too much emotionally invested in the idea that this guy will turn us around and that Shanny was somehow "mediocre" anyways. Plus he is going to be coach another year or three anyways, and the idea that he might be a dud is too awful to think about. Best not think it.

2) Its on Orton...Nope, that can't be it, because he is a good guy, and works hard, and if you decided our previous QB was an A-hole (either while he was here or you convinced yourself after he was gone, makes no difference) its personally important that Orton be better.

3) The system is flawed...nope, can't be it unless either McD or Orton aren't as good as hoped for, so this possibility can't be safely considered

4) Knowshon Marino is a mediocrity...nope, McD drafted him, and anyways he was gonna be the guy who moved us to the next level after years of the plug n' play RBBC we have had here since Portis. Maybe you can blame Hillis, yeah, thats the ticket.

5) The OL sucks...that could work. They mostly aren't McD's guys after all, and their failure can be used to explain the fact that nothing else in this offense really works either. I think its easily the safest most convenient explanation for our collapse this year for a lot of fans. Just claim the plan is fine but that the guys aren't executing it properly. All I can think of is the old saying about good craftsmen blaming their tools.

My own thoughts? All of the above is true. McD, his offensive scheme, Moreno, Orton, and the OL have all failed this year. Thank God for Brandon Marshall, Corell Buckhalter, and our huge improvement in forcing turnovers or we would have scored even less.

I love ya to death, Dread, but your entire comment is invalid and flawed. To
say that McDaniels and Orton have failed is to ignore their accomplishments.
You cannot deny this is a better team than last year. Perhaps their record
will be a little better, or the same, at worst. But there is an element present
that did not exist at the end of last year.

Hope.

Moreover, when most everybody had the Broncos winning no more than four
or five games -- and some even had them at 2-14 -- I don't understand any
reference to any part of the team as "failure" this year. This team has
achieved beyond the expectations of everyone, except for the diehard
optimists.

Your implication that McDaniels doesn't know what he's talking about in
evaluating the performance of a team is absurd. And I can't believe you
called Orton a failure, the way he has performed through two serious injuries
that would have benched most players, in a new system, with other players
who are not only new to him but to the the system and the team itself. (It's
no wonder his teammates look upon him as a leader.)

I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but this one is terribly flawed . . .

-----

topscribe
12-30-2009, 01:08 PM
A couple of things.......

I would rather build the interior of my o-line than try to find tackles. This should not be difficult to fix.

I love arguing about Orton, but, for once.....I won't. If you look at his first quarter passing stats, the guy is red hot, this is a QB that should be used in a "pass to set up the run" manner.

If you take a guy like that, raise his cardio conditioning a notch or two, he just might be hot the whole game. I think that when he gets tired, his passes are noticably off the mark. When he is tired, his mechanics get sloppy. When he is tired, he doesn't feel like running for first downs.

So Kyle, ride your bike and swim like a fish.

lol

But you may have a point . . .

-----

Dreadnought
12-30-2009, 01:20 PM
I love ya to death, Dread, but your entire comment is invalid and flawed. To
say that McDaniels and Orton have failed is to ignore their accomplishments.
You cannot deny this is a better team than last year. Perhaps their record
will be a little better, or the same, at worst. But there is an element present
that did not exist at the end of last year.

Hope.

Moreover, when most everybody had the Broncos winning no more than four
or five games -- and some even had them at 2-14 -- I don't understand any
reference to any part of the team as "failure" this year. This team has
achieved beyond the expectations of everyone, except for the diehard
optimists.

Your implication that McDaniels doesn't know what he's talking about in
evaluating the performance of a team is absurd. And I can't believe you
called Orton a failure, the way he has performed through two serious injuries
that would have benched most players, in a new system, with other players
who are not only new to him but to the the system and the team itself.

I have a lot of respect for your opinions, but this one is terribly flawed . . .

-----


Well, the offense is worse than 2008's by quite a large margin, and in every measurable that counts, with the exception of Ints - but even there I'd happily have settled for more Ints this year in exchange for fewer sacks and some more TD's. We shockingly emerged with one of the top defenses in the League this year and yet we need help to get in the playoffs going into week 16. The best we'll be, even given the dramatic improvement on defense, is one game better in record. To me that says our offense is a flat failure. And I expect no improvement next year from this offense, because I don't believe in the entire concept and theory it is based on. So I absolutely refute that this is a better offense, which is what we're talking here. When our superb but elderly DB;s run out of gas it could be ugly, though I do respect Nolan's ability to keep the D on track and adjust.

NightTrainLayne
12-30-2009, 01:38 PM
Well, the offense is worse than 2008's by quite a large margin, and in every measurable that counts, with the exception of Ints - but even there I'd happily have settled for more Ints this year in exchange for fewer sacks and some more TD's. We shockingly emerged with one of the top defenses in the League this year and yet we need help to get in the playoffs going into week 16. The best we'll be, even given the dramatic improvement on defense, is one game better in record. To me that says our offense is a flat failure. And I expect no improvement next year from this offense, because I don't believe in the entire concept and theory it is based on. So I absolutely refute that this is a better offense, which is what we're talking here. When our superb but elderly DB;s run out of gas it could be ugly, though I do respect Nolan's ability to keep the D on track and adjust.

Dread, the entire concept and theory of this offense was behind the single-best offense the NFL has ever seen, with McD calling the shots no less. Brady and Moss make a huge difference, but the concept and theory hasn't looke flawed in New England for the past several years.

elsid13
12-30-2009, 01:42 PM
Dread, the entire concept and theory of this offense was behind the single-best offense the NFL has ever seen, with McD calling the shots no less. Brady and Moss make a huge difference, but the concept and theory hasn't looke flawed in New England for the past several years.

Talent (Moss, Brady) make any system look successful. This "system" isn't anything special or revolutionary. It a ball control offense that use numbers vs colors to describe plays that it. It the players that run the system that make it successful.

topscribe
12-30-2009, 01:55 PM
Well, the offense is worse than 2008's by quite a large margin, and in every measurable that counts, with the exception of Ints - but even there I'd happily have settled for more Ints this year in exchange for fewer sacks and some more TD's. We shockingly emerged with one of the top defenses in the League this year and yet we need help to get in the playoffs going into week 16. The best we'll be, even given the dramatic improvement on defense, is one game better in record. To me that says our offense is a flat failure. And I expect no improvement next year from this offense, because I don't believe in the entire concept and theory it is based on. So I absolutely refute that this is a better offense, which is what we're talking here. When our superb but elderly DB;s run out of gas it could be ugly, though I do respect Nolan's ability to keep the D on track and adjust.

I'm not saying this is a better offense, but a better team in general, and it is
the team that wins or loses games, not just one aspect of it.

Nonetheless, last year's offense had a better line. Wiegmann was playing at
a Pro Bowl level, and Hamilton was still doing a credible job (although he was
the weakest point on the line then, too). And Harris was healthy.

The offense was playing in a familiar scheme everybody knew, and everybody
knew each other. Cutler wasn't playing injured. There are many differences
between this year's offense and last year's, other than the HC's scheme and
the QB.

That being said, the bottom line to an offense is scoring--that is, with other
factors in consideration. Last year's point production averaged 23.12 points a
game. This year's has averaged 20.13 points a game. So last year's was
slightly better.

But there's more to it than that. Last year, Cutler passed for 25 TDs, whereas
Orton is on schedule for 21. For INTs, Cutler passed for 18, whereas Orton is
on schedule for 10.

When you go past superficial impressions and more deeply evaluate the
respective offenses, it becomes apparent that last year's, at the bottom line,
was not all that better, if at all. Except for the respective running games.

-----

Dreadnought
12-30-2009, 01:59 PM
Dread, the entire concept and theory of this offense was behind the single-best offense the NFL has ever seen, with McD calling the shots no less. Brady and Moss make a huge difference, but the concept and theory hasn't looke flawed in New England for the past several years.

Tom Brady. That guy could work in any system. I could revive a 1981 Pro Set offense and win with the guy. Plus, he won his Superbowl rings with mediocre WR's and and a weak running game. He didn't need Moss, Welker or any such. he had Reche-friggin-Caldwell.

Yes, I know I'm stubborn, but I hate seeing 3 WR's on the field at the same time as a normal set offense. I think its a bad system as it guts your running attack and reduces your options. 4 WR's? That should never ever happen.

broken12
12-30-2009, 02:14 PM
ok all you guys are saying we need a qb really, look at the post, its impossible to have a offensive line hold guys up for 4-6 seconds, brady might not be very mobile, but he does know how to move in the pocket buying himself a breif second for some plays to develop down field, thats one of the main problems i see with orton. I do believe orton has the arm strength for a qb, but not enough mobility, and pocket awareness. I dont think we should worry so much about the oline, we do need some upgrade, orton is taking a couple of sacks about every game. his pass avg is about 7 yards, against the eagle it was under five, so maybe some of the problem is he cannot read the defense fast enough on those three step drops! against washington his average was only 10 yards and that was with those two bombs to marshall. statistically orton is good, the problem is that the offense isnt opened up! I really believe that they arent taking enough shots down field thus forcing teams to defend the full field..

topscribe
12-30-2009, 02:20 PM
ok all you guys are saying we need a qb really, look at the post, its impossible to have a offensive line hold guys up for 4-6 seconds, brady might not be very mobile, but he does know how to move in the pocket buying himself a breif second for some plays to develop down field, thats one of the main problems i see with orton. I do believe orton has the arm strength for a qb, but not enough mobility, and pocket awareness.

Get yourself a high ankle sprain and then see how much mobility you have.

It didn't seem Orton was having all those problems in the first half of the season.

-----

broken12
12-30-2009, 02:40 PM
Get yourself a high ankle sprain and then see how much mobility you have.

It didn't seem Orton was having all those problems in the first half of the season.

-----

gee what with the attitude! orton isnt very mobile in the pocket when people are around him, maybe he knows if he gets injured he doesnt have anyone behind him so he just falls over, i dont know whats going through his head. but it does seem to me that he cannot by himself extra time at times to let plays open up. and yes he did have that problem early in the season. only didnt get sacked in two games! he takes a bunch of sacks, in chicago he did and he is averaging about 27 a year and yes he does not get tha ball downfield. so maybe some of it is him and not all the offensive line!

topscribe
12-30-2009, 02:46 PM
gee what with the attitude! orton isnt very mobile in the pocket when people are around him, maybe he knows if he gets injured he doesnt have anyone behind him so he just falls over, i dont know whats going through his head. but it does seem to me that he cannot by himself extra time at times to let plays open up. and yes he did have that problem early in the season. only didnt get sacked in two games! he takes a bunch of sacks, in chicago he did and he is averaging about 27 a year and yes he does not get tha ball downfield. so maybe some of it is him and not all the offensive line!

Attitude? :confused:

-----

elsid13
12-30-2009, 03:38 PM
Get yourself a high ankle sprain and then see how much mobility you have.

It didn't seem Orton was having all those problems in the first half of the season.

-----

Teams didn't have tape of him in this offense either. Once they did (Ravens) they figure out how to stop this team. Denver couldn't adjust and now most likely won't see a playoff game.

topscribe
12-30-2009, 03:52 PM
Teams didn't have tape of him in this offense either. Once they did (Ravens) they figure out how to stop this team. Denver couldn't adjust and now most likely won't see a playoff game.

Nah. They had tapes of Orton all last year, and I'm sure they studied them.

But I'm not sure of what you mean by "stop." In the last 7 games, Orton has
passed for a 62% comp, 1533 yds, 11 TDs and 5 INTs for a 90.7 QBR.

That's hardly "stopped."

-----

elsid13
12-30-2009, 04:00 PM
Nah. They had tapes of Orton all last year, and I'm sure they studied them.

But I'm not sure of what you mean by "stop." In the last 7 games, Orton has
passed for a 62% comp, 1533 yds, 11 TDs and 5 INTs for a 90.7 QBR.

That's hardly "stopped."

-----

They didn't have tape of him in this system. The first part of the year is decided about scheme and game plans the latter part of the is decided by talent.

Stop = 2-7

topscribe
12-30-2009, 05:12 PM
They didn't have tape of him in this system. The first part of the year is decided about scheme and game plans the latter part of the is decided by talent.

Stop = 2-7

Of course they had tape of him, or video recording (if you don't like the figurative
"tape"). If I could access it for most of last year, they most certainly could, but
even more than I could. That's a no-brainer.

2-7 = team (offense, defense, ST, coaching)

-----

NightTrainLayne
12-30-2009, 05:19 PM
Of course they had tape of him, or video recording (if you don't like the figurative
"tape"). If I could access it for most of last year, they most certainly could, but
even more than I could. That's a no-brainer.

2-7 = team (offense, defense, ST, coaching)

-----

Top, he's saying that nobody had tape of Orton IN THIS SYSTEM. Nobody knew exactly how McD would be using him, or really what the whole system we'd be using was. .. e.g. the Wild Horses formation in week 5.

topscribe
12-30-2009, 05:25 PM
Top, he's saying that nobody had tape of Orton IN THIS SYSTEM. Nobody knew exactly how McD would be using him, or really what the whole system we'd be using was. .. e.g. the Wild Horses formation in week 5.

What that would involve, then, would be how to stop this system. Regarding
Orton, they could have learned, and likely did learn, a lot about him personally
from observing his play last year, and they probably had already done that
when they played the Broncos early in the year . . .

-----

spikerman
12-30-2009, 05:59 PM
Champ didn't get chewed up. They didn't even throw Champ's way. They
didn't have to. Bly and his predecessors made sure of that.

And sacks are supposed to come from the LBs in a 3-4.

But I watched Manning carve up the secondary in 2004 and 2005. The pass
rush was fine. But Wayne & co. were constantly wide open.

I, too, want to see an upgrade especially in the line on defense. But that
doesn't mean they didn't try to get people in here. It's just that there wasn't
that much talent available. But they brought in whom they could.

----- Wasn't at least one of those years the "Browncos"? Even Champ can be had with no pressure from the front. I understand that linebackers will have more of an opportunity to get sacks in a 3-4, but you still need three down linemen who can a. hold the point of attack against the run and b. push the pocket against the pass. I don't think Denver has those people and obviously you disagree with me, but I don't think they did enough to address that issue last offseason. Nothing against the guys who are playing now, but imo they would not be starting for a lot of teams. They are solid backups.

I think there was talent available, if the Broncos were willing to pay the price. Maybe instead of trading picks for a reach at DB and for a TE that caught something like 12 total passes in college they could have traded them for established linemen or traded up for Raji. I know Raji didn't set the world on fire, but at least he's a big lineman with a big upside. Anyway, now that he's seen that both lines need work, I'll be curious to see if he addresses them this year.

horsepig
12-30-2009, 06:52 PM
I'm gonna go ahead and say it might have something to do with the fact that he took the league's best runblocking scheme and wrecked it.

That's just a hunch, though.

Best between the 20s, maybe. :confused:

Dreadnought
12-30-2009, 07:22 PM
Best between the 20s, maybe. :confused:

Well, lets see - 2008 we had 15 TD's running, and this year 7 with one game to go. I don't think this is a very strong argument. We are far less effective than we were last year running down in close, and considering that this was one of our team weaknesses last year that is a very bad thing indeed.

Overall this offense is short 13 TD's from last year's team (40 v. 27). That is a pretty bad collapse, and there is no way to pretty that number up. On the bright side, our D has surrendered 26 TD's this year v. 46 by Slowick's 2008 Keystone Kops

topscribe
12-30-2009, 08:39 PM
Wasn't at least one of those years the "Browncos"? Even Champ can be had with no pressure from the front. I understand that linebackers will have more of an opportunity to get sacks in a 3-4, but you still need three down linemen who can a. hold the point of attack against the run and b. push the pocket against the pass. I don't think Denver has those people and obviously you disagree with me, but I don't think they did enough to address that issue last offseason. Nothing against the guys who are playing now, but imo they would not be starting for a lot of teams. They are solid backups.

I think there was talent available, if the Broncos were willing to pay the price. Maybe instead of trading picks for a reach at DB and for a TE that caught something like 12 total passes in college they could have traded them for established linemen or traded up for Raji. I know Raji didn't set the world on fire, but at least he's a big lineman with a big upside. Anyway, now that he's seen that both lines need work, I'll be curious to see if he addresses them this year.

You talk as if the Browncos were totally inept. The defensive line in 2005 was
composed of Gerard Warren, Trevor Pryce, Courtney Brown, and Michael
Myers. The only one who was in the "serviceable" category was Myers. Pryce
and Warren are still terrorizing opponents, and Brown was probably the best
of all of them, but he was forced out of football by bad knees.

The LBs behind them were Al Wilson, D.J. Williams, and Ian Gold (when Gold
was good), considered as one of the best groups in football.

Pressure was the name of the game for that defense.

Now, behind that front seven were Champ, rookie Darrent Williams, Nick
Ferguson, and John Lynch. The nickel back was rookie Dominique Foxworth.
While Champ and Lynch were superstars and Ferguson was serviceable, the
rookies made that defense ripe for the pickin's for the likes of Peyton Manning
and Roethisberger . . . and that is what happened.

Regarding this year, the defense has been pretty good at pressuring the QB,
as their total of 39 sacks so far indicates. I agree the Broncos need another
stud DT or DE, but their pressure has not been bad.

Regarding trading up, whom would you want to give up? McBath? Bruton?
A. Smith? Ayers? That's all defense. That backfield is going to get old soon,
and they need people there. They have some potentially very good ones in
that group. And Michael Lombardi has Ayers tabbed as potentially the best
defensive player in the 2009 draft--and Ayers has really been coming on as
the season has progressed.

But it isn't as if they didn't bring in people. The only players, I believe, that
remained at their positions from last year were Champ and Marcus Thomas--
and Thomas was now in a 3-4 instead of last year's 4-3.

The results have been dramatic. Recently, as you know, they played Indy and
Philly very close--in their houses. Last year, they would have been blown out
there.

One area where I believe this regime has done a wonderful job is in personnel.
You can't bring in absolute studs at every single position. There are 31 other
teams who want players, too. Next year, I rest assured they will have added
more. But for now, this is a better team than I could have wished for . . .

-----

Denver Native (Carol)
12-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Here are all the stats so far for NFL quarterbacks: Kyle has been sacked 27 times; the most - Aaron Rogers 50 times. Obviously, there must be more to a sack than a quarterback being labeled as "not mobile".

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition

Dreadnought
12-30-2009, 10:58 PM
You talk as if the Browncos were totally inept. The defensive line in 2005 was
composed of Gerard Warren, Trevor Pryce, Courtney Brown, and Michael
Myers. The only one who was in the "serviceable" category was Myers. Pryce
and Warren are still terrorizing opponents, and Brown was probably the best
of all of them, but he was forced out of football by bad knees.

The LBs behind them were Al Wilson, D.J. Williams, and Ian Gold (when Gold
was good), considered as one of the best groups in football.

Pressure was the name of the game for that defense.

Now, behind that front seven were Champ, rookie Darrent Williams, Nick
Ferguson, and John Lynch. The nickel back was rookie Dominique Foxworth.
While Champ and Lynch were superstars and Ferguson was serviceable, the
rookies made that defense ripe for the pickin's for the likes of Peyton Manning
and Roethisberger . . . and that is what happened.

Regarding this year, the defense has been pretty good at pressuring the QB,
as their total of 39 sacks so far indicates. I agree the Broncos need another
stud DT or DE, but their pressure has not been bad.

Regarding trading up, whom would you want to give up? McBath? Bruton?
A. Smith? Ayers? That's all defense. That backfield is going to get old soon,
and they need people there. They have some potentially very good ones in
that group. And Michael Lombardi has Ayers tabbed as potentially the best
defensive player in the 2009 draft--and Ayers has really been coming on as
the season has progressed.

But it isn't as if they didn't bring in people. The only players, I believe, that
remained at their positions from last year were Champ and Marcus Thomas--
and Thomas was now in a 3-4 instead of last year's 4-3.

The results have been dramatic. Recently, as you know, they played Indy and
Philly very close--in their houses. Last year, they would have been blown out
there.

One area where I believe this regime has done a wonderful job is in personnel.
You can't bring in absolute studs at every single position. There are 31 other
teams who want players, too. Next year, I rest assured they will have added
more. But for now, this is a better team than I could have wished for . . .

-----

This we can agree on. The Browncos gave us good service, and when Jim Bates flushed those guys it was the beginning of the end for our defense - well, that and Al Wilson his career ended prematurely via injury and father Time finally catching up with John Lynch. That early to mid 2000's defense was a pretty good outfit

MOtorboat
12-30-2009, 11:00 PM
Mods, at what point does this guy get banned for spamming every thread with Cutler talk?

Apparently never.

Anyone who watched that game, or at least paid attention, knows that the offensive line was the reason those screen plays were called in the second half.

pnbronco
12-30-2009, 11:27 PM
This we can agree on. The Browncos gave us good service, and when Jim Bates flushed those guys it was the beginning of the end for our defense - well, that and Al Wilson his career ended prematurely via injury and father Time finally catching up with John Lynch. That early to mid 2000's defense was a pretty good outfit

There were some great guys those years. I was sad that Courtney just couldn't recover. I don't think I will ever stop missing Al, I remembered being so freaked when was carted off the field. He said he was OK, but it did end up being beginning of the end for him. He was the heart and soul of the team and man did it show for many years.

broken12
12-30-2009, 11:28 PM
Apparently never.

Anyone who watched that game, or at least paid attention, knows that the offensive line was the reason those screen plays were called in the second half.

lol, so the reason screen passes are called is to protect the o line from looking bad..gee wth, now why so many runs up the middle then? its not working, maybe so we cannot find out that moreno cant make it to the edge. lol, like they would call screeen plays for that reason! the screens didnt even work< ffs

broken12
12-30-2009, 11:39 PM
look at when rogers was sacked 8 sacks since week ten, and look at how often he gets the ball down field, 16 passes for more than 40 yards, and over 50 for more than twenty, so yea its more than just mobility its that they try and get the ball down field more! orton 8 for over 40 yards and 35 more than 20 yards, the problem is orton getting sacked on a 3 step drop, yeah the line hasnt been that good, but maybe he just not that good at reading the defense initially, it seems like at times he holds the ball long and when he does get it to an open reciever the defense is already reactin to the play making everything short!

topscribe
12-31-2009, 01:33 AM
lol, so the reason screen passes are called is to protect the o line from looking bad..gee wth, now why so many runs up the middle then? its not working, maybe so we cannot find out that moreno cant make it to the edge. lol, like they would call screeen plays for that reason! the screens didnt even work< ffs

No, screen plays are called so some yards can be gained despite a bad job by
the offensive line. They are not called to "Protect the offensive line from looking
bad." That is a particularly stupid assumption. The coach is interested in winning
games, not protecting players from looking bad. wow . . .

But something must have worked. Three TDs and 27 points against a team that
had allowed 27 or more points only three times before the Denver game, two of
them against New Orleans and San Diego, respectively.

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 10:36 AM
No, screen plays are called so some yards can be gained despite a bad job by
the offensive line. They are not called to "Protect the offensive line from looking
bad." That is a particularly stupid assumption. The coach is interested in winning
games, not protecting players from looking bad. wow . . .

But something must have worked. Three TDs and 27 points against a team that
had allowed 27 or more points only three times before the Denver game, two of
them against New Orleans and San Diego, respectively.
-----
if i remember right two td's came off of really short drives when we got the ball in the or really close to the red zone! denvers offense wasnt doing all that great a job that day! oh and it was missouri that said thats why screens were called not me! i think we actually call too many!

topscribe
12-31-2009, 11:48 AM
if i remember right two td's came off of really short drives when we got the ball in the or really close to the red zone! denvers offense wasnt doing all that great a job that day! oh and it was missouri that said thats why screens were called not me! i think we actually call too many!

You can think all you want, but I'm glad you're not making the decisions. The
screens are because of the pass rush. Once they have better pass protection,
you will see fewer screens and more downfield stuff.

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 11:53 AM
You can think all you want, but I'm glad you're not making the decisions. The
screens are because of the pass rush. Once they have better pass protection,
you will see fewer screens and more downfield stuff.

-----

theres no way of telling, i mean until you try to do something consisntantly you dont know if its gonna work, why is it mcd is running the ball up the middle then? it hasnt worked and he keeps doing it! so you are saying the coach is smart enough that he dont go down field because of the pass rush but runs the ball up the middle time and time again despite the failure it has been! :listen:

topscribe
12-31-2009, 11:59 AM
theres no way of telling, i mean until you try to do something consisntantly you dont know if its gonna work, why is it mcd is running the ball up the middle then? it hasnt worked and he keeps doing it! so you are saying the coach is smart enough that he dont go down field because of the pass rush but runs the ball up the middle time and time again despite the failure it has been! :listen:

You keep talking about runs up the middle. I saw off-tackle left, off-tackle
right, sweep left, sweep right, as well as up the A and B gaps. You should
have watched more of the game.

Regarding going down the field, it's that they were not stupid enough to do
that. Had they been trying that, the Eagles might have broken the NFL record
for sacks and interceptions in a game. Let me repeat: to pass the ball downfield,
you...have....to...have....time.

wow :deadhorse:

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 12:08 PM
the reason there is no time and there is so much pass rush is because defenses know that they wont get tested deep! ever since the game vs baltimore teams have studied and realized that denver is a dink and dunk offense, there is no home run threat either! teams are staking the box and making us pay for it! what needs to happen is make defense defend the field! i cannot and dont believe that the offensive line has declined so much from last year to this. we allowed only 12 sacks last year and had a better running game too. to say that we fell off a cliff is not conseveable to me! whats going on is fraidy cat offensive gameplannig by this coach who doesnt want to expose his qb, to critisism.

topscribe
12-31-2009, 12:20 PM
the reason there is no time and there is so much pass rush is because defenses know that they wont get tested deep! ever since the game vs baltimore teams have studied and realized that denver is a dink and dunk offense, there is no home run threat either! teams are staking the box and making us pay for it! what needs to happen is make defense defend the field! i cannot and dont believe that the offensive line has declined so much from last year to this. we allowed only 12 sacks last year and had a better running game too. to say that we fell off a cliff is not conseveable to me! whats going on is fraidy cat offensive gameplannig by this coach who doesnt want to expose his qb, to critisism.

That is because you have not kept up. Let me go over this again: Age has
apparently caught up with Wiegmann and Hamilton, and they are not as
effective as they were even last year. And they are too light. And Hochstein
is a career backup. Harris is out. That leaves two out of the original five. Take
out 60% of any unit, and you will see a dramatic difference.

You have also failed to see the defenses that have been played. Teams have
been playing safeties deep often. The only people who think there is no deep
threat are couch potato fans. I guess you have missed the part where
receivers were double-covered deep on several attempts downfield. How did
the defense get so many players on the field--stacking the box with 8 or 9
and still double-covering downfield?

It's simple math: there are only 11 players there. If they put 8 in the box, only
3 are left to cover downfield. How did they do that? :confused:

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 12:24 PM
That is because you have not kept up. Let me go over this again: Age has
apparently caught up with Wiegmann and Hamilton, and they are not as
effective as they were even last year. And they are too light. And Hochstein
is a career backup. Harris is out. That leaves two out of the original five. Take
out 60% of any unit, and you will see a dramatic difference.

You have also failed to see the defenses that have been played. Teams have
been playing safeties deep often. The only people who think there is no deep
threat are couch potato fans. I guess you have missed the part where
receivers were double-covered deep on several attempts downfield. How did
the defense get so many players on the field--stacking the box with 8 or 9
and still double-covering downfield?

It's simple math: there are only 11 players there. If they put 8 in the box, only
3 are left to cover downfield. How did they do that? :confused:

-----

to go from 12 to about 50 sacks in one year has more to do with the offensive line! and we threw the ball down field twice, both single coverage. the announcers even said that denver needed to try some double moves to get down the field, problem is they never came.

topscribe
12-31-2009, 12:30 PM
to go from 12 to about 50 sacks in one year has more to do with the offensive line! and we threw the ball down field twice, both single coverage. the announcers even said that denver needed to try some double moves to get down the field, problem is they never came.

The throw downfield to Scheffler in this last game was into double-coverage.
But I wasn't talking about just the one game.

And if you lose 60% of your best players, there will be that kind of difference.

BTW, it is not 50 sacks. It is 32 sacks.

-----

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 12:39 PM
to go from 12 to about 50 sacks in one year has more to do with the offensive line! and we threw the ball down field twice, both single coverage. the announcers even said that denver needed to try some double moves to get down the field, problem is they never came.


:glasses::glasses::glasses::glasses::glasses:

DAMN - ONE MORE TIME - 27 SACKS - NOT 50

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition

blamkin86
12-31-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm enjoying this conversation - I've been saying the o line wasn't giving the backs anywhere to run - so it's interesting to see other people saying the same thing, even if that's not entirely agreed upon.

I don't think anyone believes Orton is a deep threat- if the other D-line stops our run, and there's no deep threat- what *should* the coach be calling?

I do think coach should be expecting our o line to open a hole - even to a fault. Simple football 101 - you have to establish the run or you're not getting anywhere - even with Favre at the helm.

It's interesting to see the suggestion of switching BACK to zone blocking - problem is I don't really see that working either.

topscribe
12-31-2009, 01:25 PM
:glasses::glasses::glasses::glasses::glasses:

DAMN - ONE MORE TIME - 27 SACKS - NOT 50

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/stats/byposition

Hmmm . . . guess it is 27. Where'd I get 32? :confused:

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 02:06 PM
Hmmm . . . guess it is 27. Where'd I get 32? :confused:

-----

five of chris simms, sorry i meant to say approaching 40, typo!

topscribe
12-31-2009, 02:08 PM
Okay, because of the persistent "dink and dunk" complaints and exaggerated
claims that Orton won't or can't pass past 10 yards beyond the LOS, I have
located these figures:

Out of 485 pass attempts so far this season, Orton has thrown for 10 yards or
less 288 times, which averages out to 59.4%.

Let's compare these figures now to those of the top 5 QB, so far, in passing
yards. This is the percentage of passes thrown for less than 10 yards:

Peyton Manning: 329/553, 59.5%
Drew Brees: 270/514, 52.6%
Matt Schaub: 343/544, 63.1%
Tom Brady: 336/539, 62.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 299/515, 58.1%


Not much difference, is there?

BTW, here's Jay's stats:

2008: 380/616, 61.7%
2009: 317/519, 61.1%

Just sayin' . . .

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 02:23 PM
go to nfl.com, yeah everyone throws short passes the problem here is no deep balls! orton has 30 passes for +20 and, compare those to the top five they all got over 40 for +20. orton has completed more passes the rivers yet rivers is 800 yards ahead, but only 1.8 yard per attempt, orton only has 164 3rd down passes completed for first downs these three have 200+, (rivers, manning, brady) so for only averaging a yard to 2 less than manning brady and rivers hes 1000 yards back. those thousand come from big plays, thats what orton cannot give us and an offense needs from time to time!

http://www.nfl.com/stats/headtohead?player1=ORT716150&player2=MAN515097&player3=RIV651634&player4=BRA371156&position=quarterback&playerOne=Kyle+Orton&playerTwo=Peyton+Manning&playerThree=Philip+Rivers&playerFour=Tom+Brady

topscribe
12-31-2009, 02:29 PM
go to nfl.com, yeah everyone throws short passes the problem here is no deep balls! orton has 30 passes for +20 and, compare those to the top five they all got over 40 for +20. orton has completed more passes the rivers yet rivers is 800 yards ahead, but only 1.8 yard per attempt, orton only has 164 3rd down passes completed for first downs these three have 200+, (rivers, manning, brady) so for only averaging a yard to 2 less than manning brady and rivers hes 1000 yards back. those thousand come from big plays, thats what orton cannot give us and an offense needs from time to time!

http://www.nfl.com/stats/headtohead?player1=ORT716150&player2=MAN515097&player3=RIV651634&player4=BRA371156&position=quarterback&playerOne=Kyle+Orton&playerTwo=Peyton+Manning&playerThree=Philip+Rivers&playerFour=Tom+Brady

And so now we've gone full circle, and we're right back where we started. Get
better pass protection and receivers getting open, and we'll see more long
balls. :whoknows:

:deadhorse:

-----

broken12
12-31-2009, 02:34 PM
And so now we've gone full circle, and we're right back where we started. Get
better pass protection and receivers getting open, and we'll see more long
balls. :whoknows:

:deadhorse:

-----

ive seen orton fall over from time to time and taking sacks....some people say perfect i say not! its the qb's job to manipulate the pocket buying time for things to open up, no qb can sit in one spot, i dont believe any team has that! if they did why wouldnt they throw more! the problem with orton is he is just too unbalanced! it dont take much for him to go down, balls up when there is little pressure and seems to hold the ball too long!:shocked:

broken12
12-31-2009, 02:42 PM
we are 24th in passes over 20 yds with 35, yet the chargers have 64 and rivers has been sacked 2 times less than orton, so to say the reason we dont go down field more is sacks is wrong, has more to do with the qb not releasing the ball in time! eagles have given up 34 sacks yet have the most +40 passes so has that stopped them from going down field....no! MY feeling is that orton either doesnt know how to read the defense fast enough or maybe not given the freedom to test and go downfield, not sure there, we are getting sacked as much as other teams yet we dont test teams downfield!

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASS ING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_SACKED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

spikerman
12-31-2009, 02:54 PM
You talk as if the Browncos were totally inept. The defensive line in 2005 was
composed of Gerard Warren, Trevor Pryce, Courtney Brown, and Michael
Myers. The only one who was in the "serviceable" category was Myers. Pryce
and Warren are still terrorizing opponents, and Brown was probably the best
of all of them, but he was forced out of football by bad knees. Trevor Pryce was the only one of those guys who was able to consistently control his gap/rush the passer. I'm not saying they weren't "ok", but they were not a dominant line. Denver always seems to try to do things "on the cheap" when it comes to the DL. Shanahan did it and McDaniels is doing the same thing.


The LBs behind them were Al Wilson, D.J. Williams, and Ian Gold (when Gold
was good), considered as one of the best groups in football. Agreed. I thought the linebackers were the strength of the defense.



Pressure was the name of the game for that defense. If I remember correctly it was early on, but either by design or adjustment by opposing offenses the Broncos tailed off on applying pressure.



Now, behind that front seven were Champ, rookie Darrent Williams, Nick
Ferguson, and John Lynch. The nickel back was rookie Dominique Foxworth.
While Champ and Lynch were superstars and Ferguson was serviceable, the
rookies made that defense ripe for the pickin's for the likes of Peyton Manning
and Roethisberger . . . and that is what happened. Not just the rookies, but Lynch (agree he was a superstar) and Ferguson were both liabilities in coverage. So basically (although we disagree) Denver had an average to below average line trying to control the front for a secondary that couldn't cover (except for Bailey). That leads to blowouts against quarterbacks like Peyton Manning.



Regarding this year, the defense has been pretty good at pressuring the QB,
as their total of 39 sacks so far indicates. I agree the Broncos need another
stud DT or DE, but their pressure has not been bad. I just want to see more beef on the line. DT and interior offensive linemen have to be a priority this year.



Regarding trading up, whom would you want to give up? McBath? Bruton?
A. Smith? Ayers? That's all defense. That backfield is going to get old soon,
and they need people there. They have some potentially very good ones in
that group. And Michael Lombardi has Ayers tabbed as potentially the best
defensive player in the 2009 draft--and Ayers has really been coming on as
the season has progressed. If you're asking me who I would give up out of those players for a good or promising DL, pick one. I would give up any of those guys for a defensive lineman who could dominate at the point of attack. Maybe that's just me. I've always believed that if you can control the LoS on both sides of the ball, more often than not, you'll win.



But it isn't as if they didn't bring in people. The only players, I believe, that
remained at their positions from last year were Champ and Marcus Thomas--
and Thomas was now in a 3-4 instead of last year's 4-3.

The results have been dramatic. Recently, as you know, they played Indy and
Philly very close--in their houses. Last year, they would have been blown out
there.

One area where I believe this regime has done a wonderful job is in personnel.
You can't bring in absolute studs at every single position. There are 31 other
teams who want players, too. Next year, I rest assured they will have added
more. But for now, this is a better team than I could have wished for . . . Yes, they brought in players, but they almost seemed like an afterthought. They were other teams' backups and undrafted FAs. IMO that's not how you build a dominant front. Especially after the way the team struggled up front last year.

I too am pleasantly surprised at the Broncos' overall record, but that's tempered by the last nine games. In those games, unfortunately they look more like the 3-5 win team that a lot of people (like me) predicted. I'm very happy I was wrong, but their performance over the 2nd half of the season has definitely dampened the optimism I had after the first six games.

topscribe
12-31-2009, 03:51 PM
Trevor Pryce was the only one of those guys who was able to consistently control his gap/rush the passer. I'm not saying they weren't "ok", but they were not a dominant line. Denver always seems to try to do things "on the cheap" when it comes to the DL. Shanahan did it and McDaniels is doing the same thing.

Spike, they controlled the gap wonderfully. That is why they were the #2
team in the league in rushing defense that year. And their 27 sacks that year
weren't earth-shattering, I'll admit, but that wasn't bad, either . . . and you'll
have to admit that many sacks are coverage sacks, so it is possible that some
of the "missing" sacks could be to failures in the secondary.



Not just the rookies, but Lynch (agree he was a superstar) and Ferguson were both liabilities in coverage. So basically (although we disagree) Denver had an average to below average line trying to control the front for a secondary that couldn't cover (except for Bailey). That leads to blowouts against quarterbacks like Peyton Manning.

Almost exactly what I've been attempting to say . . .



I just want to see more beef on the line. DT and interior offensive linemen have to be a priority this year.

:beer:



If you're asking me who I would give up out of those players for a good or promising DL, pick one. I would give up any of those guys for a defensive lineman who could dominate at the point of attack. Maybe that's just me. I've always believed that if you can control the LoS on both sides of the ball, more often than not, you'll win.

Again, agreed. But I don't want a "promising" player at that position. I want a
good one. We already have a "promising" one in Baker . . . and we still don't
know whether he will be "good." We had a couple other "promising" DLs, too:
Moss and Crowder. How did that work out?



Yes, they brought in players, but they almost seemed like an afterthought. They were other teams' backups and undrafted FAs. IMO that's not how you build a dominant front. Especially after the way the team struggled up front last year.

I thought that was the FO's primary activity for quite a while in the offseason.
Trouble is, the team was full of holes, and they had only so many draft
choices, and they were going to be rookies. So McDaniels did what he could:
He brought in veteran help. And just about everyone he brought it meant an
upgrade at that respective position . . . that's not to say he brought in "blue-
chippers"--several of them are due to be replaced, for sure--but it did
upgrade the team.



I too am pleasantly surprised at the Broncos' overall record, but that's tempered by the last nine games. In those games, unfortunately they look more like the 3-5 win team that a lot of people (like me) predicted. I'm very happy I was wrong, but their performance over the 2nd half of the season has definitely dampened the optimism I had after the first six games.

Well, we need to look a little deeper than just the raw W-L record over those
nine games. Sure, Baltimore and Pittsburgh handed the Broncos their helmets.
But they played Indy and Philly blow-for-blow. Oakland was the "trap" game
most of us expected sooner or later. And Denver would have beaten up on
Washington, had Orton not gotten hurt. (He had already passed for 2 TDs and
was cruising along at a 134.7 rating to that point.)

It's interesting that the following game, the debacle against SD, was the only
game Orton's rating dipped below 90--well, it was 89.1 against NYG, but
that's close enough.

The point is, however, the last nine games really have not been as bad as it
appears on the surface, from a performance standpoint as a team. Since SD,
they have not been blown out by anybody, even though they traveled to Indy
and Philly, and they have fashioned 2 blowouts of their own against NYG and
KC.

So we have every reason to be optimistic. Whereas last year's team seemed
to throw in the towel on various occasions, this one has left it all on the field.
And there really aren't that many holes anymore. They do need, as you
suggested, a DL or two, and the same with the OL. And they need depth at
certain positions. But they are much, much further ahead than they were last
year.

Look up ahead, Spike. Don't you see a light up there? :beer:

-----

spikerman
12-31-2009, 03:57 PM
Look up ahead, Spike. Don't you see a light up there? :beer:
-----
I see it. I just hope it's not a train coming the other way. :D

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 04:30 PM
we are 24th in passes over 20 yds with 35, yet the chargers have 64 and rivers has been sacked 2 times less than orton, so to say the reason we dont go down field more is sacks is wrong, has more to do with the qb not releasing the ball in time! eagles have given up 34 sacks yet have the most +40 passes so has that stopped them from going down field....no! MY feeling is that orton either doesnt know how to read the defense fast enough or maybe not given the freedom to test and go downfield, not sure there, we are getting sacked as much as other teams yet we dont test teams downfield!

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASS ING&archive=false&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=PASSING_SACKED&d-447263-n=1&season=2009&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

Are those the yards the pass was in the air, OR is that the pass, catch, run after catch?????? Big difference

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 05:08 PM
I find the following very interesting:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/7_1580_Best_passers_in_history:_Yards_Per_Attempt. html

broken12
12-31-2009, 05:34 PM
Are those the yards the pass was in the air, OR is that the pass, catch, run after catch?????? Big difference

regardless of what they are, bmarsh best yac reciever, we are not getting big plays, the 40+ yards no big deal, its the fact we are way back in the 20+ attempts and completions. i think our recievers are very capable of yac.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 05:41 PM
regardless of what they are, bmarsh best yac reciever, we are not getting big plays, the 40+ yards no big deal, its the fact we are way back in the 20+ attempts and completions. i think our recievers are very capable of yac.

So, in this case then, you are pointing the finger at the WR's? Or, exactly what are you saying? I argued for years that I do not feel Montana is the best quarterback - and WHY - he threw his dink and dunk passes to some of the best receivers EVER, and they are the ones who ran for BIG yards to make the play a BIG GAIN

Also found the following:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/607259.html

The second statistic is much more obscure, as virtually all "longest
pass" records include yards gained after the catch.

Check out the other link I posted: NONE of the 20 quarterbacks have/are averaged over 10 yards per attempt. That is BEFORE the catch/run.

broken12
12-31-2009, 05:44 PM
So, in this case then, you are pointing the finger at the WR's? Or, exactly what are you saying? I argued for years that I do not feel Montana is the best quarterback - and WHY - he threw his dink and dunk passes to some of the best receivers EVER, and they are the ones who ran for BIG yards to make the play a BIG GAIN

Also found the following:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/607259.html

The second statistic is much more obscure, as virtually all "longest
pass" records include yards gained after the catch.

Check out the other link I posted: NONE of the 20 quarterbacks have/are averaged over 10 yards per attempt. That is BEFORE the catch/run.

what i am saying is its not the recievers. we have some good one's and probably one of the best at yac, so its not them. it might be the scheme or the qb, but it is one of those! what defenses are doing to us reminds me of what we use to do to breese when he was with san diego! we are playing marty ball, trying to stay close and win games at the end! aslo what i said we are not stretching the field! its something that has to be done to keep defenses honest, just like running the ball, even if its not working!

bcbronc
12-31-2009, 05:49 PM
You have also failed to see the defenses that have been played. Teams have
been playing safeties deep often. The only people who think there is no deep
threat are couch potato fans. I guess you have missed the part where
receivers were double-covered deep on several attempts downfield. How did
the defense get so many players on the field--stacking the box with 8 or 9
and still double-covering downfield?

It's simple math: there are only 11 players there. If they put 8 in the box, only
3 are left to cover downfield. How did they do that? :confused:

-----

geez, I wonder why DCs haven't taken that strategy and tried it against other teams. I mean if keeping your safeties back means taking away the deep pass, you'd think someone would have tried it by now against Manning or Brees or Rivers or Brady or Rothisaburger etc. Maybe it will be the defence of the future--call it Cover 2 or something.

:coffee:



Okay, because of the persistent "dink and dunk" complaints and exaggerated
claims that Orton won't or can't pass past 10 yards beyond the LOS, I have
located these figures:

Out of 485 pass attempts so far this season, Orton has thrown for 10 yards or
less 288 times, which averages out to 59.4%.

Let's compare these figures now to those of the top 5 QB, so far, in passing
yards. This is the percentage of passes thrown for less than 10 yards:

Peyton Manning: 329/553, 59.5%
Drew Brees: 270/514, 52.6%
Matt Schaub: 343/544, 63.1%
Tom Brady: 336/539, 62.3%
Aaron Rodgers: 299/515, 58.1%


Not much difference, is there?

BTW, here's Jay's stats:

2008: 380/616, 61.7%
2009: 317/519, 61.1%

Just sayin' . . .

-----

where did you get these stats?

according to foxsports http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/kyle-orton/splits/300245 the numbers are:

110 atts behind the LOS
243 atts 1-10 yds

for 353 of 485 attempts less than 10 yards, good for 73%. That's substantially more than the other QBs you referenced. :shrugs:

but even more telling:

2 for 6 on 31-40 yds
1 for 6 on 41+ yds.

In 15 games, Orton has completed 3 of 12 passes over 31 yards.

Brady has completed 6--but tried 34.
Brees has completed 6--but tried 21.
Manning has completed 6--but tried 27.
McNabb has completed 10--but tried 24.
Rivers has completed 11--but tried 35.
Rogers has completed 8--but tried 30.
Roethlisberger has completed 9--but tried 25.

see the pattern. QBs go deep 1-2 times per game on average even if just to keep the defense honest. and please don't say than none of these QBs are playing against deep safeties.

also, before the "sacks" gets brought up, Rogers has nearly double the sacks that orton does, yet 2.5x the deep attempts. Big Ben is second in the league with sacks, yet still tried twice as many deep balls as Orton. McNabb has been sacked more than Orton, and Rivers has hit the ground only 2 fewer times.

so all the excuses (sacks, deep safeties) are somehow overcome by many other QBs in the league. and no doubt playcalling has some impact on these numbers. obviously when a bubble screen is called, there's no deep option. but that doesn't explain why of the QBs I looked at (admittedly all are in a higher class of talent than Orton), Orton is the only one with less than 20 attempts over 30 yards. the fact Orton has less than 1 per game is telling. And while I haven't gone back to look at previous years, I'd wager that both Cassel and Brady tried going deep more than that under McDaniels.

broken12
12-31-2009, 05:53 PM
thank you bc bronc!

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 06:02 PM
Quarterbacks go deep when the OL is blocking, and giving them time to go deep. Quarterbacks go deep when the OL is blocking, and the running game is working, and defenses have to worry about BOTH

Check the stat posted in either this thread or another thread - with Harris - 7 - 1, without Harris 1 - 6. Let's get real - this just can NOT be a coincidence.

With Harris starting at RT (eight games):

Record: 7 - 1

Net Rushing: 1,107 yards on 249 attempts, 4.45 avg.

Offensive points: 184 total, 23.0 per game


Without Harris starting at RT (seven games):

Record: 1 - 6

Net Rushing: 645 yards on 169 attempts, 3.8 avg.

Offensive points: 118 total, 16.86 per game

bcbronc
12-31-2009, 06:03 PM
Quarterbacks go deep when the OL is blocking, and giving them time to go deep. Quarterbacks go deep when the OL is blocking, and the running game is working, and defenses have to worry about BOTH

Check the stat posted in either this thread or another thread - with Harris - 7 - 1, without Harris 1 - 6. Let's get real - this just can NOT be a coincidence.

With Harris starting at RT (eight games):

Record: 7 - 1

Net Rushing: 1,107 yards on 249 attempts, 4.45 avg.

Offensive points: 184 total, 23.0 per game


Without Harris starting at RT (seven games):

Record: 1 - 6

Net Rushing: 645 yards on 169 attempts, 3.8 avg.

Offensive points: 118 total, 16.86 per game

if our team is that dependant on a 2nd year RT, we're in trouble imo.

let's not confuse cause and effect. seems more likely that having half a season of tape to watch contributed to our decline in offense (of course weakend OLINE play contributed).

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 06:08 PM
if our team is that dependant on a 2nd year RT, we're in trouble imo.

let's not confuse cause and effect. seems more likely that having half a season of tape to watch contributed to our decline in offense (of course weakend OLINE play contributed).

You can spin it any way you want, but the stats are there. The Steelers' defense took a major splash in the toilet without Troy Polamalu, so one player can make a difference.

bcbronc
12-31-2009, 06:17 PM
You can spin it any way you want, but the stats are there. The Steelers' defense took a major splash in the toilet without Troy Polamalu, so one player can make a difference.

when that player is Troy Polamalu, for sure. but you should be able to adjust for losing a RT.

we have one of the best blocking TEs in the game. we have a few veteran HBs that are supposed to be able to help with blocking. (if you have a decently mobile QB) the pocket can be moved around. I'm not saying losing Harris should have had no impact--clearly the OLINE struggled when he was out. but I think the predictability of our offense--due to playcalling and talent--had just as much to do with the decline in our numbers.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 06:36 PM
when that player is Troy Polamalu, for sure. but you should be able to adjust for losing a RT.

we have one of the best blocking TEs in the game. we have a few veteran HBs that are supposed to be able to help with blocking. (if you have a decently mobile QB) the pocket can be moved around. I'm not saying losing Harris should have had no impact--clearly the OLINE struggled when he was out. but I think the predictability of our offense--due to playcalling and talent--had just as much to do with the decline in our numbers.

due to playcalling and talent - so, when we were 6 - 0, playcalling and talent were also involved then, or not?

bcbronc
12-31-2009, 07:03 PM
due to playcalling and talent - so, when we were 6 - 0, playcalling and talent were also involved then, or not?

again, how much tape on THIS offense did teams have? perhaps, considering our offseason, teams overlooked us early in the season? maybe we even got a bit lucky during that 6-0 streak (see WK 1).

so yes, losing Harris had an impact. but his loss is NOT the ONLY reason for our post-bye week tailspin, as you are suggesting. if it was--and our coaching staff couldn't game plan a way to minimize the loss of a RT when that loss is apparently the reason we've sucked--then, as I said, we're in a lot of trouble going forward.

Denver Native (Carol)
12-31-2009, 07:13 PM
To each his own - based on how well they either like or dislike the new regime, and some of the new players. Basically, that is what this all boils down to.

bcbronc
12-31-2009, 07:26 PM
To each his own - based on how well they either like or dislike the new regime, and some of the new players. Basically, that is what this all boils down to.

not really. I'm a big fan of McDaniels and really like the direction he's taking this team. but I've been disappointed with his offensive play calling.

I'm also a fan of Orton. he's a scrapper and an easy guy to root for. but that doesn't stop me from seeing his arm allows the defense to shrink the field. I see this as the reason for McDaniel's conservative play-calling (based on how McDaniels has called games in the past).

imo this all boils down to some thinking the world has to be black and white. some posters feel the only way to support Orton or McDaniels is to refuse to acknowledge their limitations (or vice versa).

horsemeat
01-01-2010, 11:09 PM
Funny we never really had a problem with our line before.

Dean
01-02-2010, 12:09 AM
Funny we never really had a problem with our line before.

To be fair, yes, we struggled in short yardage runs for years.

broken12
01-02-2010, 10:43 AM
Make no doubt, if the Broncos miss the playoffs, it's on the offense. Sure, they've had their share of defensive meltdowns and implosions, but they've played well enough on that side of the ball to win a wild card, if not the AFC West. But hey, don't take my word for it. All you need to know is this: The Bronx have allowed 280 points, fewer than five of the eight division leaders, including all four in the NFC. . . .

Two words, Elvis Dumervil: hat trick. It's not every year that a guy has a shot at 20 sacks. . . .

How far have the Raiders and Chiefs fallen? They've combined to score 434 points this season. The Chargers have scored 431. . . .



Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_14108938#ixzz0bTDDF9M4