Denver at Houston - What Happened
When I wrote the game prep for this game I had two thoughts. One, Denver has "better" players over all, but two, Houston has played harder this season with a massive number of their players on injured reserve. I finished by writing that "Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard". I didn't call the game for Denver, instead putting this down as a tough call, and it turns out with good reason. Where did Denver go wrong (and Houston go right)?
HOU rush DEF
I wrote that MLB Ryans would be out for HOU. Nope (he was on the field). I also wrote that Graham would line up at weakside TE. Nope (injured early in the game). I wrote that under those circumstances the key would be the HOU OLBs not overpursuing. Heck, Ryans WAS in the game, Graham wasn't, and Williams (HOU DE) finaly decided to be a factor in the rush defense.
DEN pass vs HOU pass DEF
Here again, no Graham to block the weak end against Williams (still think Graham isn't worth every penny?). Graham also wasn't in to allow the passes out of run formations I advocated. I wrote that the pass rush was key, and it was. Cutler got sacked or hurried for much of the game.
DENs pass DEF
With only one safety in the deep zone (and with HOU establishing the run) the CBs each had those assured blown coverages I predicted without sufficent backup. One of the best defensive plays for Denver was a tipped pass by Lynch recovered by Bly. Why? Because a second safety (Lynch) was back far enough to participate in the play.
DENs rush DEF
Same poor performance as always. Give the credit to HOU. You can't play a crappy rush defense against a well oiled zoneblock, even with a third string RB. I should have simplified my break down to consider that, but I just can't shake my amazement at how poorly we play the run. This is the one area I didn't account for with much accuracy. You can forget the Xs and Os when one team executes and the other doesn't.
STs
Like I said, HOU beats DEN in every category. We just can't cover.
~~~~~~~~~
Two things seemed apparent to me. One was that Denver was outcoached. This is a rare thing with Shanny at the helm. But Kubiak clearly beat Shanny at his own game. The first HOU drive was one cut runs followed by a naked bootleg for a QB TD run. The other thing was the effort of HOU and the lack of motivation by Denver.
One thing I will admit to being blindsided by. I noticed a stat pointed out by one of the commentators and looked it up. Webster (derided by myself and others here at MHR) is second on the team this year on tackles. Have we been unfair to the man? Could he have looked bad in a few games, and we dismissed him too early? I suspected I might have been unfair during a few games where I was able to be at MHR during a game, and pointed out that Webster was looking good. But I think Webster may deserve a reconsideration by the MHR crew.
The last thing I noticed was how appropriate Styg's NPLB is for checking this team. I can't wait for his write up. We clearly left points all over the field in this one.
The record is what it is, we didn't win the key game we needed to, and now we officialy don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I watched the game at my inlaws, and missed the fourth quarter driving in to work. I doubt I missed anything in the fourth. ; )
It may be a dissapointment (the record for the season), but there is some good to take from it. We know a few names we can count on moving forward. Among them, Cutler, Scheff, Young, Marshall, Doom, Crowder, Graham and Stokely. We can also count on Bailey, Bly, Paymah, Foxworth, Williams, Abdullah, Hall (DE IR), and the guys that stepped in on the o-line. We have a lot to work on in the offseason, but we have a solid, young core to take us places.
Like Guru said, good times are coming. Hang in there.
0 recs |
24 comments
Comments
I also failed to mention...
Why in the hell were we going for it on fourth down? You may be losing, but if it isn't even the fourth quarter, you have ten yards to go, and you aren't losing by 21 points, well, WTH? We did thisa several times for God knows what reason.
by Steve Nichols on Dec 13, 2007 10:27 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
This baffled me as well
by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 13, 2007 11:35 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Those 4th downs were ok
Given our crappy Def, those 15 yards hardly made a difference. Might as well try to go for it.
by amirebram on Dec 14, 2007 12:54 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: 4th Down
by joedudek on Dec 14, 2007 9:31 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely off-topic, but from
I, who asked for a Cutler jersey for Christmas, am officially insulted.
by Silverblood on Dec 13, 2007 10:54 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Just a few comments.
- I didn't get those empty backfields. What the Hell? Cutler got sacked every time. Why did we do it again after the 3rd or 4th sack?
- RE Graham and $6 mil salary. I wrote it as a response somewhere: teams pay 7 or 8 for a top OT, and Graham can catch too... Pass Pro is what really makes S Young valuable, and it is a huge weakness in R Bush's game. BTW GURU said Graham would miss a game or two before the season started.
- Another thing we had talked about before, we miss that inside run. We need Nalen or Hamilton back. It just goes to show that size doesn't equal power. BTW Hamilton is more important--he has 3 or 4 years left (if he can recover). BTW, I am all for drafting an OT and a C/G in the 4th.
- Last comment on LB. Is it only me, or does anyone else agree that we should keep all 3 LB for next year? We need to fix the D-line FIRST. Our LB's can will be ok if they had a good line in front of them. Upgrades can come after we solve critical flaws.
- Last note, Crowder isn't that good. Some guys are raw comming out of college and need time to learn before the make an impact (Mario Williams). Crowder is just not that talented... compare him to Dumervil if you must. I really hope that Moss can make an impact next year.
by amirebram on Dec 14, 2007 1:06 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Coaches v. Old Assistants.
by ejruiz on Dec 14, 2007 3:36 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
I believe that...
by Steve Nichols on Dec 14, 2007 11:12 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Webster...
by John Bena on Dec 14, 2007 4:34 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
I agree about...
by Steve Nichols on Dec 14, 2007 11:15 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
You said it...
by John Bena on Dec 14, 2007 12:08 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to say
by Jeremy Bolander on Dec 14, 2007 2:49 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it ...
Our problem is that we don't have a system. Like HT said, we play too much base man. A system is suposed to take 11 guys and turn them into a unit that is Better than the sum of those 11 players.
Without that advantage, we are screwed.
by amirebram on Dec 14, 2007 3:17 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe we will go back to contain next year.
Another twist to throw into the mix (though I strongly doubt it will happen): What if Bates sees the personel to run a different system already on next years team, and decides we are closer to another system?
by Steve Nichols on Dec 14, 2007 5:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
As long as we don't play vanila.
If the system takes advantage of the talent we have on the D-line, or at least doesn't require non-existent DT talent, then I will be happy.
Great corners and huge DT's who can take on double teams are the most un-common types of players on Def. A great system, but hard to maintain in terms of personnel (similar to our discussion).
Right now most college DT's try to become great pass rushers or penetrators. The more they get into the backfield the higher their rating... and that means 290 to 310Ilbs is the ideal size. Just counter to what we need (at least as far as I understand).
by amirebram on Dec 14, 2007 10:57 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
DTs/CBs
As for DTs, yes. The kind we want is uncommon, but that can play to us too. Just like smaller but fast/athletic o-linemen fall to us, so might big "non-penetrating" DTs. I'm not as sure if this is the case. But it seems to me that most teams (as you point out) want the penetration guys, so the conclusion I'm thinking is that many other teams might not pick that type of DT. I confess ignorance on this point though, since I don't follow the drafts as much as many guys here do.
by Steve Nichols on Dec 15, 2007 12:42 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and No.
Moving on... The type of guys we want at DT are actually in high demand, but for 3-4 type D.
- The stronger run stuffing DT who lacks size is turned into a 3-4 DE. Example: Ty Warren & Richard Seymour were both DT's in college (New England).
- The large NT are in even higher demand, since they are harder to find. Right now Cowboys & Browns really need a NT. San Diego also needs a NT since their guy is turning 33.
So the example with O-Line doesn't really apply. And we are going to face competition there too. Texans & Packers are both using zone blocking now ... I hate it.
by amirebram on Dec 15, 2007 5:45 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll add to your point
Not only are the Texans and Packers using it (zone block), but other teams flirt with it (I think Buf and Car are moving away from it after a one night stand).
Good point on the 3-4 teams wanting a big NT. At least each of them only need one guy. But your point is well taken. It will be hard to get one. JAX found a way to get two excellent DTs at the same time, so I'm holding out hope. But you're right, there's nothing wrong with a big "double teamer" and a fairly big "might want to double team me too" kind of guy.
Lastly, you are right that teams running our system love CBs. When you see just how well our system breaks down the run the temptation to pound the nail into the coffin by getting awesome CBs is too much to pass by.
by Steve Nichols on Dec 15, 2007 7:15 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know who I want?
Actually that would be awsome! Give the Holland. Move Meyers to LG (his natural position), Kuper to RG (which is a better fit or him) and have Kalil as C. Now THAT would be a coup.
>>> Nevermind. He was backup C for a while, but he's been moved to starting RG (3 weeks now).
by amirebram on Dec 15, 2007 12:43 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Mario Williams
by Donkey on Dec 14, 2007 7:17 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
I was one of the few people...
I'm glad the media is eating crow (according to the editor of BattleRed, the HOU blog at SBN). I have a lot of respect for Williams.
by Steve Nichols on Dec 14, 2007 7:38 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with Williams over Bush
- At USC he couldn't run on the inside or on power downs, hince L White had more TD's than R Bush. How many outside speed runners have failed in the NFL?
- Bush also didn't stay in on passing downs because he was no good at Pass Pro (that was White's job too), and can any team survive without Pass Pro?
- Bush is not a good blocker in the open field either, so when he plays on pass downs he must get the ball or he is useless (as a down field blocker).
by amirebram on Dec 14, 2007 10:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

by 



























