Thread: Will Peyton Manning Start Another Game in Denver?

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

To me, though, that 4th and 1 was at the heart of the problem as to why Chicago was in it, not a testament to the philosophy.

That 4th and 1 and a pair of 3rd and 1s in the 4th quarter where the play call was essentially a dive damn near lost that game on Sunday. Was it week 1 Manning threw the fade on 4th and 1 to ice the game? Week 3? Whatever week doesn't matter, but sometimes you have to be a lot more aggressive in your play calling on crucial third and fourth downs late in the game with the lead to win the game, rather than survive.

I say that with the full understanding that "no major mistakes" was essentially the philosophy going in to a quarterback's first ever start on the road and that is why the play calls on those short yardage, high-leverage downs was conservative and bland. As Joe pointed out yesterday, the play calling should get more aggressive as Osweiler develops.

We know Manning can do it. He's done it this year. Can he do it when his body is at 75 percent is the question. I would like to see them gamble with Osweiler in a high-leverage, mid-season moment to see if he can too. If he can, then Osweiler is the guy from here on out, IMO, because then you can run the conservative, Kubiak-style offense knowing you have the explosive offense available to you should you need it, without the drama of having to bring in Manning as some sort of closer.

And, yes, before its thrown back at me, this is not the offense I would run in today's football, but I can live with it if it's winning games.

I will never have any issue with a team running the ball on 4th and goal from the 1. I do question why run Ronnie instead of CJ or a QB sneak, but even with prime Peyton I don't mind that call.

Should we mix it up some? Sure, and I'm sure we will the more experience Brock gets. But the way I see it, we were incredibly unlucky to only score 17 in that game. As Brock gets more experience, I see no reason why we won't be consistently scoring over 20 with him.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I will never have any issue with a team running the ball on 4th and goal from the 1. I do question why run Ronnie instead of CJ or a QB sneak, but even with prime Peyton I don't mind that call.

Should we mix it up some? Sure, and I'm sure we will the more experience Brock gets. But the way I see it, we were incredibly unlucky to only score 17 in that game. As Brock gets more experience, I see no reason why we won't be consistently scoring over 20 with him.

For the record, I was much more disappointed in play calls on the 3rd and 1s at midfield in the fourth quarter than the 4th and goal from the 1.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

For the record, I was much more disappointed in play calls on the 3rd and 1s at midfield in the fourth quarter than the 4th and goal from the 1.

Yeah, it definitely was disappointing to see that John Fox seemingly took over for us in the 4th quarter. We can't be that passive, even with a young QB in Brock. I certainly agree that we need to really see what Brock can do in that situation instead of playing it as safely as humanly possible.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Yeah, it definitely was disappointing to see that John Fox seemingly took over for us in the 4th quarter. We can't be that passive, even with a young QB in Brock. I certainly agree that we need to really see what Brock can do in that situation instead of playing it as safely as humanly possible.

My biggest play call annoyance Sunday: Would have liked to see one of the late 3rd and 1s as a bootleg or a waggle instead of a dive and the 2nd and 8 from our own 4 a dive instead of a boot.

In general, I don't think it was bad, just overly conservative.

I don't get why you don't QB sneak on every 4th and 1 when you have a 6'8 QB.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

I don't get why you don't QB sneak on every 4th and 1 when you have a 6'8 QB.

All the slow giant has to do is fall down and he will gain over 1 yard. That's automatic.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I see no reason why we couldn't regularly eclipse 20 points with Brock.

I think the standard has to be a little higher than that, honestly. 20 ppg would put us 27th in the league right now. Most teams can score 20 with any QB. 24 points, for example, would be 11th in the league. That's more like what I would hope for in this scenario.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I will never have any issue with a team running the ball on 4th and goal from the 1. I do question why run Ronnie instead of CJ or a QB sneak, but even with prime Peyton I don't mind that call.

Should we mix it up some? Sure, and I'm sure we will the more experience Brock gets. But the way I see it, we were incredibly unlucky to only score 17 in that game. As Brock gets more experience, I see no reason why we won't be consistently scoring over 20 with him.

I think (hope) that a lot of what we did yesterday was conservative to ease Brock into being comfortable running the offense. They have to open it up a little or at least mix it up. My biggest play call frustration was after the Trevathan INT. We had the ball at the Chicago 25 and we went run, run, run, run, pass (only because it was 3rd and 9) and then the 4th down call. I have no issue with going for it that, but I agree, use JT or CJ or sneak it. Straight up the middle. Even still, the Hillman run would have worked with better execution.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

I think manning will be back in about three weeks, plays one more game, gets "injured" again and goes on IR

I also think Brock lights up the pats next week

If Osweiler lights up the ****Patsies it will be difficult send him back to the bench.

Originally Posted by cmc0605

I understand Peyton has had a bad season, but historically his 30-40+ points/game performances (along with what other elite QBs have done), do not come at the expense of lots of interceptions and gambles. That's why they are elite. Hoping your team pulls through late in the 4th quarter when you have five minutes left and are within 3 points of the other team (week after week) is much more of a gamble IMO, and exhibits larger variance, than having someone who can consistently go out there and shred defenses.

That is what you get in run-first and horizontal passing game systems. It might work out if the D is great and we're clicking on the run game. We might win the superbowl with 17 points. I get that is the goal, but I'm thinking statistically here...I'd still rather have a high-octane offense than one that runs for the sake of running.

Statistically, no one shreds playoff (let alone SB) defenses very often. And just because a game's tight doesn't make it high variance; if the leading team's a GOOD one its solid running won't flip the field for OPPONENTS with turnovers and its solid D won't allow them even FGs very often: The OPPONENT'S forced into high variance play because they trail a solid team that makes them earn every inch and has left the very little time to do it, so they must swing for the fences against a great D. I'll take skill vs. luck every time.

Passing the ball a lot, playing a fast-paced, risk/reward style of play decreases variance because it lengthens the game and gives both teams more possessions; thus, the better team is more likely to win.

Mistakes are more forgivable because you're punting less and scoring more points, so 1 or 2 turnovers won't kill you.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

To me, though, that 4th and 1 was at the heart of the problem as to why Chicago was in it, not a testament to the philosophy.

That 4th and 1 and a pair of 3rd and 1s in the 4th quarter where the play call was essentially a dive damn near lost that game on Sunday. Was it week 1 Manning threw the fade on 4th and 1 to ice the game? Week 3? Whatever week doesn't matter, but sometimes you have to be a lot more aggressive in your play calling on crucial third and fourth downs late in the game with the lead to win the game, rather than survive.

I say that with the full understanding that "no major mistakes" was essentially the philosophy going in to a quarterback's first ever start on the road and that is why the play calls on those short yardage, high-leverage downs was conservative and bland. As Joe pointed out yesterday, the play calling should get more aggressive as Osweiler develops.

We know Manning can do it. He's done it this year. Can he do it when his body is at 75 percent is the question. I would like to see them gamble with Osweiler in a high-leverage, mid-season moment to see if he can too. If he can, then Osweiler is the guy from here on out, IMO, because then you can run the conservative, Kubiak-style offense knowing you have the explosive offense available to you should you need it, without the drama of having to bring in Manning as some sort of closer.

And, yes, before its thrown back at me, this is not the offense I would run in today's football, but I can live with it if it's winning games.

The highlighted part is what I've been saying all along, and you can be sure "having the explosive offense available should you need it" is integra: This is a guy who played under and then coached Elway, after coaching Steve Young in the interim. He just doesn't go for "explosive" at the risk of "exploding" when slow and steady's doing the job's just fine; the problem is, as it has been since Manning got here, our blocking's so awful neither slow and steady running OR explosive passing can work well against good D.

The 4th/3rd and 1s illustrate that: If your line's SO pathetic it has HALF A DOZEN tries to muster enough surge for a SINGLE yard but can't succeed on ANY of them, boots won't work much better. We're caught by the rulebook, because we don't have more than 2-3 blockers and it won't LET us have 8-9 eligible receivers.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

Passing the ball a lot, playing a fast-paced, risk/reward style of play decreases variance because it lengthens the game and gives both teams more possessions; thus, the better team is more likely to win.

Mistakes are more forgivable because you're punting less and scoring more points, so 1 or 2 turnovers won't kill you.

It extends the games by in high variance ways though, so variance increases both per possession and overall. Rolling two dice has TWICE the variance of flipping two coins; rolling three (i.e. an extra possession) TRIPLES the total variance. Meanwhile, all outcomes for each coin are within a standard deviation of the average (because only two exist,) but each die has two outcomes outside a standard deviation of the average.

Also, you're NOT punting less: The NFL rushing average is perennially just over 4 yds (it's been with 0.2 yds of 4.1 all but 5 of the last 68 seasons,) so even if three plays average 25% less than an average teams average, you can still pick up 4th and 1 with 2 yds to spare. The only reason you'll punt less passing is because you'll throw those 1 or 2 turnovers instead: When you DON'T turn it over, the runs will keep moving the chains (at least) as consistently as the passes; they'll just have fewer possessions to do so.

So will your opponents, and when you're FACING a team that has a lot of 3-play 80 yd TD aerial assaults, that's a good thing: Plod down the field 4 yds at a time so you've still got the ball when the gun sounds, and if you're trailing so you NEED that one-play score, THEN put it up and take your chances.

Now the offense is too conservative?

Omg, this season has everything, I have so much to give thanks for.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

I don't get why you don't QB sneak on every 4th and 1 when you have a 6'8 QB.

Works for brady as well. He's almost guaranteed the yard on his sneaks.