Thread: Broncos are not same team that lost Super Bowl XLVIII

Originally Posted by tripp

What's alarming is allowing opposing offences to keep drives alive while we jump offside in our own backyard. How are we gonna fair in Seattle?

I just hope its closer than the Atlanta vs TB game last night.

Originally Posted by Northman

No, we are worse.

The talent is better, the coaching is worse.

Originally Posted by tripp

What's alarming is allowing opposing offences to keep drives alive while we jump offside in our own backyard. How are we gonna fair in Seattle?

At least it'll be quiet when the Broncos defense is on the field. If only these professionals had been taught to watch the ball.

yeah, we'll see

Originally Posted by Ziggy

The talent is better, the coaching is worse.

Coaching is bad, but coaching isnt what draws flags every other play.

Originally Posted by Northman

Coaching is bad, but coaching isnt what draws flags every other play.

Yes and no. A year ago I was chastised for saying the team lacked discipline and that blame was on the coaches. Today they still lack discipline and suddenly it's okay to blame the coaches.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Yes and no. A year ago I was chastised for saying the team lacked discipline and that blame was on the coaches. Today they still lack discipline and suddenly it's okay to blame the coaches.

Not only a lack of discipline, but not swarming to the ball. These are things the coaches either enforce or they don't. Ours don't. Watch the Seahawks D. Once the ball is out, the entire D is moving towards it. With the Broncos, only the ones closest to the ball are moving towards it.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Yes and no. A year ago I was chastised for saying the team lacked discipline and that blame was on the coaches. Today they still lack discipline and suddenly it's okay to blame the coaches.

I was right with you last year, but was told then as now my opinion's irrelevant because I wasn't on any of my schools' teams. You can say it—but be prepared to present your resume on demand, Coach.

Originally Posted by Joel

For what it's worth, Seattle was STATISTICALLY weaker vs. the run than the pass last year (then again, that was almost inevitable since they were #1 vs. the pass.) A pass-only offense plays right into their strengths, just one of many reasons I wanted to be run-first in the Super Bowl (it also takes pressure off Manning and makes play-action credible, which it's definitely NOT right now; a pass rush that must respect the run can't just charge the QB every down, and a SS who must be a 4th LB can't just lurk and wait for tipped/hurried passes to pick.)

All that said, our run blocking is, if anything, WORSE than last year, so we'll just have to hope Clark isn't the turnstile at RT that he was at LT in the SB, and Franklin stops Seattles inside pass rush far better than Beadles did (the good news: That's setting the bar pretty low.) The argument "this isn't the same team" falls flat given that MOST of the changes are on a DEFENSE that played amazingly well in the SB only to have the offense continually shoot it in the back, and that offense is largely the same with the notable exception of Cladys return.

The bottom line's the same: When the D knows the offenses playcall, its job is half done because the offense has lost its biggest advantage. As long as we play EVERY down like it's 3rd and long, so will all our opponents, but if we can make them pay with a few delay draws pass rushers will hesitate half a second and defensive backs will glance over their shoulder occasionally, opening up the passing game.

I seriously doubt the Seahawks care at all about Denver's run game. They aren't going to bite on the play-action pass. Monte Ball gaining 10 yards on a draw play is not going to beat them. They are concerned with shutting down Peyton Manning. Denver's game revolves around short passes. That's what substitutes for a running game, and it works. They set the all-time single season record last year.

They didn't make all the changes to their OL just to strengthen the run. For instance, Clark is not a great run blocker. Franklin is better at pure run blocking because he's stronger. But, Clark is a a better pass-blocker and that's what counts. Denver runs only to set up the pass and make play-action passes credible.

We will see if Denver's revamped OL can protect Peyton Manning better than it did in the Super Bowl. That failure was the single biggest reason Denver lost that game. Seattle could get consistent pressure on Manning without blitzing which allowed them to cramp down on the short passing game and jump the underneath routes. Manning didn't have time to throw over the top of them and take advantage of their cheating into the box like he normally would.

The only way to prevent teams from putting 8 guys in the box is not to run the ball! You're just playing to the defense's strength doing that. It's to throw over the top of them for big gains. And that means the OL has to give Manning the time for his receivers to get open down field.

If they can't do that consistently it's going to be just as long a game as the SB. If they can get Manning the time, they can beat Seattle just like Phillip Rivers did.

Originally Posted by Cugel

I seriously doubt the Seahawks care at all about Denver's run game. They aren't going to bite on the play-action pass. Monte Ball gaining 10 yards on a draw play is not going to beat them.

Why the Hell not? It works well enough for Seattle to design their OWN offense around it, and if we're getting 10 yds on every third play it really doesn't matter whether it's through the air or on the ground: The chains keep moving all the way to the end zone EITHER WAY.

Originally Posted by Cugel

They are concerned with shutting down Peyton Manning. Denver's game revolves around short passes. That's what substitutes for a running game, and it works. They set the all-time single season record last year.

And NO FIRST DOWNS TILL THE SECOND QUARTER vs. Seattle, only avoiding a SHUTOUT on the THIRD QUARTERS FINAL PLAY—at a NEUTRAL site. If that's "working," I'd hate to see what DOESN'T work.

Originally Posted by Cugel

They didn't make all the changes to their OL just to strengthen the run. For instance, Clark is not a great run blocker. Franklin is better at pure run blocking because he's stronger. But, Clark is a a better pass-blocker and that's what counts. Denver runs only to set up the pass and make play-action passes credible.

Denver didn't make "all the changes to their OL" PERIOD: Clady's healthy now, so his backups's free to SHUFFLE with Franklin, but 4/5 linemen who started the SB will do the same this week; that's not much change. Franklin sucks at pass blocking because he lacks agility, but his great strength is as much a run-blocking asset as Beadles weakness was a liablity: Hence the move inside, which had almost NOTHING to do with improved pass protection. Running needs strong guards for inside line surge; passing needs agile tackles to deflect speedy edge rushers; that's nothing new.

Originally Posted by Cugel

We will see if Denver's revamped OL can protect Peyton Manning better than it did in the Super Bowl. That failure was the single biggest reason Denver lost that game. Seattle could get consistent pressure on Manning without blitzing which allowed them to cramp down on the short passing game and jump the underneath routes. Manning didn't have time to throw over the top of them and take advantage of their cheating into the box like he normally would.

A team that wants to throw deep must RUN TO ESTABLISH THE PASS; that's nothing new either. A big problem with trying to do that through the air is the short and deep passing game both use the same personnel. Play action and delay draws (flip sides of the same coin) work because they force LBs and safeties to either commit to following the back into the line at the expense of zone-covering third-option receivers, or commit to the receivers at the expense of giving the back a chance to pop through a hole for a big gain. Depending on the playcall, EITHER choice can be fatal.

The short passing game doesn't work like that; teams can drop 6, 7 or even 8 men into coverage with no fear of runners doing ANYTHING.

Originally Posted by Cugel

The only way to prevent teams from putting 8 guys in the box is not to run the ball! You're just playing to the defense's strength doing that. It's to throw over the top of them for big gains. And that means the OL has to give Manning the time for his receivers to get open down field.

That's funny; it's barely been one season since we were talking about how much Manning loves 8 men boxes because it means there's no one deep and he can pass for a lot—just like fans, commentators and coaches have been saying for DECADES: That's Football 101. It's why RUNNING TO ESTABLISH THE PASS works: Because once a safety cheats up into the box there's only one man deep, the corners are on islands one-on-one and the secondary in general's a lot thinner because there are 8 guys stopping those runs that only get 5 or 6 yds/carry, but keep the chains monotonously moving.

Originally Posted by Cugel

If they can't do that consistently it's going to be just as long a game as the SB. If they can get Manning the time, they can beat Seattle just like Phillip Rivers did.

If all we do (successfully, at least) is pass, we'll see a lot more of those 3-man rushes with 2 safeties, 2 CBs, all 3 LBs and even one of the LINEMEN in short coverage. Throwing over their heads requires more than just keeping them in place just behind the LoS: They need to be moving forward, and forcing them to watch the back for outside runs and line plunges slows the pass rush and gives the QB another ½ a second to throw—which is all Peyton Manning needs, but even HE needs THAT much.

One-dimensional offense is death; if the D ALWAYS knows what's coming and need NEVER guess, its job is half done. Same reason defenses love 3rd and long: In Denver, even 1st and 10 is "3rd and long."

Originally Posted by tripp

What's alarming is allowing opposing offences to keep drives alive while we jump offside in our own backyard. How are we gonna fair in Seattle?

Go back and watch the game where those penalties occurred. You'll see that center bobbing his head and doing other crap before he snapped the ball. How the officials didn't see that is beyond me.

Can't really judge a team after 2 games. This team should be judged how we fair in big games with high stakes. That will really tell us whether resilience and mental strength has been developed, or if we are porn to Super Bowl XLVIII style collapses.

Originally Posted by Apollo

Can't really judge a team after 2 games. This team should be judged how we fair in big games with high stakes. That will really tell us whether resilience and mental strength has been developed, or if we are porn to Super Bowl XLVIII style collapses.

Well, the good news is nearly ALL this seasons games are big. The Rams might be pushovers, and the Raiders are always fun (bearing in mind divisional games tend to be tighter since the teams know each other well) but after that the closest thing to a throwaway game is the Jets.

I don't buy the argument KC will fall from an 11-5 team to a 5-11 team in their second season with Reid (they played us close enough last week at Mile High, and the Arrowhead game is almost always a struggle with even the best Denver and worst KC teams.) The Chargers look better than the team that beat us in Denver last year and made it two games into the playoffs before we finished them.

The SB Champs made us look stupid from start to finish on a netural field; now they're at home, know we want payback and have something to prove after last week.

The '9ers are coming off their 3rd straight NFCCG despite sharing a division with Seattle, and know our game may be a SB preview.

Arizona won 10 games last year despite playing 4 against THOSE two teams, and would've made the playoffs in any division but their own.

New England lost the AFCCG to us after coming back from 24-0 to beat us in OT at Foxborough—which is where play them this year.

Miami beat NE in their opener and you KNOW Moreno will have something to prove against us.

Buffalo's undefeated; it's a bit early to say how much that means, but they beat that Miami team and a Bears team that beat SF.

Cincy's undefeated also, and looking to extend their playoff appearances to four straight seasons.

I called our 2012 schedule soft (at least the wins: We only beat 2 of the winning teams on it, and one got more than even in the playoffs) and told KCs critics they were either wrong or our 2012 schedule was ALSO soft (again, count the winning teams we beat: KC, SD and a Philly team that benefited from going 4-2 against a pitiful NFCE.) THIS schedule makes up for that; I can't recall a tougher one.

Originally Posted by Ziggy

The talent is better, the coaching is worse.

Winner winner, chicken dinner. Fox and Del Rio are starting to piss me off.