Thread: Our Greatest Strength is Our Greatest Weakness

I thought about doing this after the SuperBowl last season.

And then again in the Second half against the Seahawks. I was reminded again in the disater at Foxborough, and yesterday I finally had enough after the debacle in St. Louis. Finally, after reading Dread's post in another thread, I decided to start this thread that has been working in my mind for about nine months. It's finally ready to be born.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I think the problem is structural to this team. We are built to be one dimensional. We are built to take advantage of PMFM's mad skillz. When he has an off day there is no "Plan B". He tends to have off days more often against decent defenses. So, we will continue to pound the beJaysus out of stiffs like the Raiders, but when push comes to shove this offense and this roster can't do much different than operating from a 3WR set out of the gun. When it works, great. Sometimes it doesn't work.

I would never build a team to operate like this. I am old. I prefer a 50/50 balanced offense, with a real FB, TE, 2 WR's. That isn't how Mr. Elway built this roster. He has looked damned smart, too, smarter than me, but maybe this team actually cannot win a SB as configured, and we lost sight of that. We outscored the 2007 Pats and 1998 Vikings last year, two other teams that didn't win a SB

Dread hit the nail on the head imo.

PFM is often lauded as some kind of offensive master-mind, running a complicated, ever-changing offense at the line of scrimmage, tailor-made to defeat the defense.

Well. .. to the extent he is a master-mind, it is based in simplicity. Our offense is simple. Especially compared to other NFL offenses.

Back in the mid-nineties, I used to relish the simplicity of our offense. As Bill Belichick once remarked, Shanahan didn't run a zillion plays, instead he ran the same 6-7 plays out of a zilliion formations, and confused the look, but didn't really run a huge amount of plays.

I loved it because defenses knew exactly what was coming. We didn't have a bunch of secret, trick plays. No, instead we just executed the same simple plays out of myriad formations, and ran over defenses who seemed powerless to stop us... . Even when they knew EXACTLY what was coming.

PFM does much the same. He likes to run a pretty simple offense, but one that prides itself on execution, and players all being on the same page to a very exacting degree.

The result is an offense, that while relatively simple for a defense to figure out, when executed well, is almost indefensible. It stresses the opposing defenses weaknesses. The defense may "know" more or less what PFM wants to do. .. but when executed properly is almost powerless to stop it.

Don't take my word for it:

The Colts’ offense was, structurally at least, among the simplest in the league for the entire time Manning was there. They used only a handful of formations — and almost always lined up Marvin Harrison (and later Pierre Garçon) split wide to the right and Reggie Wayne split wide to the left — ten or so core pass plays and just a couple of core runs. I know that sounds a little silly, especially since we’re constantly told that NFL playbooks are incredibly dense and huge and so on, but the Colts killed people with like fifteen, maybe twenty plays, and they did it for a decade. How? It’s an obvious but true answer to say: with execution. Part of that execution was having great, veteran players who were very good at their jobs. Part of that was having a quarterback who could, because the formations were simple, identify weak spots in the defense and check into the right plays. (The story that Manning was always given “three plays” to choose from on every down was always a bit apocryphal, but he obviously had a lot of freedom and they did use a variety of “check-with-me” concepts where he could change the play at the line.) The way Indianapolis did vary its formations was generally by only moving around the two inside receivers, either two tight-ends, a tight-end and a slot receiver, or, more rarely, two receivers.

- See more at: http://smartfootball.com/offense/pey....0lie4W01.dpuf

Go read that entire article, if you haven't alread. Great stuff there.

But didn't Manning change it all up when he came here, and had to adopt the "Broncos Playbook"? No:

When asked how similar Manning’s current offense is to what he ran in Indianapolis, New England coach Bill Belichick was typically candid. “It’s identical. It looks the same to me.”

The enduring wonder of the Manning-Moore offense was not only its incredible success, but the way that success came about: by running the fewest play concepts of any offense in the league. Despite having one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time under center, the Colts eschewed the conventional wisdom of continually adding volume to their offense in the form of countless formations and shifts.

http://grantland.com/features/how-re...enver-broncos/

There's a whole host of other similar stories. It's All Over Fatman did a similar, and great breakdown a couple years ago.

That's all great. The weakness is the same. When we run into a defense that can put pressure on PFM, and/or alter our timing, it can sometimes go down-hill very fast. And we don't seem to have an answer for that.

All our eggs are in one basket, so to speak, and if a defense can pressure Manning enough, our offense goes up in a dumpster fire.

Much the same as defenses eventually (after a decade or so) started to figure out our zone running scheme, and answer for it, defenses, more and more have figured out how to defeat PFM. They don't always have the personnel to do so, but those that can, can neutralize PFM enough to knock the Broncos off.

Not surprisingly, the teams that are more able to do so, are those that we encounter deep in the playoffs. . . or God forbid in the SuperBowl.

Our Greatest Strength is our Greatest Weakness. I don't know what the answer is, because whatever the answer is, the better it is, the more it likely takes us away from PFM's simple, but effective concepts.

Great write up. Amazing analysis.

It seems, this year at least, coaches have been able to handcuff Peyton, and this write up explains why.

I would also say that this staff is so invested in catering to Peyton that it has removed any aggressiveness this team could have.

Call the play and let Peyton be Peyton.

I meant to have the following rant in the post above, and left it out:

We ran the ball NINE times. NINE ******* TIMES!!!! Are you kidding me? NINE FREAKING TIMES?



I don't care how pass happy the NFL gets, you can't expect to win, or have any semblance of balance running the ball nine times against a good defense.

Originally Posted by SeeingRed

Great write up. Amazing analysis.

It seems, this year at least, coaches have been able to handcuff Peyton, and this write up explains why.

I would also say that this staff is so invested in catering to Peyton that it has removed any aggressiveness this team could have.

Call the play and let Peyton be Peyton.

I think that is exactly what they are doing. This isn't "handcuffing" him, its that the system may have reached its maximum potential. Very very good, but never destined to be great. If that's true then its not a function of "aggressiveness" or "toughness" or "coaching" or any such stuff. The fatal flaw is baked into the cake.

The 1997/98 Broncos were the greatest pure finesse football team I have ever watched, but they were far more versatile on offense than this newer version

I'd take this one step further and say that Manning's physical limitations make our offense a proverbial house of cards.

He can't simply rifle the ball into tight coverage, which makes us very reliant on timing and WR route-running. Nor can he make plays when the pocket breaks down, which puts additional pressure on our o-line... So you've got a one-dimensional offense built around a one-dimensional QB and talented teams have figured out how to shut us down completely.

The issue - as Dread and NTL have alluded to - is that we're not a diverse enough football team to find other ways to win. We can't make in-game adjustments because we only have one style to hang our hat on. Beyond that - Manning has this "old dog" approach where it's his way or the highway... So whereas a younger team might try some new things, we will simply try to run all of our old concepts better... Which - Manning has proven that approach can win a Super Bowl... But we'll need the stars to align and hope to play Rex Grossman in the super bowl.

It's like we have this very clear-cut ceiling where we'll always dominate 90% of the league, but we'll never be better than the top 10%. Through that lens, Jim Irsay doesn't sound as crazy or bitter when he talks about being one and done in seven of 11 playoff years and not winning SBs with Star Wars numbers.

And as Peyton ages, his skills diminish, which is why it seems like we're less effective. Guess we're on this train until it stops.

Originally Posted by Buff

I'd take this one step further and say that Manning's physical limitations make our offense a proverbial house of cards.

He can't simply rifle the ball into tight coverage, which makes us very reliant on timing and WR route-running. Nor can he make plays when the pocket breaks down, which puts additional pressure on our o-line... So you've got a one-dimensional offense built around a one-dimensional QB and talented teams have figured out how to shut us down completely.

The issue - as Dread and NTL have alluded to - is that we're not a diverse enough football team to find other ways to win. We can't make in-game adjustments because we only have one style to hang our hat on. Beyond that - Manning has this "old dog" approach where it's his way or the highway... So whereas a younger team might try some new things, we will simply try to run all of our old concepts better... Which - Manning has proven that approach can win a Super Bowl... But we'll need the stars to align and hope to play Rex Grossman in the super bowl.

It's like we have this very clear-cut ceiling where we'll always dominate 90% of the league, but we'll never be better than the top 10%. Through that lens, Jim Irsay doesn't sound as crazy or bitter when he talks about being one and done in seven of 11 playoff years and not winning SBs with Star Wars numbers.

Good job, Buff!

I guess my question is.......for starters, I agree with your assessment, and with a game like Manning had yesterday, why not give Osweiler a try in these types of games? Perhaps it would be throwing the kid to the wolves, or it could be perceived the BRONCOS are giving up on Manning and it would cause too much friction. It seems like a catch22, but I would like to know what our future looks like that is sitting on the bench.

Originally Posted by Buff

I'd take this one step further and say that Manning's physical limitations make our offense a proverbial house of cards.

He can't simply rifle the ball into tight coverage, which makes us very reliant on timing and WR route-running. Nor can he make plays when the pocket breaks down, which puts additional pressure on our o-line... So you've got a one-dimensional offense built around a one-dimensional QB and talented teams have figured out how to shut us down completely.

The issue - as Dread and NTL have alluded to - is that we're not a diverse enough football team to find other ways to win. We can't make in-game adjustments because we only have one style to hang our hat on. Beyond that - Manning has this "old dog" approach where it's his way or the highway... So whereas a younger team might try some new things, we will simply try to run all of our old concepts better... Which - Manning has proven that approach can win a Super Bowl... But we'll need the stars to align and hope to play Rex Grossman in the super bowl.

It's like we have this very clear-cut ceiling where we'll always dominate 90% of the league, but we'll never be better than the top 10%. Through that lens, Jim Irsay doesn't sound as crazy or bitter when he talks about being one and done in seven of 11 playoff years and not winning SBs with Star Wars numbers.

I've thought for a while that in Theory the way to beat PMFM was to understand how he would see any given defense and how he would then read and react to what he saw. If you could do that you could then in Theory dictate what he would do by what you showed him. If you were able to dictate Manning's audibles and play calling then he became totally predictable and therefore stoppable.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

I've thought for a while that in Theory the way to beat PMFM was to understand how he would see any given defense and how he would then read and react to what he saw. If you could do that you could then in Theory dictate what he would do by what you showed him. If you were able to dictate Manning's audibles and play calling then he became totally predictable and therefore stoppable.

This is what I felt Seattle did to us in the SuperBowl, and again for 3 and a half quarters earlier this season.

I feel like Peyton obliquely admitted as much as well. After the game at Seattle this season, post-game, Peyton said something to the effect that they "finally figured out what Seattle was doing defensively" and they finally moved the ball very well, and scored enough to get us into O.T. Once Peyton realized what Seattle was showing him, and expecting from him in return, he was able to adjust what the Broncos actually did in response.

At the same time, I was pretty upset that it took us the SuperBowl, a Pre-season match, and 3.5 quarters of a regular season match-up to "figure out what they were doing". I'm sure Seattle tweaked their defensive gameplan somewhat, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the key concepts that they won the SuperBowl with were in play in that regular season game, and likely have been picked up by other talented DC's in the league.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

This is what I felt Seattle did to us in the SuperBowl, and again for 3 and a half quarters earlier this season.

I feel like Peyton obliquely admitted as much as well. After the game at Seattle this season, post-game, Peyton said something to the effect that they "finally figured out what Seattle was doing defensively" and they finally moved the ball very well, and scored enough to get us into O.T. Once Peyton realized what Seattle was showing him, and expecting from him in return, he was able to adjust what the Broncos actually did in response.

At the same time, I was pretty upset that it took us the SuperBowl, a Pre-season match, and 3.5 quarters of a regular season match-up to "figure out what they were doing". I'm sure Seattle tweaked their defensive gameplan somewhat, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the key concepts that they won the SuperBowl with were in play in that regular season game, and likely have been picked up by other talented DC's in the league.

I should add, that part of the reason I feel this way is that both Seattle players, and New England players, post-game were quoted as saying something very similar to, "We knew exactly what he was going to do," throughout the game. Again, that's not surprising based on Manning's preferred offense, but not only did they know, but they executed better than the Broncos, and I think, to some extent, baited Manning into some mistakes.

The only thing i or we can hope for is they are just saving some shit for the playoffs. Its not likely but god im praying we try something different at some point.

Which is why we need to change it up a little and get away from the shotgun all the time. (That's for MO).

Seriously though, we can change the formations a little without screwing up route trees and having to learn a completely new offense. Simply going under center and using play action more might help slow down the pass rush and also hold the safeties and LBs so our timing offense actually works.

Remember, even though the route trees were extremely similar to what Peyton/Moore ran in Indy, Peyton wasn't in the shogun half as much there as he is now. Remember the old Indy stretch play? They ran that damned thing to perfection so often I got tired of watching them use it. Starts off looking like a stretch run, into either a handoff or play action but it looked the same every time and so you had to respect the run even if they didn't run it. I remember one of the infamous games we played them they ran the same play like 10 times in a row and never actually handed the ball off. Even the announcers commented on how the play action was working without ever establishing the run. You had to respect it.

That's all I'm asking for. I honestly think there are 2 ways to help out an offensive line that's struggling. Play to their strength (run blocking) every O-linemen will tell you they LOVE to run block because they are the aggressors who get to fire off the ball instead of being on their heels. Run blocking and pass blocking are totally different techniques and I think if our guys could go forward instead of always going backward to create a pocket, it would significantly help out the running game.

The other way is to give them some help in pass protection. Someone tell Gase/Manning that it's okay to max protect sometimes. It's okay to have more than just 5 guys in tight. Shotgun or not, keeping a RB (or even better, 2 RBs especially if your RBs are better receivers than your TEs are blockers) in to help/chip then release/pickup the blitz will greatly improve the ability for Manning to get the ball down the field. Right now, I feel like if Manning doesn't have the ball out of his hands in under 2 seconds, it's a sack or hurry/throw away. He's just not getting the time nor are our receivers to actually get open, especially if they're jammed. You should know your matchup problems by the end of the 1st quarter at the latest. If an O-lineman is struggling you can't just ignore it and keep trying the same shit. That's exactly what we did vs NE and again yesterday. If you see the blitz and you don't have enough guys in protection, you can do more than just telling the RB who to block and trying to throw it to the hot receiver - especially when the defense knows exactly who that is and it's 3rd and long. Change the protection to get another blocker. Manning can do this at the LOS. If it means the RB can't flare out for the check down or that the TE must stay in and block, then so damned be it. The defender assigned to the new blocker usually has nothing to do then besides stand there just in case the guy releases so it also takes him out of the coverage scheme.

In short, our O-line is struggling especially against good competition and it's frustrating that we aren't trying to help them out. We can't just shuffle the deck every week and hope it works out and we can't just go grab guys off the street in hopes that they'll be better than the ones we have. So, the only way to band aid this problem is schematically. Just 'ol Jake the Snake and the naked bootleg which both got him throwing on the run (a strength vs the pocket) and cut the field in half to limit the decisions he had for who to throw to, we need to scheme better to help out the O-line.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

I thought about doing this after the SuperBowl last season.

And then again in the Second half against the Seahawks. I was reminded again in the disater at Foxborough, and yesterday I finally had enough after the debacle in St. Louis. Finally, after reading Dread's post in another thread, I decided to start this thread that has been working in my mind for about nine months. It's finally ready to be born.



Dread hit the nail on the head imo.

PFM is often lauded as some kind of offensive master-mind, running a complicated, ever-changing offense at the line of scrimmage, tailor-made to defeat the defense.

Well. .. to the extent he is a master-mind, it is based in simplicity. Our offense is simple. Especially compared to other NFL offenses.

Back in the mid-nineties, I used to relish the simplicity of our offense. As Bill Belichick once remarked, Shanahan didn't run a zillion plays, instead he ran the same 6-7 plays out of a zilliion formations, and confused the look, but didn't really run a huge amount of plays.

I loved it because defenses knew exactly what was coming. We didn't have a bunch of secret, trick plays. No, instead we just executed the same simple plays out of myriad formations, and ran over defenses who seemed powerless to stop us... . Even when they knew EXACTLY what was coming.

PFM does much the same. He likes to run a pretty simple offense, but one that prides itself on execution, and players all being on the same page to a very exacting degree.

The result is an offense, that while relatively simple for a defense to figure out, when executed well, is almost indefensible. It stresses the opposing defenses weaknesses. The defense may "know" more or less what PFM wants to do. .. but when executed properly is almost powerless to stop it.

Don't take my word for it:

- See more at: http://smartfootball.com/offense/pey....0lie4W01.dpuf

Go read that entire article, if you haven't alread. Great stuff there.

But didn't Manning change it all up when he came here, and had to adopt the "Broncos Playbook"? No:



http://grantland.com/features/how-re...enver-broncos/

There's a whole host of other similar stories. It's All Over Fatman did a similar, and great breakdown a couple years ago.

That's all great. The weakness is the same. When we run into a defense that can put pressure on PFM, and/or alter our timing, it can sometimes go down-hill very fast. And we don't seem to have an answer for that.

All our eggs are in one basket, so to speak, and if a defense can pressure Manning enough, our offense goes up in a dumpster fire.

Much the same as defenses eventually (after a decade or so) started to figure out our zone running scheme, and answer for it, defenses, more and more have figured out how to defeat PFM. They don't always have the personnel to do so, but those that can, can neutralize PFM enough to knock the Broncos off.

Not surprisingly, the teams that are more able to do so, are those that we encounter deep in the playoffs. . . or God forbid in the SuperBowl.

Our Greatest Strength is our Greatest Weakness. I don't know what the answer is, because whatever the answer is, the better it is, the more it likely takes us away from PFM's simple, but effective concepts.

I've seen this as well, there was actually a great article written two years ago that drew up every formation and the optional plays for each... In total there were really only 15 plays.

Originally Posted by weazel

I've seen this as well, there was actually a great article written two years ago that drew up every formation and the optional plays for each... In total there were really only 15 plays.

Yes. The first link I posted has a bunch of the Indianapolis/Tom Moore plays. I seem to remember another, either for IAOFM.com or somewhere else, but didn't find it in time to include in this post.

Originally Posted by NightTrainLayne

I meant to have the following rant in the post above, and left it out:

We ran the ball NINE times. NINE ******* TIMES!!!! Are you kidding me? NINE FREAKING TIMES?

I don't care how pass happy the NFL gets, you can't expect to win, or have any semblance of balance running the ball nine times against a good defense.

See? You know EXACTLY what the answer is; anyone who watched Elway get blown out in 3 SBs in his prime as Our Greatest Strength only to win CONSECUTIVE SBs at 37 with a running game to share the load ought to know the answer: One-dimensional teams lose lots of games, because professional defenses are good enough to stop teams that only do ONE thing well.

None of that's on Manning, any more than it was on Elway in the '80s; this isn't the SECAA, where one great player can beat great teams: Vince Young in the 2005 "National" "Championship" game and Vince Young in the NFL achieved radically different results. Sadly, we signed a first ballot HoFer to a team that needed unprecedented luck just to reach .500, then tried to hurriedly assemble a championship team around him before he ran out of gas, and if it doesn't work, homerism and his history will put all the blame squarely on Manning to avoid putting it on the Broncos.

Yet as much as was made of Manning coming to Denver because Elway knew how a first ballot HoFer at the twilight of his career could get over the SB hump, the reality is Manning will do it the same way or no other. It's not his fault Irsay refused to draft a defense, and it's not his fault the team that made a science of the ZBS refuses to draft linemen. Our Greatest Strength in the mid-nineties is Our Greatest Weakness now: We rely on our QBs quick reads and releases to make up for poor pass blocking, and rely on NOTHING to make up for poor run blocking.