Thread: Broncos Gameday Thread: Broncos vs Patriots 11/24/13

Originally Posted by jhildebrand

After re-watching a good portion of the game I can tell you their D ends were crashing so hard. One of the easiest adjustments to make would have been burn them with a boot. It was there. I know they tried to screen against it but the boot, with the wind at their back, would have given them a chance to test Talib deep and push the ball down the field.

Collinsworth made the same observation about their ends, repeatedly noting the field was wide open for Peyton to roll out, even run for long gains if he wanted. He never even tried to take advantage of it.

Guys, Del Rio doesn't call hardly any of our offensive plays (twice in as many games the SNF crew quoted him saying he can't call Foxs gameplan) any more than he did last year when we were blaming Fox and McCoy. McCoy's in SD this year and Fox has been in the hospital for a month; they weren't the reason we called the same offensive gameplan as last year. Running to establish the pass has been the NFL rule since at least the '50s, and PFM knows it as well as everyone—it just doesn't work if you CAN'T pass and they can sell it out on stopping the run without fear of getting burned deep.

Originally Posted by jhildebrand

Personally, if people want to question Manning, I think the better thing to question is his happy feet before his arm or performance in cold weather games. Sometimes Manning gets happy feet and feels pressure, and reacts to it, when it isn't there. Last night was a prime example. He was feeling pressure that wasn't there. Was rushing things more than the situations called for and missing plays he rarely does. For example he missed a WIDE OPEN WR for the second week in a row. He simply didn't look that way. He almost never does that. But for two weeks in a row he was rushing through his reads or not going through all of them because he perceived pressure that wasn't there. Another example would be late in the game he rushed a play on 3rd down. He forced a pass when he could have easily ran for a first down. The entire right side of the field was open. IIRC, even Collinsworth was talking about the missed opportunity there. Everytime he gets to patting the ball and bouncing on his feet I get nervous because I haven't seen him stop or calm down once he does. It seems once he is that way it stays with him for the entire game.

That's a good point, though I'm still unsure how much is on Manning. More against NE; last week he completely rushed once of those bubble screens to Demaryius, so badly the receiver barely had time to get close enough to touch the ball, let alone catch it, and that was ALL about fearing the rush. At the time I chalked that up to three strip-sacks in as many games; it's not enough for the line to pass block SOME or even MOST of the time, because there's no way for the QB to know in advance which time someone will blow an assignment.

So when the QB gets his a few times he starts compensating, and that may be the problem, but the pass blocking was generally good Sunday, if not on the level of the KC game, so it's harder to say the line made Manning nervous. He was just off, all night, same as in last years playoff game, and that's a definite concern with more outside playoff games just a couple months away.

Originally Posted by NightTerror218

Part of me is glad they got a tough loss. Get it out of their system now and learn they need to play for 2 full halves and score at half time does not matter against playoff caliber teams.

Yeah, pretty sure you're thinking of the Indy game; perfect season was already ruined before NE, and we'd already had a four turnover game to teach us not to get cocky or sloppy against a good team. After we do it again ANYWAY, when we did the same thing in last years playoffs, there's real reason to ask whether it's a pattern rather than just "luck." The Hidden Game of Football quotes Connie Mack saying, "Luck is the residue of design," but it applies to bad as well as good "luck."

Originally Posted by AGap

yeah, I agree TJR., this one has me doubting, the indy loss, not so much. plus Indy lost to the Cards I saw. It's a crazy league, that's for sure. when I think of contenders though, I think of those that sneak in as wildcards and go all the way like the G-men of last year and the Steelers earlier in the century (o5/06 maybe). Carolina and New Orleans are both primed in that sense, not that they will be wildcards, but what about Arizona?

Actually, either Carolina or NO WILL be a wildcard; they can't both win the same division, and it's very unlikely they don't both finish with 10 wins. They haven't played each other yet, and NO goes to Seattle next week in a potential NFCCG preview, but it's hard to believe NO won't manage to win one and Carolina two of their last 5. It's about as hard to imagine we won't win at least one of our last five (and with just five AFC teams above .500 it's a lot easier to get a wildcard there) but, man, I wish we looked as solid as NO or Carolina. The playoffs are all about peaking at the right time, as we see every year:

Good teams with strong records get wracked with late injuries without the time to bounce back they had in September, or have a few games like our last one that trigger a crisis of confidence, and suddenly their inability to survive past the divisional round is as certain as their trip to the playoffs itself. Then you see teams that looked mediocre-to-bad before Thanksgiving get it together, find ways to beat "better" teams and roll into the playoffs on a winning streak, ready for a deep run that might just go all the way, like those '07 and '11 Giants (the '07 Giants did lose their last game, but hanging with the 16-0 Pats proved they could.)

No one knows the future; all we can do is speculate on current and past performance and experience. But right now we look more like an overated 12-4 pretender than a dangerous 14-2 or 10-6 contender.

Originally Posted by topscribe

I thought the failure to use play-action in the first half was a tactical error.
That was the chance to finish them while they were down, IMO.

Another thing, this game showed how much Julius Thomas has come to mean
to the team. What was the difference between the Pats' and Broncos' passing
games, IMO? Gronkowski was in the game, and JT wasn't.
.

Come now, does anyone really think Manning would've been any more on target with Orange Julius than he was with DT, Welker or Decker? If anything, we should've been throwing to Tamme more; by the end of that game Manning seemed to be locked onto his security blanket, but the Pats unfortunately noticed that, too. Continually missing four rather than three game-changing threats is no improvement.

For the record, ESPN has this update on the injuries to Moreno and DRC: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ot-significant

The headline is "not significant," but when each is separetly promised to be on the practice field "by the end of the week" that doesn't reassure me they'll be on the GAME field by Sunday. And we can't spare them; there's no guarantee a surprise storm won't drop KCs temperatures to something like we saw in NE, but we almost HAVE to win that game: There's no guarantee the Colts St. Louis beat 38-8 will win @Arrowhead so we can take the division by winning our last four; even if they do, if we continue crumbling there's no guarantee we don't lose another game and blow the division ANYWAY.

So...does Manning get yellow stickies in his locker this week?

Originally Posted by Joel

But right now we look more like an overated 12-4 pretender than a dangerous 14-2 or 10-6 contender.

What does this even mean?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

What does this even mean?

Joel, I have to agree with MO here. That was an extremely pessimistic,
unjustified remark. The Broncos looked like a good team who lost to
another good team this last Sunday. They have routinely blown out
all but a couple others. Throw out all the weird events in the game
(and there were a bunch), and the Broncos actually outplayed the
Pats-- which is probably what had Peyton so ticked off about the loss.

There isn't a team in the league who hasn't lost. The Broncos are
playing like one of the best teams in the league. They just ran into
a buzz saw this week. It happens to the best of them.
.

Originally Posted by jhildebrand

After re-watching a good portion of the game I can tell you their D ends were crashing so hard. One of the easiest adjustments to make would have been burn them with a boot. It was there. I know they tried to screen against it but the boot, with the wind at their back, would have given them a chance to test Talib deep and push the ball down the field.

that was brought up by one of the announcers, he said something like this is where a bootleg qb would be valuable, meaning Peyton wasn't that type. would have been worth a shot though for sure. good call!!

Originally Posted by AGap

that was brought up by one of the announcers, he said something like this is where a bootleg qb would be valuable, meaning Peyton wasn't that type. would have been worth a shot though for sure. good call!!

Peyton has been effective with the boot. But not right now, with two bad
ankles. If it weren't for that, they might have tried the boot.
.

Originally Posted by Joel

Collinsworth made the same observation about their ends, repeatedly noting the field was wide open for Peyton to roll out, even run for long gains if he wanted. He never even tried to take advantage of it.

Guys, Del Rio doesn't call hardly any of our offensive plays (twice in as many games the SNF crew quoted him saying he can't call Foxs gameplan) any more than he did last year when we were blaming Fox and McCoy. McCoy's in SD this year and Fox has been in the hospital for a month; they weren't the reason we called the same offensive gameplan as last year. Running to establish the pass has been the NFL rule since at least the '50s, and PFM knows it as well as everyone—it just doesn't work if you CAN'T pass and they can sell it out on stopping the run without fear of getting burned deep.

I turned the sound off the TV. Collinsworth was particularly obnoxious on Sunday night. It was clear he desires a pounding in the fart box by one Tom Brady. But that is for another thread. Even if Manning and his gauze factory ankles couldn't run on an open boot it is still on the coaching staff to take advantage of the situation and exploit it to slow the defense down. Gase easily could have or even Del Rio. If you don't want to run the boot you run a reverse or misdirection. It would have worked at least a couple of times and more importantly it would have slowed down the D! With the speed and or strength this team has at positions on O e.g. Holiday, Caldwell, DT, etc... it would have been no problem. In fact, Holiday got the ball on O not too long ago and had 11 yards in the blink of an eye.

Manning didn't have to make the play. For as cerebral as he is and our coaching staff is said to be, I am surprised that wasn't done.

Originally Posted by topscribe

Joel, I have to agree with MO here. That was an extremely pessimistic,
unjustified remark. The Broncos looked like a good team who lost to
another good team this last Sunday. They have routinely blown out
all but a couple others. Throw out all the weird events in the game
(and there were a bunch), and the Broncos actually outplayed the
Pats-- which is probably what had Peyton so ticked off about the loss.

There isn't a team in the league who hasn't lost. The Broncos are
playing like one of the best teams in the league. They just ran into
a buzz saw this week. It happens to the best of them.
.

Well, at least you understood it even if you strongly disagree; maybe you can EXPLAIN it to MO.

Moreno and Tamme looked good Sunday, and the D looked good except for a disastrous fourth quarter when they were reeling from the loss of their best CB and the offense put their backs to the wall twice. But take away our and NEs 17 turnover pts and their offense still beat ours 17-14.

Even though NE played the whole game without a ton of starters, including a possible HoFer, two Pro Bowlers and an All Pro, all but one of whom were replaced by scrubs, rookies or BOTH. They also started without their #2 CB and lost their #1 in OT because he was playing hurt (like their #3.) They lost their second string RT early and had to go to their third, and Gronk played with three separate injuries in only his second full game all year. Their starting back was healthy, but benched after a first quarter fumble handed us 7 pts.

That's FIVE of their best players who didn't even PLAY, two more who didn't finish and two more who played hurt. Almost HALF their starting line up, and we couldn't hold a 24-0 lead on THAT?! With a pair of Pro Bowl WRs, the best game of Morenos career, a former DRoY, our team sack leader and the best DT we've had since Pryce? Our line pushed their scrub front four around all night and only let them sack PFM once in each half (though the first may have saved a TD and ultimately won the game.) The whole game should've looked like that first quarter!

I'm not mad that we lost, I'm mad about HOW we lost, and what it says about a team that's only got a winning record against two winning teams in as many seasons. We beat Cincy and Baltimore last year, but Baltimore got even when it counted, for many of the same undisciplined reasons we lost last night and @Indy this year. We beat garbage teams, but there won't be any in the playoffs (okay, the #6 seed will be awful, but everyone else is solid.) The only winning team we've beaten this year hasn't beaten ANY.

Games like NE and Indy matter because our schedule's so weak they and KC are the only measure we have of our playoff potential, but we couldn't hold a 24-0 halftime lead on NE when they only fielded HALF A TEAM! It wasn't all Manning; he didn't make Ball fumble, or Woodyard drop the same pick twice, or every receiver but Tamme drop passes they normally catch (though he DID make a LOT of them much harder than a first ballot HoFer should.) He did play terribly, and made terrible playcalls; why doesn't matter.

All the problems are correctable, and we're a very talented team. The REAL problem is that all the same easily correctable problems have been killing us since last year. We believe our own hype, phone in games and/or don't show up until/after the second half. It's not that we aren't playing: It's that we ARE "playing" and our opponents are serious. Mannings narrow and closing window combined with a single elimination tournament leaves no margin for error once the garbage teams we maul are gone.

Can we win @KC next week and all but clinch homefield? Easily, but the way we've played the last two seasons, beating KC ironically doesn't guarantee the #1 seed for the sole reason THIS team is fully capable of believing it DOES, so they blow two games later. Tennessee would be the #6 seed if the playoffs started now, and we host SD the week after that; it's all too plausible that we beat KC next week then choke away BOTH those games and end up the #5 seed ANYWAY.

Can we fix our problems, get our stuff together, win every playoff game and bring home a third Lombardi? Easily, but that it IS so easy yet we haven't DONE it in two years of trying inspires no confidence we will. I could write a book about unprecedented unrealized potential: It's worthless. If we match Sundays score in ALL our remaining games we'll finish 5 pts shy of NEs single season record; Manning needs 3 TDs/game to beat Bradys record and he's only ~100 yds ahead of Brees this season. The only thing we're "on pace for now" is another one-and-done choke.

That's what floors me about people saying, "we needed a loss like this as a wake up call." Maybe, but if so we got it last January at home, and if we needed a reminder (though we certainly shouldn't have after phoning in a home loss against a team we thrashed on the road a month earlier, than watching them win the SB,) the Colts game was it. We've had plenty of wake up calls: It's time to stop hitting the snooze bar, wake the up and STAY up EVERY week. We'll have to in the playoffs.

Originally Posted by AGap

that was brought up by one of the announcers, he said something like this is where a bootleg qb would be valuable, meaning Peyton wasn't that type. would have been worth a shot though for sure. good call!!

You could reverse, misdirection, direct snap, any number of plays that is the equivalent of a boot to slow those ends down. Del Rio didn't adjust. He looked lost. It showed on TV when they panned to him. Luckily Fox will be back this week. While he wont be coaching, make no mistake his presence will help. He will be providing input at every step.

It was cold, on the road in Foxboro where we always suck, just as they usually sucked at mile high. Defense Dominated first half. Second half we should have put them on their heels, but we just tried to control the clock, Del Rio didn't adjust at all and we paid for that, also we stopped putting pressure on Brady allowing him forever to find receivers, which really started to hurt combined with key losses in the secondary. What I find troubling that people forget is New England came back dominated us and were ready to walk out the building with a win, yet we still battled with injuries, on the road in hostile territory and our offense clinched a tie with a great drive and finish then as it got colder and later and more tiring the defense downright stopped Brady during overtime to give Peyton a chance with 2 minutes left. We had the ball coming back to us with 2 minutes to spare in OT, despite the huge momentum change we still were in it and right there. It was a ill fated bounce that really caused that loss. You can point to whatever you want but that game even spotting them 24-0 lead had all the makings of a great AFC championship type battle, that would have gone our way if not for a bad bounce into carter. it happens and personally I feel that game may have helped us, I saw great character in coming back once New England came back. Even most good teams crumble in that scenario, we didn't......It hurt for sure, some things sucked but I attribute this loss if anything to a bad bounce, some poor coaching adjustments after halftime and some ill-timed injuries (DRC) that hurt....

90+ pages. Gotta be a record.

.

Originally Posted by SeeingRed

90+ pages. Gotta be a record.

You must give some credit to Joel's novelettes !!!

.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/...26#post2081326

Blowing a 24-0 halftime lead shows only BAD character. Saying we only lost due to fluke bad luck at the end ignores how a 24-0 game went to OT in the first place. Usually good luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity; bad luck, the opposite. If TOs are luck, it was spread evenly (true luck tends to be:) Why'd they have a decisive 17-14 advantage elsewhere...?

Get over it.