Thread: Soft?

We've all talked about the Broncos being "soft" or a "finesse" team, but what exactly does that mean? I've called them that too, but as I think about it, I'm not sure what makes a team soft. These are NFL players so I would imagine that they're all tough enough, but is it an attitude or a physical attribute? Obviously Seattle was playing on a different level than Denver last night, but why is that? How does one group of men seem so much tougher than another group when they're all coming from the same talent pool? Moreover, how do you fix the problem? Last night's team reminded me way too much of the 80s Broncos, who would have been beaten by the other teams' cheerleaders.

I dont know what makes a team soft or hard, but what I saw last night was one team that wanted a championship and another that was just...there. Maybe that's the answer to your question. Hunger. It was obvious from the beginning that Seattle was there to win the title and Denver was there to play another game.

Originally Posted by spikerman

We've all talked about the Broncos being "soft" or a "finesse" team, but what exactly does that mean? I've called them that too, but as I think about it, I'm not sure what makes a team soft. These are NFL players so I would imagine that they're all tough enough, but is it an attitude or a physical attribute? Obviously Seattle was playing on a different level than Denver last night, but why is that? How does one group of men seem so much tougher than another group when they're all coming from the same talent pool? Moreover, how do you fix the problem? Last night's team reminded me way too much of the 80s Broncos, who would have been beaten by the other teams' cheerleaders.

For me, it is the fire, intensity, and God help me for saying it, but swagger. It is about play that just comes out and hits you right in the mouth, is not intimidated, plays physical and pushes your shit in. Seattle layed the wood...Denver layed an egg. Does that come from coaching, a type of player or a group of players feeding off each other, I don't know. Whatever it is, I wish Denver would find it, hire it, sign it, draft it.

I think there is something about the physicallity of this team. Our offense was built on Manning outsmarting everyone and getting the ball to recievers on crossing routes or in places down the field where they could have open catches. Our running game was designed to relieve the passing game, or change of pace, or to take advantage of teams weak against the run. On defense we had spead and a stout DLine to stop the run, but no heavy hitters at LB or S to punish the oposition. These teams remind me of the teams of the 80's where they got exposed against the physical powerhouses in the NFC.

Our teams in the late 90's imposed their will on both defense and offense with a dominant running attack, big physical pass catchers at WR and TE, and LB's and S's that would hit you and were nasty. The way we manhandled the Packers DLine in our 1st SB victory is my happiest moment as a fan, true it wasn't by overpowering them but we played tougher and nastier. Our current team doesn't have that.

Our best bet would be to rebuild the defense to get that big and nasty streak. We have some of the building blocks, but we need the MLB and safties that can bring it and some more pass rush options. We also need a year where these guys aren't hurt all the time.

Originally Posted by BigDaddyBronco

I think there is something about the physicallity of this team. Our offense was built on Manning outsmarting everyone and getting the ball to recievers on crossing routes or in places down the field where they could have open catches. Our running game was designed to relieve the passing game, or change of pace, or to take advantage of teams weak against the run. On defense we had spead and a stout DLine to stop the run, but no heavy hitters at LB or S to punish the oposition. These teams remind me of the teams of the 80's where they got exposed against the physical powerhouses in the NFC.

Our teams in the late 90's imposed their will on both defense and offense with a dominant running attack, big physical pass catchers at WR and TE, and LB's and S's that would hit you and were nasty. The way we manhandled the Packers DLine in our 1st SB victory is my happiest moment as a fan, true it wasn't by overpowering them but we played tougher and nastier. Our current team doesn't have that.

Our best bet would be to rebuild the defense to get that big and nasty streak. We have some of the building blocks, but we need the MLB and safties that can bring it and some more pass rush options. We also need a year where these guys aren't hurt all the time.

Amen!!!!

God damn right we're soft. While Seahawks took our heads off during tackles, we were whiffing arm tackles....AGAIN!

When you have a soft coach you have to have a couple fiery leaders to motivate. We have a soft coach and soft leaders.

Name one individual on this team that has the personality and respect to fire up the rest of the guys when they are down. We don't have a single one - it's one of the reasons we had to have Dawkins come in and talk to the team before they traveled. Our motivation for the game was "we want to help cement Peyton's legacy". That's bullshit. Our motivation should have been to knock the piss out of the guys on the other team.

Bunch of soft spoken vaginas that have a hard time dealing with getting punched in the mouth = SOFT

Originally Posted by BigDaddyBronco

I think there is something about the physicallity of this team. Our offense was built on Manning outsmarting everyone and getting the ball to recievers on crossing routes or in places down the field where they could have open catches. Our running game was designed to relieve the passing game, or change of pace, or to take advantage of teams weak against the run. On defense we had spead and a stout DLine to stop the run, but no heavy hitters at LB or S to punish the oposition. These teams remind me of the teams of the 80's where they got exposed against the physical powerhouses in the NFC.

Our teams in the late 90's imposed their will on both defense and offense with a dominant running attack, big physical pass catchers at WR and TE, and LB's and S's that would hit you and were nasty. The way we manhandled the Packers DLine in our 1st SB victory is my happiest moment as a fan, true it wasn't by overpowering them but we played tougher and nastier. Our current team doesn't have that.

Our best bet would be to rebuild the defense to get that big and nasty streak. We have some of the building blocks, but we need the MLB and safties that can bring it and some more pass rush options. We also need a year where these guys aren't hurt all the time.

How do you suppose they fix that?

Originally Posted by Nomad

How do you suppose they fix that?

That is just luck. WE accomplished a lot with the injuries we had this year. No doubt about that. We had all the pieces in place last year but lost to Balt, that is why that hurt so much. It was kind of a miracle to even make it this far with the defensive issues we had.

Definitions:

Finesse team - when your team looks terrific as long as no one gets in their way. On offense, this means crisp execution and receivers can run their routes exactly as they do in practice, perhaps even those no-contact padless practices. When a physical team takes it to a finesse team (by mugging their receivers to mess up timing, or jamming the LOS, or pressuring the QB) the finesse aspects fall apart. The offensive mechanism is a finely tuned watch - it doesn't work when you drop it in the mud. We are a finesse team, as are the Saints (demolished twice by the Seahawks) and the Bengals, the Texans were a finesse team, the Falcons are... it hasn't gone well for finesse teams recently.

For a finesse team to beat a physical team, they need to be more talented. We were not more talented than Seattle, so we lost. Because we were improperly prepared to play them, we got crushed.

Soft - Being punched in the mouth and crying instead of punching back. I don't mind that Seattle landed the first blow. The first couple blows. But then you swing back. Momentum is a myth. Momentum happens to teams that cannot take getting punched in the mouth, get back up, and pound back on their opponent. This team has a lot of pugilistic skill, and a glass jaw. We look great as long as we're the only ones landing blows.

So IMO we played like BOTH a soft team AND a finesse team. Worst of both worlds in that game. At least in other games this year we did it to ourselves. We came out of the gate like morons but fought back. Our soft losses were to SD and NE. The Indy game we lost because of stupid errors we could not overcome, but we did fight back.

But this team, for this game, played like the worst version of itself, and it seems like it did so because nobody told them it was gonna be a fight. It would be hard. They would have to scrap and claw. This is not a team that likes to scrap and claw. That's gotta change.

~G

I hate to say it, but we need some just dirty/tough/jawing football players. We focus on class and good players as fans. But I am ready for some tone-setting, trash talking, I'm coming to destroy and pillage and I don't give a **** about your PC world type of players.

Originally Posted by Mike

I hate to say it, but we need some just dirty/tough/jawing football players. We focus on class and good players as fans. But I am ready for some tone-setting, trash talking, I'm coming to destroy and pillage and I don't give a **** about your PC world type of players.

So Shannon Sharp (talked a lot, but backed it up on the field), Bill Romonawski (considered dirty) and Steve Atwater (heavy hitter) weren't all that bad

Originally Posted by G_Money

Definitions:

Finesse team - when your team looks terrific as long as no one gets in their way. On offense, this means crisp execution and receivers can run their routes exactly as they do in practice, perhaps even those no-contact padless practices. When a physical team takes it to a finesse team (by mugging their receivers to mess up timing, or jamming the LOS, or pressuring the QB) the finesse aspects fall apart. The offensive mechanism is a finely tuned watch - it doesn't work when you drop it in the mud. We are a finesse team, as are the Saints (demolished twice by the Seahawks) and the Bengals, the Texans were a finesse team, the Falcons are... it hasn't gone well for finesse teams recently.

For a finesse team to beat a physical team, they need to be more talented. We were not more talented than Seattle, so we lost. Because we were improperly prepared to play them, we got crushed.

Soft - Being punched in the mouth and crying instead of punching back. I don't mind that Seattle landed the first blow. The first couple blows. But then you swing back. Momentum is a myth. Momentum happens to teams that cannot take getting punched in the mouth, get back up, and pound back on their opponent. This team has a lot of pugilistic skill, and a glass jaw. We look great as long as we're the only ones landing blows.

So IMO we played like BOTH a soft team AND a finesse team. Worst of both worlds in that game. At least in other games this year we did it to ourselves. We came out of the gate like morons but fought back. Our soft losses were to SD and NE. The Indy game we lost because of stupid errors we could not overcome, but we did fight back.

But this team, for this game, played like the worst version of itself, and it seems like it did so because nobody told them it was gonna be a fight. It would be hard. They would have to scrap and claw. This is not a team that likes to scrap and claw. That's gotta change.

~G

Totally agree.

Originally Posted by Nomad

So Shannon Sharp (talked a lot, but backed it up on the field), Bill Romonawski (considered dirty) and Steve Atwater (heavy hitter) weren't all that bad

Maybe not but i would take them all in a heartbeat right now (in their prime of course)