Thread: Hackett Playcalling and Game Management

This is why I don't follow, listen to, or watch any of these clowns. It's just click bait.

I support Hackett 100%. He chose to be here when we had a clown show at QB with Lock/Bridgewater and he's already got the run game/OL figured out.
I'll give him plenty of time to get the red zone issues worked out.

Originally Posted by Helios

This is why I don't follow, listen to, or watch any of these clowns. It's just click bait.

I support Hackett 100%. He chose to be here when we had a clown show at QB with Lock/Bridgewater and he's already got the run game/OL figured out.
I'll give him plenty of time to get the red zone issues worked out.

Agree. The playcalling has been a world better compared to the last few years too. I’ll wait and see on the growing pains before I throw the guy under the bus.

Originally Posted by Eddiemac87

Agree. The playcalling has been a world better compared to the last few years too. I’ll wait and see on the growing pains before I throw the guy under the bus.

The play calling is miles better than previous years. You can see the offense attack inside/outside with run plays when the safeties are playing deeper. From the same personnel looks we go to the outside passing game when the defense shifts to single high safety looks.

Half of the offense is a bunch of backups from RG/RT to all the WRs except Sutton. That's five guys who didn't get reps with Wilson in training camp install from option routes, hand signals, checks, and audibles. How we went from Calvin Anderson starting at RT in camp/preseason to Fleming week 1 is beyond me but at least Fleming is playing really well. I would extend that guy in a heartbeat if he continues to play this well and keep Turner on the bench and we have our RT for the next few years.

So at least the offense has shifted to throwing more to the RBs which makes sense. I mean we had Gordon and Andrew Beck lining up outside as WRs and when we went to guys like Cleveland on rub routes he didn't even pick the defender.

But nah, it must be the coach's fault. Hamler and Jeudy need to get back on the field, especially Jeudy since he actually knows how to run complex/option routes and can work the underneath stuff instead of Sutton having to do it all.

Originally Posted by Helios

This is why I don't follow, listen to, or watch any of these clowns. It's just click bait.

I support Hackett 100%. He chose to be here when we had a clown show at QB with Lock/Bridgewater and he's already got the run game/OL figured out.
I'll give him plenty of time to get the red zone issues worked out.

The needle is pointing up for the first time since Manning retired. I'm still excited, it was always going to be a process, we all got our hopes up a bit too high that it would be a short process.

I guess I'm too blase about it. I'm really just not even worried a bit. Yet.

Sorry. Forgot the accent on the e.

"blasè"

I think.

Or is it

"blasé"

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I guess I'm too blase about it. I'm really just not even worried a bit. Yet.

Right there with you. Too many people on the coaching staff in first-time positions, they get the benefit of the rookie doubt IMO. If they still screw all this up in a few more weeks and don't show improvemnt along the way I'll be joining the chorus, not tonight though. There's whiskey to be drunk

On the heels of an over-hyped Denver Broncos offseason, most observers were impressed by the high-energy, hands-on brand of coaching Nathaniel Hackett seemed to be delivering. Under the bright lights of the regular season, however, Hackett has lost much of that offseason luster.

Explaining it away is only more problematic for the Broncos' first-year head coach, especially if Hackett's clock and game management issues continue in Week 3 against the San Francisco 49ers.

Ironing out the kinks of an offense is more about perseverance than panic for Hackett, who insisted on Monday he would continue to call the plays for the Broncos' sputtering offense.

“I think I’ll continue the play calling. I think that’s been pretty efficient up to this point. We’ve done a good job moving the ball. We’ve had a good plan from that standpoint. We just have to finish those drives,” Hackett said. “I think from the game management standpoint, we just have to tighten that whole thing up. A lot of us—we are all working together for the first time, so we just want to be sure we’re more efficient in that and have the ability to make better decisions and quicker decisions.”

rest - https://www.si.com/nfl/broncos/news/...fense-continue

Originally Posted by Buff

If I'm trying to spin this positively, it's hard to imagine a coach having much worse of an opening two games on the game management front and somehow we're 1-1. Hopefully we see some drastic improvement.

Really? We ran the ball with Javonte and Melvin from short goal to go and they fumbled. How is that on Hackett? Its Hackett's fault WR's Pinky toes were out or poor routes were ran on stops short? Hackett is at fault for poor game management and you could make a case he tries to get to cute with play calling at times as he figures it all out, or that he doesn't have this team disciplined enough from a penalty standpoint. However, I wholeheartedly disagree with this red zone take being on Hackett. Execution is a players job plain and simple. Its a process. I think people forget it wasn't all sunshine Peyton's first year either.....I'm much more worried about game management, the penalties and injuries then anything else.

Originally Posted by Davii

Right there with you. Too many people on the coaching staff in first-time positions, they get the benefit of the rookie doubt IMO. If they still screw all this up in a few more weeks and don't show improvemnt along the way I'll be joining the chorus, not tonight though. There's whiskey to be drunk

To me, the big three issues, all of which I attribute to a young (in experience) coaching staff:

Unprepared team (sloppy, penalties, mistakes).
Poor time management
Consistently late getting play calls in to offense.

I'm not one that thinks the play calling has been bad, but instead that getting those calls in late, have them getting up to the LOS with only a few seconds left, meaning Wilson doesn't have time to audible and really checkout the defense. Heck, sometimes he doesn't have time to get the ball snapped.

Part of the sloppy play is likely the decision to not play starters in the preseason, so I expected a few "preseason like" games at the start. I was hoping we could get a sloppy win at Seattle, but obviously not. Now, I say the honeymoon is over on sloppy play, as two games should give the players the equivalent prep as preseason, so the players really need to perform better this week, because the no preaseason excuse is now gone, IMO.

This is a little over the top… but this is the national discourse after two games.

The idea that we only hired an otherwise completely unqualified head coach as Aaron Rodgers bait is just to patently absurd. I usually expect better than that from the Ringer.

Originally Posted by Buff

This is a little over the top… but this is the national discourse after two games.

It's more than a little over the top, it's completely absurd and nothing more than clickbait.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

The idea that we only hired an otherwise completely unqualified head coach as Aaron Rodgers bait is just to patently absurd. I usually expect better than that from the Ringer.

Bill Simmons loves him a hot take -- I'm not sure I expect more from the Ringer. They mostly have like 24 year olds working there these days from what I can tell.

Nevertheless, I think there is at least *some* merit to the idea that this marriage would be a bit cleaner through 2 games if Rodgers would have worked out - that seems like a relatively uncontroversial take given that he was Plan A and they had already been partnering together...

But obviously Paton had a Plan B and was prepared to execute on that, so it's not like this was a surprise to him and he obviously factored it into his decision making -- so he's clearly trying to retrofit his hot take with some very limited small sample data.

Originally Posted by Buff

Bill Simmons loves him a hot take -- I'm not sure I expect more from the Ringer. They mostly have like 24 year olds working there these days from what I can tell.

Nevertheless, I think there is at least *some* merit to the idea that this marriage would be a bit cleaner through 2 games if Rodgers would have worked out - that seems like a relatively uncontroversial take given that he was Plan A and they had already been partnering together...

But obviously Paton had a Plan B and was prepared to execute on that, so it's not like this was a surprise to him and he obviously factored it into his decision making -- so he's clearly trying to retrofit his hot take with some very limited small sample data.

High fived for not expecting more from the Ringer. I disagree that Aaron was plan A though, I've never seen a shred of evidence to point to that other than rote speculation all over the place.