"The Broncos Can't Throw Deep"

by BroncoJoe311 on Nov 14, 2009 10:49 AM MST Comment 18 comments

is exactly what we want opposing teams to think.

I'm seeing the silver lining here but since McD is known for his preparation he would have to know that other teams may be watching him just as closely. So when you play a game if you feel that you don't have to use something (deep passes) to win then why do it?

I was disappointed at the lack of play action in the beginning of the season but last week the first play was PA. It wasn't that McD didn't think we could run it, we just didn't need to.

I think the last two games were where I saw the most commitment to the short passes. Call it a lack of confidence in the deep ball or a strong confidence in the short game. McD thought we could win using the underneath stuff (also give credit to Reed, Polo...) and even though it didn't work we still have yet to show our deep play tendencies.

It's nice to have a team spend time focusing on things you wont do. McD knows that every play is going on film and will be accounted for so you have to think a little bit forward and see when different play calls may be the most effective.

Would we have scored more TDs by throwing the ball deep with a new offense? Or would it make more sense to wait for the relationships and timing to develop and start using it after teams have taken it for granted.

So now that we have some very important games where TDs are going to be huge maybe we will see some double moves from our WRs and Orton proving that he can actually throw the ball (accurately) 25+ yards.

Painfully optimistic? I don't doubt it but I also won't doubt McD and his plan to rule the NFL

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

2 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This has been my chant for the last few weeks.

once the Broncos were in the drivers seat (6-0) why show your whole hand. That would be like giving the enemy all of your secrets. We will be fine.

by bfree2bronc on Nov 14, 2009 1:05 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

ive been MIA

for a little bit so i wasnt sure if some of this has been said before but i figured i would reiterate it because to me it seems it could be true

"Have you ever heard of the emancipation proclamation?"
- "I don't listen to hip-hop"

"Born like this / Into this"

by BroncoJoe311 on Nov 14, 2009 10:11 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

O-line in transition

Our O-line is not build for the kind of play our head coach wants it to play. That is key for both our running game and deep passing game. I see us making whole sale changes on our O-line during the off season.

by Jeeeeens on Nov 14, 2009 1:43 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

changing OLine

I’m not quite a believer in the ’let’s just go ZB again’ lament. And it’s not that I didn’t want to see us continue with what had been very successful.

This year’s problems on the OL have cropped up in both pass blocking and run blocking. I’d be willing to accept that our run-blocking deteriorated because moving away from ZB but I can’t see how that has effected our pass blocking. And the weakness has often been in the middle, where Hamilton was recently demoted.

I’m not trying to place the problem on BH’s shoulders — especially for scheme that was overloaded on one side in the Baltimore game — but a collapsed pocket is often because of a bull rush up the middle. Also — the short game we’re using is a way of combating the pass rush, so it’s not as if the long passing game is being abandoned without reason. There’s a risk in going long.

I see our OL problems as stemming from a variety of factors.

1) a drop-off in performance on the OL
2) regression to the mean (i.e., from last year’s anomalously good performance)
3) newness of the scheme (change = unfamiliarity)
4) last year’s success was in pass blocking for Cutler, the run game wasn’t used much
5) a misfit between personnel and the new scheme
6) changes at RB

Losing Cutler also hurt, but the pertinent factor here is a decline on the OL, and Hamilton and Wiegmann have been cited for contributing to this. Again, I’m not blaming them for all the problems since changing schemes and personnel hurt, but we weren’t a great Red-Zone team last year either and part of the that is because we’re not a muscular run blocking team.

The solution to the problem IS finding Interior-OLs that aren’t physically overmatched by opposing teams. It’s no coincidence — IMO — that our first loss came against a very big and physical Raven defense. I’ve always liked the ZB scheme but there are drawbacks to having the lighter ZB type of OL. These drawbacks don’t show up in every game or situation, but they do when we need them the most — in the red zone and against teams of the caliber of Baltimore and Pittsburgh.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 14, 2009 3:25 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs

Of the six factors you list, are they in order of importance?

Regression to the mean and new running backs may be underestimated in terms of importance by many fans. I agree with your overall analysis and I believe McD will transition his personnel in the future just as you’ve described.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein

by Ponderosa on Nov 14, 2009 4:03 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

OL

I don’t know if I can rank them, that’s the coaching staff’s job. I’m not competent to judge.

I think the dilemma for many people is that we would (including me) like to keep our ZB tendencies — and we can. However, having a ‘too’ ZB tailored OL means that we’re going to fall short in certain situations and against top-level teams.

Our run production was good/decent last year, but only in YPG. And we relied on Cutler’s arm as a threat to keep teams honest. Our ability to run when everyone knew we only needed a few yards was limited.

I think we have to have an OL that can handle itself physically with the best. We had good success under Shanahan but our OL is simply too small by current standards. It isn’t what we do well but what we don’t. We’re not going to abandon ZB plays (and everyone has theirs, we just had more), but we have to able to line up and hold our own on the line of scrimmage at times. Like much of our team, we had gotten old and failed to replace the old starters. The OL was one area where we seemed immune, but we were somewhat late there, too. We’re somewhat weak (or small) in the middle and teams have lately been able to take advantage of this.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 14, 2009 7:22 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein

by Ponderosa on Nov 14, 2009 9:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't necessarily think

“Whole sale” changes are in order. I hope we can all agree Clady is Iron-Clad regardless of blocking scheme? Harris is not too far behind Clady. I’ve been extremely impressed with where Kuper has brought his game to from a couple years back. Last year he did not give up a sack. This year his protection remains rock solid and his run blocking has been great too.

Weigs is definitely aging, and there has already been a change at left guard. Hamilton was also our backup center, so assuming Olsen is progressing fine and we hold on to him, I think we will need a G/C (depth at least, starting at most) and fully fledged center to take over for Weigs, if not next year then after that. Center is really where the issue is at I think, because Hoch can fill in at center but I don’t think I would want him there full time. I’m also pretty sure Olsen is a pure guard, not a G/C.

Jason
The Hanging Curve

by poorboywilly on Nov 14, 2009 3:28 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

we're looking at 2 positions

And we’ve been looking at them for a long time. Nalen was replaced by Wiegmann, but he was a short term fix. We were hoping someone such as Eslinger or Myers might replace Nalen. Or, actually, we’d always hoped to replace Nalen with Hamilton and bring in a Guard. We’ve actually done quite well lately if you look at all our successes — e.g., Clady, Harris & Kuper — but we never did find a replacement for Nalen and Hamilton (unless it’s Olsen at OG).

My initial draft analysis had DE, OG and OC as top priorities (so to speak). I’d like to us address all three levels of the defense and an interior-OL in our first four picks. I don’t believe we should try to rely on two rookies in the middle of the OL so I’ve emphasized drafting a Guard high and fixing Center later — if possible. I’d prefer adding a FA at one interior-OL position rather than attempting to find two new OLs in a single draft.

This looks like a good draft for our needs at OG & OC. I don’t know if we’ll do both early (also because of the aforementioned reason), but we can reasonably expect to be able to replace one interior-OL in the next draft. I’m excited by the possibilities but there’s a number of other positions that make sense, too, so I state my expectation for their draft goal as 1 interior OL in the early rounds (i.e., 1 -4).

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 14, 2009 8:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

It's a nice thought,

but coaches want to win games. I really think McD looks at our opponent every week, and gameplans to win. I don’t think any HC in the NFL can afford to gamble by holding anything back unless a playoff berth is secured – especially in a division with the chargers.

That being said, I have to wonder if you ARE right…. Did McD learn something in the undefeated season/SB loss about single games versus the big picture of an entire season? I wouldn’t put it past him to have a mutating focus in his offense, where key changes are designed to keep the team looking fresh in balance with the team’s record. Playing to win the season rather than to win all the games in the season seems like the perfect lesson for him to have taken from the 07 Pats.

It’s a fun ride, nevertheless!

We have the same or a better record as the teams who have beaten us, and we have not played those with a better record than us. So no matter what is drudged up around the water cooler, we can always say, “we beat YOUR team,” “Your team hasn’t played DENVER yet,” or “You may have beat us, but what are the records again? Oh, yeah… the SAME!” I like being in this position, rather than just hanging my head and sighing like I had to do in 2008.

-Harvey J. Neptune

"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi

by HarvJNep2n on Nov 14, 2009 2:30 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

i wonder too

McD seems like the forward thinker but whose to say the reasoning behind his decisions…
regardless we are a lot further than most people thought we would be (which means nothing) but it is still nice

"Have you ever heard of the emancipation proclamation?"
- "I don't listen to hip-hop"

"Born like this / Into this"

by BroncoJoe311 on Nov 14, 2009 10:13 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Two comments that I think are dead on:

So when you play a game if you feel that you don’t have to use something (deep passes) to win then why do it?

McD looks at our opponent every week, and gameplans to win.

I think these two statements may well describe exactly what’s happening. The place where I see McD needing to grow as a coach is the ability to quickly recognize when the collection of plays he had believed would suffice need to be switched out for other plays in the playbook.

"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It

by BShrout on Nov 14, 2009 3:21 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

thanks BS

i like the thought that McD will grow
grow into a super coaching force that will rule the NFL

"Have you ever heard of the emancipation proclamation?"
- "I don't listen to hip-hop"

"Born like this / Into this"

by BroncoJoe311 on Nov 14, 2009 10:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Denver is 5-0 vs teams with poor coaching, but just 1-2 vs teams that are adequately to well coached.

Can’t throw deep and won’t throw deep are two different things entirely. We didn’t take enough down the field shots the last two weeks. If McDaniels continues to call plays like he did the last two weeks vs good defenses, we will lose. It’s very easy to stop a one dimensional and limited game play.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 14, 2009 6:16 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

i still think the two losses were both winnable

say what you want about the game plan but it wouldnt have be a miracle if we were 8-0 right now
im just trying to say that McD wants everything to be right with the deep game because there is more risk holding it longer and throwing farther
would we have been better off risking deep passes early, or staying with what works now and coming back to the deep stuff when its absolutely necessary?
whose to say but its fun to guess

"Have you ever heard of the emancipation proclamation?"
- "I don't listen to hip-hop"

"Born like this / Into this"

by BroncoJoe311 on Nov 14, 2009 10:22 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm.

Well I think it’s more than play calling. The OL was deficient and Orton was not able to maximize his positives from the previous 6 games. I think McD knows more about play calling than we do. I often hear fans say " Well if we can see it, anyone can see it!" and expect coaching changes to acquiesce to their vision. I humbly submit that McD knows more about what he’s seeing than I ever will. He’s the professional — I’m the amateur.

Imagination is more important than knowledge. A. Einstein

by Ponderosa on Nov 14, 2009 10:27 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

It's really hard to tell the difference between can't and won't.

I agree with McGeorge on that one.

However, I think the picture is a bit more convoluted than that. Because when you look at the statistics, we have thrown deep. If you look at the 7 teams that have the same or better records than the Broncos (Ind, NO, Min, NE, Cin, Pit, and Dal) you find these situational statistics (I’m giving averages here):

Ball Thrown 21-30 yards (Comp/Att): 6.3/15/75 Denver: 7/15
Ball Thrown 31-40 yards (Comp/Att): 2/8 Denver: 1/3
Ball Thrown 41+ yards (Comp/Att): 0.875/4.375 Denver: 0/3

We have taken shots down the field, just not very many of them. Plus, if you look at the other 7 teams, they average 53% of their 21+ yard passes being thrown in the 21-30 yard range. Denver has thrown 71% of the Broncos passes in that same range.

This suggests that we are doing pretty much what the rest of the league leaders are doing when it comes to the longer passes. I’m inclined to believe that McDaniels is not enamored of a passing strategy that is averaging 1 completion for every 4 throws.

It also suggests to me that there are larger issues than simply chucking the ball down the field. Those issues have been mentioned in multiple posts here at MHR and include such things as: learning curve on a new scheme, timing not quite right between the quarterback and receivers, offensive line play, performance of the running back corp, field position, untimely penalties.

All of those factors have an impact what the offense can and cannot do in the passing game. In the Baltimore game, I keep hearing comments about how the safeties were playing deep. In the Pittsburgh game, the statements were about how the safeties were playing up.

The only thing we can say for certain is that we were out-coached and out-performed on the field by both of those teams. Does that spell immediate and unavoidable doom for us for the rest of the season?

Not necessarily. Let’s give the coaches and players a chance to show us how well they can adjust and rebound before we abandon hope.

by BShrout on Nov 14, 2009 7:02 PM MST reply actions 2 recs

Great statement B and rec'd.

It also suggests to me that there are larger issues than simply chucking the ball down the field. Those issues have been mentioned in multiple posts here at MHR and include such things as: learning curve on a new scheme, timing not quite right between the quarterback and receivers, offensive line play, performance of the running back corp, field position, untimely penalties.

There is a lot more than meets the eye. We see things in their tangible nature not realizing that there are greater things going on underneath. I as a fan have to put my trust in the McDaniels way of coaching and believe he will take this team to greater heights. The issues will be addressed as the season rolls along and hopefully they can all get on board of what ever it takes to proform at a winning level.

by bfree2bronc on Nov 15, 2009 12:05 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs