Thread: Von Miller Was Not The Missing Piece For The Broncos

Von Miller was sorely missed. The Broncos could have definitely used a superior pass rusher many times this season. But was he the answer to the Broncos issues on defense? With him, would it have dramatically changed? It didn't on Sunday night. And it won't for the remainder of the season.

The player with 30 sacks, eight forced fumbles, one interception and a defensive touchdown in his first two years certainly helps things but it doesn't make the Broncos a Super Bowl contender. And on the contrary, Von's absence doesn't make that feat unachievable.

No matter who is rushing the passer...CONTINUE READING

So when is Woody expected back?

Think I'm going to grab his jersey. Great guy and player??? Crazy combination in this NFL.

Originally Posted by GEM

So when is Woody expected back?

Think I'm going to grab his jersey. Great guy and player??? Crazy combination in this NFL.

That's for sure....he's my favorite player on the team. I love that guy....in a mancrush sort of way.

Yea, to be honest i think Woodyard is more of a missing piece than Von is. He didnt change a thing out there.

We are 6-0 without Von. 0-1 with Von.

Not that I dispute Woodyards value, but let's bear in mind the Colts had:

A 1 play, 11 yard TD "drive" after Hollidays fumbled return,
A safety that gave them the ball following the free kick, from whence they got another TD, and
A interception that gave them the ball in FG range.

That's a MINIMUM of 12 gift-wrapped points that aren't our Ds fault, 19 if we count the post-safety TD drive (another started at our 41 when we went three-and-out and got flagged for roughness on the punt.)

Our D even held them to a three-and-out following the interception; that kept us in the game (barely, and not enough,) but Indy still got the FG. Even if we say the 50 yd TD drive after the safety is solely on the D (though that's hard to believe when Indy had 2 Expected Points at the start of the drive, and only needed one or two first downs to get in Vinatieris range,) that means Indy scored exactly as many points at home against Denver as they did at home against Seattle, but no one questions Seattles D; most people feel it's pretty darned good.

Our offense dropped the ball Sunday, literally as well as figuratively—yet our defense played so well we STILL would've won if Holliday hadn't gifted Indy a TD. We held one of the leagues top offenses to three-and-out SEVEN TIMES (though only six show in the drive chart, because Holliday fumbled the punt back to them,) plus forced a fumble two plays into a fourth quarter drive, allowing our anemic offense to score a TD and get us back into the game. How many times has Indy gone three-and-out on half a dozen drives at home this year?

Our D was fine unless someone expected to hold a fine offense <20 points, but anyone who expected that needs more realistic expectations. If either our offense OR STs do their job as well as our D, we win.

Correction: The TD drive from midfield was at EOH, when we threw three straight incompletes and punted to Indy with 1:35 left. That alone was enough to cost us the game, but knowing we gave it to them at midfield makes me slightly less angry at our Ds continued inability to play Prevent.

Originally Posted by Joel

Not that I dispute Woodyards value, but let's bear in mind the Colts had:

A 1 play, 11 yard TD "drive" after Hollidays fumbled return,
A safety that gave them the ball at midfield following the free kick, from whence they got another TD, and
A interception that gave them the ball in FG range.

That's a MINIMUM of 12 gift-wrapped points that aren't our Ds fault, 19 if we count the TD drive starting at midfield (another started at our 41 when we went three-and-out and got flagged for roughness on the punt.)

Our D even held them to a three-and-out following the interception; that kept us in the game (barely, and not enough,) but Indy still got the FG. Even if we say the 50 yd TD drive after the safety is solely on the D (though that's hard to believe when Indy had 2 Expected Points at the start of the drive, and only needed one or two first downs to get in Vinatieris range,) that means Indy scored exactly as many points at home against Denver as they did at home against Seattle, but no one questions Seattles D; most people feel it's pretty darned good.

Our offense dropped the ball Sunday, literally as well as figuratively—yet our defense played so well we STILL would've won if Holliday hadn't gifted Indy a TD. We held one of the leagues top offenses to three-and-out SEVEN TIMES (though only six show in the drive chart, because Holliday fumbled the punt back to them,) plus forced a fumble two plays into a fourth quarter drive, allowing our anemic offense to score a TD and get us back into the game. How many times has Indy gone three-and-out on half a dozen drives at home this year?

Our D was fine unless someone expected to hold a fine offense <20 points, but anyone who expected that needs more realistic expectations. If either our offense OR STs do their job as well as our D, we win.

Yes, Woodyard has been sorely missed, no doubt. But, as you clearly showed,
Denver's defense was competitive against Indy. You take away those "gift
wrapped" points, and we have the defense giving up 21 points - not bad
against a high-powered offense.
.

Sorry, but while Woodyard's absence is troubling, it's nowhere near the loss of Von Miller? Denver's defense was improved against the Colts on the front end, but the biggest area of weakness for them overall is at defensive back. Denver's DB's seem afraid to play the ball, they're too busy worried about penalties and whatnot that they allow easy separation and are playing from behind, when they are aggressive is when the defense forced more three-and-outs. I would love to have Woodyard back, but there was a notable difference without Miller compared to Woodyard, hands down.

And as far as the offensive woes, that can be attributed to the issues on the offensive line. If Denver doesn't get that fixed then Manning is going to be on his back a lot more as we start facing the better pass rushing defenses on our schedule or in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by Lancane

Sorry, but while Woodyard's absence is troubling, it's nowhere near the loss of Von Miller? Denver's defense was improved against the Colts on the front end, but the biggest area of weakness for them overall is at defensive back. Denver's DB's seem afraid to play the ball, they're too busy worried about penalties and whatnot that they allow easy separation and are playing from behind, when they are aggressive is when the defense forced more three-and-outs. I would love to have Woodyard back, but there was a notable difference without Miller compared to Woodyard, hands down.

Cane, I wonder how much of that is the CBs themselves, as opposed to their
having to play zone so much. Those guys are far more suited for man defense.
IMO. While admitting I don't have JDR's football mind, I'm wondering whether
he should rethink his zone schemes . . .
.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Cane, I wonder how much of that is the CBs themselves, as opposed to their
having to play zone so much. Those guys are far more suited for man defense.
IMO. While admitting I don't have JDR's football mind, I'm wondering whether
he should rethink his zone schemes . . .
.

Also, our coverage schemes are much more affective with both Woody and Danny T in the line up. The two of them together can cover a lot of space. There is a noticeable difference in coverages when they're both in the game.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Cane, I wonder how much of that is the CBs themselves, as opposed to their
having to play zone so much. Those guys are far more suited for man defense.
IMO. While admitting I don't have JDR's football mind, I'm wondering whether
he should rethink his zone schemes . . .
.

I think it's three-fold, that Del Rio has become complacent in the nickel scheme while the defensive backs have either become complacent themselves in the scheme or count far too much on the one another during those downs which has likewise led to blown coverages. They seem lethargic in their efforts. DRC is about the only DB that I feel has given more on the field compared to others thus far this season. And there is nothing saying that the nickel should replace a player's aggressiveness either, but Moore who has been solid has lost some of that fire he had earlier which made people account for him, Ihenacho has pretty much become non-relevant on most passing downs and Bailey, well he's been pretty much non-existent having zero passes defended against Indy was quite prevalent in my honest opinion. I hope having Miller back will change some of that, but JDR should consider kicking Bailey inside to the nickel spot or actually moving Bailey to strong safety, while putting Chris Harris in the starting left cornerback position, heck he may even consider moving Webster to strong safety. And I am not saying that they simply need to lay wood on every receiver either, they need to aim at the ball wherever it is thrown or try harder to strip receivers and the ball carriers.

I agree, you need Woodyard back to see improvement in the D because of his leadership. However that was Von's first game back and no matter how hard you train you won't ever be prepared until you play and you start pushing real life people around competitively. Von had a TFL, and a few other decent tackles, nothing to write home about but he'll only get better which in turn will help our secondary.


The good news is, you don't have to win every game to be a SB contender. We just need to make the adjustments now so that we're ready for the post season.

wow, I was flamed so ******* bad when I said this two weeks ago. Too many arrogant ****** on this board

Woodyard is our new Al Wilson. He may not be the most talented player on the D. Von certainly is, but Woody brings the passion and leadership that this D sorely needs. I have a feeling that when we finally see Woody and Von on the field together, this D is going to look completely different.