Thread: Fire Vance Joseph

Originally Posted by gregbroncs

I'll admit they've been better. But to me that just seems like something that good coaches always do. I was just wondering if I missed something.

Don't know. Maybe it was because a score would have tied the game and not won it? If they had scored, the Broncos would have had around 1 minute to try and win and wanted to conserve their timeouts.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

The point is moot. We won the game, unless you were watching something else?

I saw the win, the point is only moot because they won. If they score there then the coaching staff screwed up, it's not my belief that the result excuses the mistake, though it does get it over looked more. .

Originally Posted by gregbroncs

I saw the win, the point is only moot because they won. If they score there then the coaching staff screwed up, it's not my belief that the result excuses the mistake, though it does get it over looked more. .

Well, they did win. We can "if and but" decisions, but the end result is a win.

Originally Posted by gregbroncs

So I'm not a football genius, but is there any reason that VJ didn't use TO's at the end of the game? If they score a TD there then the Broncos should have used TO's to give themselves a chance in regulation to win. Instead they let them run the clock all the way down to try and tie at the end. Am I missing something? I kept wondering why they'd just let them run the time out.

Even if they scored, we still would have a minute and 3 time outs. IMO the time out was just as important as the time on the clock. Buys one extra play and is a little safety net.

If they call a time out there, that basically assumes that they are going to score. By not calling the time out IMO that shows faith in the defense to do their jobs. That faith was justified. Additionally, calling the time out buys the steelers a few minutes to sit back and think over their strategy on how to score on you. Why give them more time to sub out their personal and prepare?

I liked that he didn't call the time out. Shows he trusts his red zone defense (as he should, no matter how many yards we may give up, the red zone D has been good at getting stops).

Originally Posted by Freyaka

Even if they scored, we still would have a minute and 3 time outs. IMO the time out was just as important as the time on the clock. Buys one extra play and is a little safety net.

If they call a time out there, that basically assumes that they are going to score. By not calling the time out IMO that shows faith in the defense to do their jobs. That faith was justified. Additionally, calling the time out buys the steelers a few minutes to sit back and think over their strategy on how to score on you. Why give them more time to sub out their personal and prepare?

I liked that he didn't call the time out. Shows he trusts his red zone defense (as he should, no matter how many yards we may give up, the red zone D has been good at getting stops).

Okay, that's a valid reason, that I hadn't thought of.

Originally Posted by gregbroncs

Okay, that's a valid reason, that I hadn't thought of.

I thought they should have started calling timeouts earlier to preserve more of the clock in case of a tie. Not sure why they didn't.

I don't like the 'faith in the defense' concept personally. Just call the timeout because even a good defense gets beat and the offense needs raw time on the clock to put together a field-goal drive.

I don't think it's a huge deal because the opponent can neutralize your attempt to manage the clock with play selection and pacing, but I think your game-win percentage does go up if you have, e.g., 1 minute on the clock and no timeouts vs. 4 seconds and 3 timeouts with a tie game.

Fortunately it didn't matter.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I thought they should have started calling timeouts earlier to preserve more of the clock in case of a tie. Not sure why they didn't.

I don't like the 'faith in the defense' concept personally. Just call the timeout because even a good defense gets beat and the offense needs raw time on the clock to put together a field-goal drive.

I don't think it's a huge deal because the opponent can neutralize your attempt to manage the clock with play selection and pacing, but I think your game-win percentage does go up if you have, e.g., 1 minute on the clock and no timeouts vs. 4 seconds and 3 timeouts with a tie game.

Fortunately it didn't matter.

Calling timeouts also took pressure off the Steelers though. I don't know, I think that's one of those situations where you're kind of wrong either way.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

My only thought is that taking a TO also gives the Chargers time to prepare for their next play. I believe the Chargers were out of TO's?

I thought the same thing though.

Denver was out of timeouts. Going into the last 2 minutues the Chargers had two timeouts left. Denver got the ball back with 1:51 left in the game.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I thought they should have started calling timeouts earlier to preserve more of the clock in case of a tie. Not sure why they didn't.

I don't like the 'faith in the defense' concept personally. Just call the timeout because even a good defense gets beat and the offense needs raw time on the clock to put together a field-goal drive.

I don't think it's a huge deal because the opponent can neutralize your attempt to manage the clock with play selection and pacing, but I think your game-win percentage does go up if you have, e.g., 1 minute on the clock and no timeouts vs. 4 seconds and 3 timeouts with a tie game.

Fortunately it didn't matter.

A minute and three timeouts is still ample time for any fieldgoal drive though.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I thought they should have started calling timeouts earlier to preserve more of the clock in case of a tie. Not sure why they didn't.

I don't like the 'faith in the defense' concept personally. Just call the timeout because even a good defense gets beat and the offense needs raw time on the clock to put together a field-goal drive.

I don't think it's a huge deal because the opponent can neutralize your attempt to manage the clock with play selection and pacing, but I think your game-win percentage does go up if you have, e.g., 1 minute on the clock and no timeouts vs. 4 seconds and 3 timeouts with a tie game.

Fortunately it didn't matter.

I agree with you. I see his point and It's valid. I still thought they should have used time outs. Oh well it worked out.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

Denver was out of timeouts. Going into the last 2 minutues the Chargers had two timeouts left. Denver got the ball back with 1:51 left in the game.

I believe the Chargers was mentioned on accident. I said Chargers I meant Steelers (I think he did as well), and the Broncos had TO at the end of the Steeler game.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

A minute and three timeouts is still ample time for any fieldgoal drive though.

Yeah, I think they should have kept a minute-ish on the clock. But I can't say for sure so I won't die on this hill.

Originally Posted by Freyaka

A minute and three timeouts is still ample time for any fieldgoal drive though.

Just to clarify, I wasn't worried about it until the clock got below 40 sec. 1 min + 3 TO is enough for 98 yard TD drives.

Originally Posted by BeefStew25

I could make an argument to keep VJ.

The team is showing improvement and playing hard. He has been doing a better job. Its all I can ask

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

The team is showing improvement and playing hard. He has been doing a better job. Its all I can ask

Honestly, that's what got me to start cutting him slack. I still am not a fan of him being here next year, but if we win out, he's earned it even if it's not my first choice.