Thread: The Denver Broncos Before the "Offensive" Experiment with the Offense

How were the Denver Broncos doing before the "offensive" experiment with the offense?

Many fans looked at the AFCCG loss as time to hit the panic button, and unfortunately, in hindsight, the Broncos coaching staff did the same. We have been talking in the Ryan Torain thread about how (I believe, some don't agree) the Broncos made significant changes in their play calling, formations, etc. (offensive scheme) starting week 1 of 2006.

I thought it would be good to 'remind' all of us exactly what Denver had accomplished prior to the AFCCG loss and for them to realize that the over-reaction and misguided changes (Heimerdinger/Bates - offensive and defensive scheme changes in '06 (offense) and '07 (defense) ruined a pretty good run.

To start out, I thought I would recap how the Broncos ranked during the three years '03, '04 and '05 in some stats, prior to Heimerdinger changing the offensive scheme and play calling in week 1 of '06.

Most wins between '03 - '05

3rd – 11 wins per season (NE & Ind tied for 1st w/ 12.7)

Most playoff appearances '03 - '05

Tied 1st – 3 (tied for 1st w/ Indy, Sea & NE)

Total playoff games, playoff wins, winning %, Super Bowl Appearances and SB Wins '03 - '05

Playoff games: Tied 7th – 4 (NE - 8, Car – 7, Pit/Ind - 6)
Playoff Wins: Tied 7th – 1 (NE - 7, Car/Pit – 5)
Playoff Winning%: 14th – 25% (NE 88%, Pit 83%, Car 71%)
Super Bowl Appearances: N/A (NE – 2, 4 teams tied with 1 appearance)
Super Bowl Wins: N/A – 2 (NE – 3, Pitt -1)

General observations about the three year period '03 - '05

There are 32 teams in the NFL.

Of those:

• Denver is ONE of only FOUR teams to make the playoffs each of the three years
• Denver is one of only 13 teams to win at least one playoff game during those 3 years. Six teams of the 32 had more than one playoff win over the three year period.
• Denver is ONE of only THREE teams in the NFL to have 33 or more regular season wins in the three years from '03 - '05.

Great thread, Tned.


I get so sick of hearing about the number of playoff wins...


No appreciation for the organization's ability to constantly compete at a high level. That's a rare thing and something to admire. Shanny can rebuild a team and go no worse than 7-9. Damn impressive.

Originally Posted by LordTrychon

Great thread, Tned.


I get so sick of hearing about the number of playoff wins...


No appreciation for the organization's ability to constantly compete at a high level. That's a rare thing and something to admire. Shanny can rebuild a team and go no worse than 7-9. Damn impressive.

Actually he went 6-10 in 1999. You make a great point Tned. The problem is, that Denver was using smoke and mirrors to get to the playoffs and were exposed when they got there. They never had a chance at winning a Super Bowl with those teams. Most may disagree with me on that, but oh well.

I would still rather lose in the playoffs than not get there at all, but sooner or later you still have to fix what doesn't work. In Denver, if you aren't winning the Super Bowl, it isnt working. We can thank Pat Bowlen and Mike Shanahan for that kind of mindset. I for one, am a fan of it.

Originally Posted by Ziggy

Actually he went 6-10 in 1999. You make a great point Tned. The problem is, that Denver was using smoke and mirrors to get to the playoffs and were exposed when they got there. They never had a chance at winning a Super Bowl with those teams. Most may disagree with me on that, but oh well.

I would still rather lose in the playoffs than not get there at all, but sooner or later you still have to fix what doesn't work. In Denver, if you aren't winning the Super Bowl, it isnt working. We can thank Pat Bowlen and Mike Shanahan for that kind of mindset. I for one, am a fan of it.

Touche...

I was merely referring to the current state of the team and my belief that we'll be better next year... fair point though.

This is a good thread. I think there are various instances where we overreacted to something that happened in the playoffs.

Jake Plummer rules

Originally Posted by Ziggy

Actually he went 6-10 in 1999. You make a great point Tned. The problem is, that Denver was using smoke and mirrors to get to the playoffs and were exposed when they got there. They never had a chance at winning a Super Bowl with those teams. Most may disagree with me on that, but oh well.

I would still rather lose in the playoffs than not get there at all, but sooner or later you still have to fix what doesn't work. In Denver, if you aren't winning the Super Bowl, it isnt working. We can thank Pat Bowlen and Mike Shanahan for that kind of mindset. I for one, am a fan of it.

I think most agree with you. Incorrectly, IMO, but most agree. Following the AFCCG win, everyone was talking about how all the other teams now had a bluebrint to beat the Broncos, because Pitt dominated us. Then, the offensive game plan changed from the first snap of week 1, 2006 and that became "proof" for this blueprint that every team in the league had to now beat the Broncos, even though the previous three years they were topped only by NE and Indy in wins.

I think another way to look at it, besides blueprints and smoke/mirrors is matchups. We always matched up well against NE, but horribly against Indy. No surprise, due to their different offenses. Prior to the Bates debacle, we were solid against the run, but didn't matchup well against the Indy's wide open, spread offense. NE, who ran a very good, but less spread, more run/short pass offense, we fared well against.

Pitt, had a dominating defense, especially in '05, and the fact we could not establish the run or passing game against them meant we had not offense, and it was made worse by the fact we couldn't stop Big Ben on 3rd down in that game.

However, the part people fail to realize with the 'blueprint' theory, is there were very few defenses in the league we matched up as badly against as Pitt's dominating 3-4.

Originally Posted by Tned

I think most agree with you. Incorrectly, IMO, but most agree. Following the AFCCG win, everyone was talking about how all the other teams now had a bluebrint to beat the Broncos, because Pitt dominated us. Then, the offensive game plan changed from the first snap of week 1, 2006 and that became "proof" for this blueprint that every team in the league had to now beat the Broncos, even though the previous three years they were topped only by NE and Indy in wins.

I think another way to look at it, besides blueprints and smoke/mirrors is matchups. We always matched up well against NE, but horribly against Indy. No surprise, due to their different offenses. Prior to the Bates debacle, we were solid against the run, but didn't matchup well against the Indy's wide open, spread offense. NE, who ran a very good, but less spread, more run/short pass offense, we fared well against.

Pitt, had a dominating defense, especially in '05, and the fact we could not establish the run or passing game against them meant we had not offense, and it was made worse by the fact we couldn't stop Big Ben on 3rd down in that game.

However, the part people fail to realize with the 'blueprint' theory, is there were very few defenses in the league we matched up as badly against as Pitt's dominating 3-4.

What I took from that Pitt game is that its yet another example of overreacting. We blitzed like crazy that year and it worked until Pittsburgh came up with a plan for it. Not only did we not adjust during the game but the following season we reacted by almost never blitzing. And then on plays where we would blitz Manning, we would send everyone or no one and in doing so, removed any challenge for Manning...he was never pressed to wonder where the blitz was coming from which is the whole problem that exists for him with the 3-4.

Another example of how we overreacted to a loss was when we decided we can get by with any RB and traded for Champ only to eventually realize that its great to have an elite CB but if your next other CBs are scrubs, its hard. So we used a first (Foster), a second (Bell) and a 2nd, and two 3rds in 2005 to find that second corner.

I dont know if anyone has noticed this also but we went from Griese to his polar opposite in Plummer.

Originally Posted by LordTrychon

Great thread, Tned.


I get so sick of hearing about the number of playoff wins...


No appreciation for the organization's ability to constantly compete at a high level. That's a rare thing and something to admire. Shanny can rebuild a team and go no worse than 7-9. Damn impressive.

We do not know IF that is the worse he will do in the rebuild mode..
I suspect that next year will not be that good.

Goodness a year ago if you would have used that term you'd be shouted down, put in locks in the town square and probably stoned for whispering heretic comments..

You can blame the defense for the lost to the Steelers in the AFCCG. We would have beat Seattle had we got past Pittsburgh. The following season, 2006, the Oline was decimated by injuries and Plummer was prematurely benched for a rook and we missed the playoffs because of it.

We had a good run from 03-05, but the team feel apart; have been rebuilding ever since. This season will be the 1st trial run of a broken team(thank Jim Bates) that I think is well on it's way. The O-line looks like it's been addressed and same for the D-line. Henry will be healthy and Cutler will be that much more better. I'm predicting an 11-5 season; can't be any worst than 7-9.

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

You can blame the defense for the lost to the Steelers in the AFCCG. We would have beat Seattle had we got past Pittsburgh. The following season, 2006, the Oline was decimated by injuries and Plummer was prematurely benched for a rook and we missed the playoffs because of it.

We had a good run from 03-05, but the team feel apart; have been rebuilding ever since. This season will be the 1st trial run of a broken team(thank Jim Bates) that I think is well on it's way. The O-line looks like it's been addressed and same for the D-line. Henry will be healthy and Cutler will be that much more better. I'm predicting an 11-5 season; can't be any worst than 7-9.

What in his past gives that statement any credibility? And besides that, its not like he's even THAT great anyway. But in any case, you should really look at his injury history.

Lex, please refer to my signature. Thank You.

I hear Alexander is coming to Denver for a visit. You rather have him?

Excellent points, Tned and Ziggy.

People keep saying how we can't score rushing TDs within the red zone with our OL ... it was only 2005 when we had 25 rushing TDs. We were ranked #2 overall in rushing yardage, and our defense against the run was excellent. Even usually in our worst years, our rushing offense and defense have remained solid.

It's true, though, that we needed to make a change. We weren't going to the Superbowl with those teams. I, like most, over-reacted to Coyer and did not appreciate what he brought to our defense; I only looked at the weaknesses. Getting Bates turned out to be a HUGE step backwards that we're now trying to recover from.

I think instead of the coaching changes, the player changes which we've done, will eventually make this team win the Superbowl. The QB we have now can pass well in the pocket, yet is also excellent on the move ... that should allow for a wide variety of playcalling. We may have gotten the DEs to attack the QB ... well, we surely got one good one. We've upgraded the OL and the DL. We definitely upgraded our players. The only thing 05 has over our team now is dependable RBs; ours seem to always get injured. Maybe their kick return team was also better.

I've liked the makeup of this team since last season; too bad Javon didn't work out, that would've been a deadly. And I still think Henry can be the back we need.

I disagree with the statement that the offense has change, it hasn't. Shanahan still runs his ball control offense around zone block scheme and passing game peppered with crossing patterns and Play Action. Dinger didn't change that, and won't change as long as Shanahan here.

What we have seen is evolution of the offense to go to more 3 WRs and 2 TE sets. That was done to balance out the 3/4 and zone blitz that are through out the league.