2007 Best and Worst Broncos' Moments #7
by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 9, 2008 10:00 AM MDT
12 comments
Moment #7 -- One of the Worst
-- Can't finish off a drive.
What most people remember about the loss to GB is the Overtime TD that sealed the deal. They think to themselves, "If Bly hadn't of gotten burned we could have won that game!"
Wrong.
If Bly had intercepted that ball, we still wouldn't have won the game. If Curome Cox doesn't bite on the pump fake (its Bly's job to bite, he's the underneath guy, but there is no excuse for the safety biting), Favre probably throws that ball away or the pass is broken up by the safety. Best case scenario is we have a defensive stand and get the ball back, but what good would that have done us? The 2007 Denver Broncos could not finish offensive drives!
Case in point, consider the play that put us in that godforsaken position to begin with:
The clock reads 00:25 seconds left in regulation. Cutler has looked good, driving the team 89 yards to get into scoring position, but the team is completely out of timeouts. They trail by three and they sit at the Green Bay four freaking yard line, with 2nd and 1 play call ahead of them.
2nd and 1, incomplete. 3rd and 1 rush for no gain. Again, from the four freaking yard line. 4th and 1, kick a ridiculously short FG. Almost makes you wish we had been losing by four points, doesn't it?
Simply put, you don't get better opportunities than that to close opponents out and take care of business. In what would become a mantra of the 2007 season, the Broncos could do neither. After a win against first place PIT put us in a position to compete again, a loss to first place GB took the wind right back out of the sails.
Because we couldn't gain 1 yd.
Is that the last we will see of that?
Sometimes I look at our offseason moves and think that the primary consideration for Dove Valley in 2008 was to put an end to short yardage and goalline failure. We draft Oline with the highest natural pick the organization has seen in 15 years, we target two FB type players, we cut an underachieving shortyardage TB and draft an overachieving one, we ensure that the center position is solid through over 4 levels of depth, with 3 of those levels being starter quality, and on top of it all we pick up an additional free agent in Micheal Pittman, who is no stranger to tough yards between the tackles.
And yet I can't shake the feeling that it won't be enough.
When we couldn't gain a yard against GB, Nalen wasn't yet out, though Hamilton was and Lepsis wasn't playing as well as he had in the past. Moving forward to 2008 Nalen and Hamilton will be back and Lepsis has been replaced by Ryan Clady, arguably the best offensive lineman in the 2008 draft. But it is arguably, not obviously, because Clady is unproven, both in the NFL and in the eyes of scouts who only saw him pancaking DEs the size of LBs. And Nalen and Hamilton are both injury risks, which says that despite the insurance at C that we have acquired, if history is any indicator, it will still barely be enough.
We have acquired two rookie FB talents who may have impressive years in their future, but not likely 2008. And on top of that, neither one is a pure, blocking, short yardage FB, so while they no doubt can help the team, you wonder if they will even be in on short yardage situations.
Henry was chronically injured and underperforming throughout the year, but we have replaced him with Torain, who is himself recovering from a lis-franc, which is about the worst foot injury a RB can suffer from, and Pittman who missed games 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 in 2007 due to an ankle injury. And while they were the first missed games due to injury that he had had in the last eight years, it still isn't very surprising. These kinds of things happen to 11th year RBs.
But we can buck every trend that I mention above, and I fully expect that we will buck them all by 2009 and be scoring at will in the red zone.
2008 might be a bit too soon, though.
2 recs |
12 comments
Email
Print
Comments
We can buck the trend...and we will!
If God is not a Bronco fan, then WHY are sunsets Blue and Orange? - Jon Tollerud 5/22/08
The Quest ~ TSG 5/19/08
by Tim Lynch on Jul 9, 2008 10:44 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted "inconsistency"
I think one more year under the belts of Cutler and Sheff will elevate us above 2007 but not much – sadly…
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Jul 9, 2008 11:07 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I am an optomist
But I voted greatness. Shanny has a history of offensive greatness. everytime he has had a bad year offensively the next season was awesone. 1999 sub par, 2000 great. 2007 a first year full time starting QB, aging OL, next o-coordinator and an injury prone running game. Sure the Broncos twice were inside the 5 against the Pack and came away with 3 points. If JC doesnt fumble in the 2nd qtr who knows how the game ends. But I agree the red zone offense was a problem last year. But its year 3 for Cutler and history has a way of repeating itself with Shanny and Qb’s You heard it here first/ JC will have an outstanding season and I predict a pro bowl appearance. If that overrated VY can get into the pro bowl so can JC. His numbers, IMO, will be behind Brady and Manning this year, and wins up. I also have converted over to the Zappa prediction of 13-3
by broncfanstuckinsd on Jul 9, 2008 11:29 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the point about Cox.
I think a few of our CB issues last year were (in fact) SAF issues. I believe that you and I both came to Bly’s defense on that play. I still believe that Bly is underrated. Besides being a multi year pro bowler, he has an impressive record of INTs as well.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jul 9, 2008 12:33 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Firstfan says greatness
I might be treadinbg on heresy here, but my concern is not with O Line or QB or FB or even RB. It is with play selection. This all falls back to Coach Shanahan. In 2008 we will be great. Coach bounces back as the Mastermind. These Best and Worst Moments are a great series. Thanks Styg.
What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us. - Emerson
by firstfan on Jul 9, 2008 1:57 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Inconsistency early leading to Adequacy later on
I voted for Inconsistency, but I think we start the season out inconsistent all around, which would include the short yardage troubles that have plagued us the last couple of years. But I think with the pieces we have we will get better as the season wears on, we gel as a team, and Torain gets back to football form. I think our early success in these situations will rest solely on how Pittman does.
by Darin H on Jul 9, 2008 2:45 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
honestly...
short-yardage woes are a direct by-product of a finesse offense, which we have employed for the majority of our existence. the woes will continue in this area until we change our offensive scheme. there is a downside to every system, and this is ours. we are going to have to deal with it
by davecheffy on Jul 9, 2008 5:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not too sure
what you mean by “finesse offense”. If you are refering to our zone blocking system I disagree. If I understand our system correctly, a zone block does not exclude a straight-ahead power block in certain situations. With Hamilton and Nalen out and Lepsis on the waning side of his career we lacked the horsepower to drive block in short yardage situations as we would have liked. The presence of Clady and the additional experience of Kuper, Pears and even Harris changes that. We are still going to zone block, but we will also be able to drive as well. Just a thought.
What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us. - Emerson
by firstfan on Jul 10, 2008 1:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
not with any success like a "power" offense
we are an offense predicated on misdirection and the like, like the 49ers were. we do not and have not lined up and played smash-mouth football straight ahead as far back as i can remember, successfully. i can remember since elway we couldn’t line up and get 2-3 yards for a td or first down. even in our super bowl winning years we were good at it, not great. we move great between the 20’s, consistently and convincingly. that is what we do well, and that is huge. but it gets so-so from there. we are or never were the hogs, for instance, blowing guys off the ball all day. we try, though, like last year, and we fail almost every time(the niner game in ‘06 twice=no playoff). it is simply not our game. we will have to throw it in inside the 5 again this year, as in the past. we can block straight ahead ‘til the cows come home, but we will turn it over on downs. we don’t have a “power” running game, and our style is termed “finesse” because of that. this is where the light line gets us into a trouble spot, and athleticism doesn’t help when you need strength and size against a goal-line beefcake defense. we seem to have improved slightly this offseason in this department, but we are hardly a big, physical line. it’s not a knock on us, really, just more of a trade-off for our ability to establish long drives to get to the 5(and kick a field goal). we still cannot ‘pound’ the ball as i see it. i guess you can’t have it all. the teams that can do that would probably trade for our rushing attack in a minute, anyway. apples and oranges. ok, i’m rambling now, hope i answered your question some
by davecheffy on Jul 10, 2008 10:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might not call it finesse either,
although I see what you’re saying. There is room for disagreement on “finesse” versus “power” to describe our running game, but I’ll describe why I lean towards power. (The pass game is tacticaly power, giving the emphasis on blocking WRs and possession receivers, but strategicaly the west coast and the misdirection rollouts [bootlegs] are finesse).
Our misdirection is more in the passing game, where we sell the run but pass (play action) and often roll out in the direction opposite of the “sold” run. But the running game its self is pretty straight forward.
The best runners in a zone block (if using a one cut scheme) are power oriented over speed for several reasons. For one, they aren’t supposed to “juke” and use agility to gain yards after the cut. They are supposed to move straight ahead and keep their legs churning. While the OLmen are typically smaller and more agile, they do more to “punish” the DL with hits than do the traditional “straight up blockers”. Note also that the runs in our system feature far more cut backs towards the center of the field, versus finnese runs that go to the sidelines (such as sweeps).
Where you and I probbly agree is that our recent runners have been speedy sorts, and not the types to take and give punishment. While I think Selvin Young will be good, I continue to worry about his durablility and his short yardage ability. The lack of a true power back is part of the reason that we have employed a committee system for so long. A power back that can ensure 4 or more yards every play is a great complement to the pass game (and vice versa), keeping a high percentage team on the field with first downs. A speed guy has big play potential, but may not keep the chains moving on most downs.
In that sense, I would agree with you. We need more power, one cut runners. But the scheme its self is conducive to power, and shouldn’t be blamed for the lack of running gains. The best way to pound the ball is to do it with a power game, but to do it with a power runner in zone block. Just my opinion.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Jul 11, 2008 2:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can live with that
All I rally care about is wins and losses. I usually like it when the wins out number the losses like 11 to 5 or better
by broncfanstuckinsd on Jul 9, 2008 5:56 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
short-yardage only
let me try this again. finesse isn’t my term, it is the media’s and announcer’s term for our offense, and others as well. i have never heard us referred to as a power offense. in trying to answer firstfan’s comment, i used those words in the general sense that they do. i don’t know what you would call an offense that can’t stick it in the endzone on 8 plays inside the 5-yard line in 1 game, but power doesn’t come to mind. passing the ball from the 1 is another example of the futility we have had, seemingly forever, in sticking the rock in the end zone on the ground. we do not get the “push” we need from the o-line, regardless of who is carrying it. mike bell scored 8 td’s mainly flying over the pile, not through it. i expect this situation to continue until we wrongfully decide to get 350-lb. linemen that can put the defense on it’s butt in the endzone, like some teams are able to do. i will take our rushing attack over theirs any day, but i believe this is the achilles heel of the vaunted running game we have fielded for some time now. i’ve seen it a hundred times now, and it will continue. we need trickery to score in close. i do believe we have improved in this area in our te’s and fb’s, but not the interior of the line. again, it is not a knock, or a matter of toughness, just the laws of physics at work. 350-lb. guy usually pushes back 280-lb. guy in tight spaces. shanny seems to forget that sometimes when he decides to run it into the pile 4 consecutive times, and i am not surprised when it doesn’t work. again. this is our biggest rushing concern, unless someone can think of a bigger one
by davecheffy on Jul 11, 2008 3:24 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Next Game
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
