Mile High Report: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Baby Boilers no more: Michigan State-Purdue Preview

Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations

Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall is stopped by Washington Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall during the third quarter of the NFL football game, Nov. 15, 2009 in Landover, Md. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

More photos » Nick Wass - AP

2 months ago: Denver Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall is stopped by Washington Redskins cornerback DeAngelo Hall during the third quarter of the NFL football game, Nov. 15, 2009 in Landover, Md. (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

Happy Tuesday, friends, and welcome to another edition of Shallow Thoughts & Nearsighted Observations.  Here we are again, with another loss to contend with.  This one is worse than the last two, because this one looked like a sure victory when we were marking off W's and L's on the schedule.  Of course, if Kyle Orton didn't get hurt, it probably is a W, and the Broncos are still sitting on a 1-game lead over the Chargers.  Since that's not the way it played out, we have to do the other thing.

We'll get into the details, from soup to chocolate cake, and make some sense of all this, because that's what we do here.  We'll explore what happened, we'll find some things to feel positive about, and we'll have some fun.  Out of the echo chamber, and into the fire, y'all.  Ready..... BEGIN!!!!

1.  There's a certain interconnectedness to a football game, and its outcome, among all phases of the game, and all 45 active players.  I've talked about this many times before, and John Bena called the loss a team effort in his postgame writeup.  I would call this a team effort whose final score is mostly attributable to the poor second half play of the offense, and mostly, of Chris Simms.

What I mean by that is this.  Over the first 6 games of the season, the Broncos led the league in scoring defense.  They were especially strong defensively in the second half of games.  That trend has been turned on its head the last 3 weeks.  The last two weeks, especially, I believe that the main reason why the defense struggled in the second half was that they were on the field for too many plays, due to the struggles of the offense.  Each side of the ball needs to help the other.  The Broncos have been getting shut down on offense, and worn down on defense, and it's been difficult to watch.

Star-divide

Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth were going on and on Sunday night about how the Colts led the NFL in scoring defense heading into this week.    If you've watched the Colts, they don't even have a particularly good defense, if there is any chance you can run the ball against them.  They have allowed so few points because they deliberately shorten the game when they're on offense, and because once they get a lead, the strength of their defense comes to the fore.  They rush the passer well with four men, and drop 7 men into cover-2.  If you stay out of situations that are favorable to Indianapolis, you can gash their defense.  

This is what has been happening to the Broncos as well.  Remember - in the first 6 games, the offense did its best work in the second half of games.  They possessed the ball, they took their time, and they methodically controlled the games.  When the defense was on the field, they were fresh, they substituted frequently, and they made plays to get off the field quickly.

Kyle Orton played great in the first half Sunday, just as he'd played very well in the first half of the Pittsburgh game, (outside the one interception).  For all the hollering that went on about his lack of deep throwing, he threw a couple very nice deep balls for TDs to Brandon Marshall, and he just barely missed another to Eddie Royal.  That opened the field vertically.  He also did a very nice job on a few bootleg throws to Tony Scheffler, and a crossing pattern to Marshall.  Those plays stretched the field horizontally.

The Broncos had Washington where they wanted them.  Remember, they moved the ball on the possession where Correll Buckhalter fumbled, and they had the 17-play drive at the end of the first half, to take the 3-point lead.  The Orton injury changed the entire complexion of the game.  Simms simply couldn't complete a pass, and didn't seem to know where to go with the ball, and a lot of good work by Knowshon Moreno was wasted.

Most teams will struggle when they lose their starting QB.  That's a function of the fact that there aren't 32 good QBs in the NFL, let alone 64 of them.  I came into this game thinking that the Broncos are in good shape with Simms, if they needed to use him.  I hope that he shows better if he has to play against San Diego, after a week of first-team reps.  I still do tend to think that Simms can play.

You hate to have a game get away from you because your backup QB couldn't cut it.  The only thing worse would be if two games got away for that reason.  I expect that Josh McDaniels will have Simms ready to go next week, and that the gameplan will play to his strengths, if they need to use him.

You have to be careful not to let one game unduly affect an evaluation of a team.  All the time, teams lay eggs in games, and lose (or nearly lose) to teams they should blow out.  Look no further than New Orleans on Sunday, who seemingly tried to lose to St. Louis.  Not to say that Dallas should have blown out Green Bay, but they shouldn't have gotten dominated like they did, either. 

There's a lot of Chicken Little stuff going on here, and the one thing that will stop it is a victory against San Diego next week.  Yes, I know that the Chargers are on a winning streak and the Broncos are on a losing streak.  Remember when the Broncos had won 6 in a row, and the Ravens had lost 3 in a row?  The Broncos can beat San Diego, which we know, because they already have this season.  If they win that game, they'll re-take command of the division, with a one-game lead, and a sweeping of the head-to-head matchup.

2.  In the big-time matchup of the week, the Colts got a win against the Patriots, and on Monday, Bill Belichick is being blamed by everybody who doesn't like him personally (AKA just about everyone).  The fact is, Belichick has never curried favor with the media, and reporters tend to be critical of you every chance they get, if you don't pay them their due deference. 

Joe Biden could tell you all about how that works.  He never trusted the media after their treatment of the death of his first wife and daughter in 1972, and it always hurt him later, particularly in his two Presidential bids.   John McCain and Barack Obama both have very deft touches with the media, and longstanding strategies of providing them a lot of access, and it was no accident that both were the nominees of their parties in 2008.  If you're going to be a public figure, there's a clear benefit to cultivating relationships with reporters.  The thing is, not everybody has the stomach for it, and Belichick is one of those guys who doesn't.  Brett Favre benefits immensely from his relationship-building efforts, to the point of it being sickening most of the time.  I heard somewhere recently that Favre spends hours with the TV guys on Saturday afternoons, as long as they want to hang out, and they really can't help but love on him. 

Back to the lecture at hand, I would have done exactly the same thing as Belichick in that game situation, in going for it on 4th and 2 from his own 28.  Why did he do it?  Because he was pretty close to certain that he would lose the game if he punted, that's why.

Let's say you go by the book, and punt.  Over all 2,293 punts in the NFL in 2008, the average net change in field position was 39.53 yards.  The right call, if you ask Peter King, or others, was to punt, and give Manning the ball at his own 32, with about 2 minutes, and all 3 timeouts left.  I say that that is choosing to lose the game in a way that will leave the coach blameless, as far as the idiot media is concerned.  Well, he trusted his defense, and he played the percentages; it's not the coach's fault.  Except he didn't play the percentages.

First of all, let's get this nonsense about trusting your defense dispensed with.  You should always trust your defense.  Former defensive players like Tedy Bruschi, Matt Bowen, and old friend Tom Jackson love this line of thinking, but it's utter horse (manure).  You should only trust your defense if you think they are likely to make the stop, and win you the game.  If you think they aren't, then it's a fool's errand to trust them.  You say to them, hey, realistically, you guys probably weren't going to stop Peyton Manning, which really doesn't make you much different from any other team's defense.  There is no room for blind machismo, or making a statement, or worrying about hurt feelings; this is about winning football games, nothing more.

I didn't spend a great deal of time on it, but I took a look at every game recap for the Colts since 2005.  (I think 4 ½ seasons is a reasonable sample size.)  Since then, including the postseason, Manning has had the ball late in the game, trailing, on 19 occasions which I counted.  He came through to either tie or take the lead 15 times, which is a 79% success rate.  (In 2007, he was 1-for-4, which was pretty aberrant for this sample.  Two of those misses were against the strong 2007 Chargers, whom the Colts struggled to pass-protect against.)

Here's the deal.  Statistically, you have a 60% chance of picking up 4th and 2, but that probability is almost certainly greater, due to the fact that you have an outstanding offense, and the Colts have an average-at-best defense.  If I were Belichick, I would have put my conversion probability at 70% for that play.  That same source says that an average team returning a punt, given those field position- and time parameters, scores 53% of the time.  We already know Manning succeeds 79% of the time, because he's one of the greatest QBs ever.

You can choose to probably win, or you can choose to probably lose, in one moment.  What do you choose?

Belichick chose to probably win, and came up on the side where the probable outcome wasn't the actual outcome.  Serious poker players know exactly what I am talking about here.  Sometimes, you play the hand correctly, and you go all-in with the best cards, but you lose anyway.  It's a fact of life.  You accept it, and you don't complain about it, because you know you made the right call, regardless of the outcome. The next time you're faced with the same situation, you do the same thing, again, because it was the right call. 

When I got home Monday night, all I saw and heard was TV talking heads second-guessing the decision.  Stuart Scott pretty much butchered the stats, but he actually cited our friends at AdvancedNFLStats.com.  The shockingly anti-intellectual Steve Young promptly claimed that the stats aren't legitimate (except they are).  We got to hear from Tedy Bruschi how he'd feel as a defensive player on the Patriots, as if that's germane to anything at all.  Trent Dilfer's blood boils when he hears the "other side" of the argument, AKA the correct side.  Blah, blah, blah.  (Sorry, brief possession by an ex-wife-like-entity again.)

Just imagine the reaction if Kevin Faulk had made the 2 yards.  The stories today would have been about the stones on Belichick, and how he is such a great coach to make a risky call.  It would be like Mike Shanahan going for 2 in the Hochuli Game last season.  (Shanahan correctly thought that was his best chance to win.  He felt he had a better-than-50 percent chance of scoring the conversion, and he knew that he had a 50% chance of winning a coin toss, and about a 98% chance that the Chargers would score in overtime, if he lost the toss.)

I'm no great defender of Belichick, the man, but when he's right, he's right.  If it's an average QB, and an average offense, you might punt in that situation, but against Manning, that's always going to be the wrong call on 4th and 2.  Once again, Belichick is smarter than the average bear, and smarter than every member of the football MSM.

3.  Information From My Eyes - Broncos at Redskins

a.  All four deep throws Orton made were good throws.  Eddie Royal misjudged the one incompletion, and Brandon Marshall got out-fought by DeAngelo Hall on the second, but both were definitely well-thrown balls.

b.  That fake field goal was a debacle, but I don't personally blame Mike Priefer.  My goat on that play is Darrell Reid, who was telling Marcus Thomas to cover Mike Sellers, while he decided to contain the left edge of the offense, as the play flowed right.  Alphonso Smith caught some initial blame, but I disagree there.  He was in deep center field, and flowed with the play, like anybody would coach him to.  Who knew Hunter Smith could throw back across the field?

c.  Ryan Clady got beat badly once on Sunday.  That doesn't happen often at all, obviously.  That's the first sack he allowed that I would say was fully on him.

d.  From the department of good news, Matt Prater doesn't seem to be having a second-half slump this season. 

e.  I was very impressed with Knowshon Moreno's vision and quickness on Sunday. 

f.  I've already made my evaluation of Mitch Berger, so everybody knows where I am at on that one.  I saw somewhere where Frank Schwab, some beat reporter, speculated that Mitch Berger's 65-yard punt might save his job.  If a kick that went about 42 yards in the air, and rolled 23 on the ground can do that, something absurd is going on.

g. I had a busy workday Monday, which set my schedule back, and is unfortunately going to preclude me from taking the time to do Between The Lines this week. 

On watching the game a second time, though, it occurred to me that the bulk of Washington's success in running the ball was on zone-blocked plays.  As I think about it, the Broncos haven't faced much of that this season at all; really just Oakland, who does it crappily.  That's really something to work on, because the lateral movement seemed to unsettle the Broncos defensive line.

h.  D.J. Williams got blocked a lot, and took a lot of bad angles.  Again.  This is getting to be an annoying habit.

i.  Andra Davis continued to be a bright spot.  He is a terrific blitzer and has a great sense of timing for delaying his rush.  His missed tackle on that Devin Thomas catch and run in the 4th quarter was bad, but he otherwise graded out very well.

j.  On a painful second pass watching the game, Chris Simms lacked timing with the receivers, as much as anything.  Every throw was a little late.  It seems like Orton may be able to play next Sunday, but if it's Simms, I hope a week's worth of reps will help him build some timing.

4.  Information From My Eyes - Other Games:

a.  I was really curious to see the Buffalo-Tennessee game, and I recorded the Short Cut overnight, and watched the game Monday evening.  Why would I care about this game?  Well, the two teams played in the Hall of Fame Game, way back when it was still warm in Cleveland, and my girlfriend at the time called at halftime to break up with me.

In that game, the Bills couldn't block Tennessee, and the Titans looked like a Super Bowl team.  So, I wanted to watch Sunday's game, because I wanted a good sense of where these two teams are.  Tennessee probably isn't going to make the playoffs, after starting 0-6, but they've righted their ship, and they'd be trouble if they did make it.  Their defensive line is still nasty, and I continue to be impressed with the job William Hayes is doing in replacing Jevon Kearse.

b.  On the other side, the Bills still are below average on their offensive line.  Their two highly-drafted rookies, Eric Wood, and Andy Levitre, particularly struggled, as they both had in the preseason game.  Levitre even ended up playing some LT, due to an injury, and he really struggled outside.  Wood got pushed backwards consistently in the passing game, and he's been generally pretty good as a rookie.  The Bills need to shore up their offensive line in the offseason, and I am sure their new head coach will make that a priority, if they hire a competent one.

c.  I am ready to make a pronouncement.  If Vince Young couldn't run, he'd be the second coming of Trent Dilfer.  He really isn't much of a thrower of the ball, and he leaves too much air under his throws.  You can get by with him in a run-heavy offense, which is what the Titans really are.

Because he can run, he adds a useful element, and the team is really dangerous on option plays, and QB runs.  His running ability can dictate that teams play man-to-man defense, and keep a guy out of coverage to spy him.  Really, the Titans are back to being the 10-6ish team they were in 2007.  I think they'll ultimately decide to stick with Young for next season, and look to build up the interior of their offensive line, and their back 7 on defense.

d.  It seems like forever ago, but I did watch the Chicago-San Francisco game intently last Thursday.  I think my first thought that I'd like to share is that the Bears defense played like they had some pride.  I think Tommie Harris playing well made a huge difference.  He is really the key to their whole scheme.  I ripped him, and them, last week, and I told the guy from WCG who took exception that I'd say when they played well on defense.  They did.

e.  I don't really feel like I should say anything about Jay Cutler, because this column aims to stay away from saying obvious things.  I'll just say it must be nice to have so many apologists when you mess up.  He's like the second coming of Ronald Reagan with how teflon he is.   

(Tangential ST&NO story - Reagan is a member of my fraternity.  When he died in June of 2004, I was a senior at CSU, and President of my chapter, and I was asked to go on local television, to talk about Reagan as a fraternity man.  Our guys did a fundraiser, and jumped on a trampoline for 54 straight days in the 80s, to break a Guinness record, while Frater Ronnie was POTUS.  He sent us a congratulatory letter, so I focused on that with the news chick, Angie Lau.  I had nothing but nice things to say, as Ronnie was definitely a good fraternity man.)

f.  Peter King is really proud of himself for naming San Francisco's Aubrayo Franklin a midseason All-Pro as a NT.  When Franklin got that scoring-area INT early on last Thursday, I kind of groaned, because I knew there was going to be some crowing about it. 

I never have felt like Franklin jumped out, so I watched him closely, and my review is mixed.  He didn't play a lot of snaps, so I wonder about his conditioning.  He did play pretty stout against the run at times, and I felt like he was a good player overall when he was on the field.  I could easily name 10-12 interior defensive players who are better, though.  I guess it's fun to have a guy who is your guy, though. 

g.  Is Marc Bulger a veteran QB?  I have always thought he was, but his command of clock management seemed really bad on Sunday.  The Rams had a pretty good shot to beat the Saints, and Bulger and his receivers blew it.  Man, I can't tell you how much I would hate to be associated with that team, in any capacity.  It's got to be so disheartening to have no talent, be almost completely uncompetitive, then have a chance to beat an undefeated team, and blow it.  Can you imagine what it's like to be a fan of such a team?

h.  Reggie Bush had a really big game for the Saints on Sunday, stepping up from his usual "highly-paid-decoy" role.  It's interesting to speculate on how the Saints value him.  Obviously, they don't think he's a full-time RB, but he's paid like he's Adrian Peterson.  I'd be happy to have him as a swing player, between RB and WR, but he's a backup at both positions, and I'd only pay him backup money.  We'll soon see what the Saints think, because if I recall correctly, his contract is pretty well back-loaded.

i.  Josh Freeman continues to look like he's the real deal for the Buccaneers, and Raheem Morris continues to look like he's gotten his bearings as a Head Coach.  Both did a nice job in Sunday's game, despite Miami's comeback victory.

j.  Speaking of Miami, I want to address the "Wildcat."  The Dolphins are the only team which has had a lot of success with it, and every time they have a game with limited success, somebody speculates that the "trend" has run its course. 

The thing is, Miami doesn't treat it like a trend.  They treat it as a key part of the way they play offense, which puts their best players on the field together.  They are committed to it, and they will continue to run it.  They trade the disadvantage of being formationally unlikely to throw for the advantage of having 2-3 players who are good ball-carriers, who might get the ball in the running game.  Other teams are finding that the direct-snap game maybe doesn't work for them.  For Miami, it will continue to be an important part of their gameplan.

k.  Joey Porter has had a pretty sub-par year, and he was a healthy scratch on Sunday.  That raised some eyebrows, and Tony Sparano wouldn't comment on it.  It actually parallels Adalius Thomas basically being shut down by the Patriots.  Both teams are showing that having a big name and a big salary doesn't guarantee playing time, if you aren't producing on the field.  Expect both players to be released after the season.

l.  Another game I decided to watch on Monday was Jacksonville at the Jets.  The Jets miss Kris Jenkins terribly, and their defense is nowhere near as good as it was when he was healthy.  They are having to scheme to stop the inside run, and to keep Bart Scott and David Harris clean, and these things used to just happen.  I expect New England to blow them out this coming week.

m.  I can see why people like Mark Sanchez, but I continue not to be a fan.  He's well-coached, and he has excellent fundamentals.  I just think he's very limited as a natural thrower of the ball.  I consider him to be a poor man's Matt Ryan, which is another way of calling him a middle class man's Chad Pennington.

Sanchez plays in a windy place, which I have noted before, and that's going to always be an issue.  Another issue is that the offensive scheme he is playing in is very vertical, and Sanchez is a poster boy for the West Coast Offense.  Rex Ryan inherited Brian Schottenheimer as offensive coordinator, but I don't think Schottenheimer and Sanchez are a very good match.  I have to wonder if the Jets don't make a change in the offseason, to bring in somebody to make the passing game's design more horizontal.  Mike Shanahan could do wonders with Sanchez, although he won't be going to New York.

Really, as I think about it, if Sanchez and Jason Campbell could trade offensive coaching staffs, they'd probably both be much better off.  Two owners traded teams once; why couldn't this happen?

n.  There was a crazy sequence in the third quarter, where Sanchez threw an interception to Quentin Groves, then Maurice Jones-Drew fumbled at the goal line, and then Braylon Edwards fumbled at the end of a 41-yard catch.  It was a whole lot of ugly going on at once, like the perennially sloppy tendencies of the Jaguars were rubbing off on the Jets.

o.  Torry Holt was a great player for many years, despite playing for some obscure St. Louis teams.  Really, you could make a case that he was a better player than a few Hall of Famers.  (How about Art Monk, Steve Largent, and Lynn Swann to name a few?)  I would go so far as to say that he was better than any WR the Broncos have had in my lifetime, a little ahead of Rod Smith

My point in giving Holt credit, is that I have to say that I think he is getting pretty close to the end of the line.  He has really struggled to get any separation, in the times I have watched him this season.  He had two strong games, against St. Louis (bad defense) and Seattle (garbage time in a 41-0 game), but I haven't been impressed with his recent work.

p.  I loved the call by the Jaguars to have Jones-Drew take a knee and run the clock out.  His apology to his fantasy owners made me cringe, though.  I may be 7-3 in the official MHR league, but fantasy football is at odds with my beliefs about football, and I have a hard time reconciling the two things.

q.  I couldn't talk myself into watching the Cincinnati-Pittsburgh game.  Sorry, I know it was a key game, but a game with zero offensive touchdowns offends my sensibilities.  (Just in case you were wondering why I had nothing on this game.)  I'm sure it was ugly, and I feel fine, personally, having seen the highlights.  When I walk into a smelly restroom, I get out as quick as possible.  No need to hang around for half an hour, to have a good idea what happened there.

r.  Jake Delhomme had a dangerously solid game on Sunday.  It was the type of fool's gold performance that makes the regime think they are okay with him as their QB, and really, Jake has been having those games his whole career.  The Panthers are suddenly 4-5, and back in the picture for a Wild Card spot, but I really believe that they need a better QB if they ever want to really compete for a championship.

s.  Matt Ryan struggled mightily again on Sunday, and his two interceptions were a lot of the reason the Falcons lost the game.  His first INT, in the second quarter, led to a TD which set the Falcons behind 21-10.  The one he threw in the 4th quarter was converted 3 plays later into the TD which put the game away for Carolina. 

Don't get me wrong; Ryan is mostly a good QB, but he has definite limitations, which I have highlighted in the past.  He really struggles to beat tight coverage, and he's seen a lot of it lately.

t.  Speaking of Hall of Fame-caliber guys who look washed up, old friend Jason Elam seems to have really lost his fastball.  He's now 9 for 14, and he's only 3 for 6 between 30 and 39 yards.  I would be surprised if he kicks after this season.

u.  I always thought Beanie Wells was soft when he was at Ohio State, and he didn't do a lot early this season to change my mind.  Lately, though, he's shown a lot better, and he's a big reason why the Cardinals are 6-3, and squarely in control of the NFC West.  I've also been more impressed with the play of RT Levi Brown than ever before.  He's been blowing some people off the ball in the running game.

v.  The Chargers have been really tough in the scoring area lately.  Of course, the Eagles helped them out by not even trying to run the ball down there.  You have to make the defense think that they have to defend everything, or else they are at a distinct advantage.  Only getting field goals of 18, 25, and 25 yards on visits deep into San Diego territory was the difference in that game.  A defense can get shredded, as the Chargers did, and if they toughen up in the scoring area, they make up for it.  A lot of Donovan McNabb's 450 yards were low-quality.

w.  The Chargers sure are paying Darren Sproles a lot of money not to participate very much on offense.  He's a lot like Reggie Bush, in being a highly-paid decoy who is never going to be much more than what he is.

x.  Hey, Adam Schefter.  From a money guy, "large" means thousand.  When you say "two hundred fifty thousand large," that means $250 Million.  He said that on Monday Night Countdown (Served by Applebee's... really).  People misspeak all the time; I just wanted to make sure he knows what "large" means.  This is coming from a helpful place.

y.  I have to hand it to the Browns.  They played really well on defense Monday night.  Their offense is just so terrible, that it's no use.  Those defensive players are playing for jobs next year, whether it be in Cleveland under a new regime, or elsewhere.  Guys who show some pride and effort on bad teams will have some good film for their agents to shop them with.  Guys who pack it in will be out of the league, like so many guys who played defense in Denver last season.

z.  I actually like to listen to MNF nowadays, as I finish ST&NO every week.  The main reason is that I actually think that both Ron Jaworski and Jon Gruden are value-adding to listen to.  The guys at Mickey Mouse-land spent so many years looking for a good third man, with such horrible results, and they've finally found a good 3-man booth.  I actually don't like Mike Tirico, who is good at basketball, but bad at football play-by-play (much like Joe Buck is great with baseball, and abysmal with football).

5.  I know the Bengals have always been willing to take on troubled players, but it's hard to imagine what they are thinking in reportedly bringing in Larry Johnson.  As LJ was to be the key RB on the Shallow Thoughts team in the official MHR Fantasy League, I can tell you that his performance has been garbage this season.  Some of his bad performance can certainly be attributed to bad offensive line play in Kansas City, but Johnson is clearly lacking quickness to the hole, and the leg drive he had in his prime.  I just don't see what value the Bengals are going to get out of him. 

I've reached midnight, and unfortunately, I need to call it a night.  My company is in the process of being acquired, which has caused me to be much busier than normal at this time of the month, and I have an early morning meeting Tuesday.  I hope you enjoy this edition of ST&NO, and have a great week.  I'll see you all again next Tuesday, hopefully with time to give you my normal output.

13 recs  |  Comment 208 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Ted, loved this report thanks so much

for taking the time every week to do it.

I would hope you would support who we are. Not, who we are not. Coach Norman Dale "Hoosiers"

by dmitchell624 on Nov 17, 2009 6:50 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Thanks Ted, much appreciated.

Even at less that your normal output, your column is more valuable than a great majority of the crap that passes for an intellegent football column.

by RalphW on Nov 17, 2009 6:56 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Wonder if they keep Berger this week just because of Sproles?

A truth can only be expressed and enveloped in words if it is one-sided. Everything that is thought and expressed in words is one-sided, only half the truth; it all lacks totality, completeness, unity.

by Todd Jewell on Nov 17, 2009 7:20 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Stopped reading at the political talk

I don’t come to MHR for that.

Owning the Patriots since September 9, 1960

by Darin H on Nov 17, 2009 7:41 AM MST reply actions   1 recs

That’s a shame, Darin. Ted didn’t take sides, and he used the political examples to make a point about press coverage. If you’re going to talk about how the media works, there’s kind of no way around it.

by Chibronx on Nov 17, 2009 7:44 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Actually, he did take sides

Propping up a dud like Biden and dissing Reagan does seem to indicate his leanings

by warmick on Nov 17, 2009 11:55 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, actually I didn't do either thing

Since I am the one who wrote it, I know what I was thinking. Thanks for your input, though,

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 12:18 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

You know what you were thinking when you wrote it

I know how I perceived it when I read it. Your column is well worht reading (regardless) and I thank you for it.

by warmick on Nov 17, 2009 12:25 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh come on...

No political stances were taken there. Characteristics of public personalities were invoked, and I was really fair and neutral about it. Media relations by public figures are particular relevant and well-known in the political arena. That was the only reason for citing these people.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 7:46 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

"and I was really fair and neutral about it"

No you weren’t.

Owning the Patriots since September 9, 1960

by Darin H on Nov 17, 2009 7:46 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry you feel that way....

I have taken a few minor political stances on here in the past, and everybody knows I’m a liberal, and I know you’re a conservative. Today was not a day where I said anything good or bad about anybody politically. I cited two Republicans and one Democract who did/do well well with media relations, and one Democrat who didn’t/doesn’t. I don’t know what else came through.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 7:49 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I guess you can never talk politics or religion without someone feeling hurt or attacked.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:04 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

boy,

If I had known nothing about your political beliefs, I would have thought you were a conservative from the column. Don’t know what Darin’s beef is.

by tunesmith on Nov 17, 2009 9:23 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I have to agree.

I was unsure, but if anything, I would have guessed conservative from the column.

by SkinnyPB on Nov 17, 2009 10:50 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm just guessing..

But this might have been the line he’s talking about:

“I’ll just say it must be nice to have so many apologists when you mess up. He’s like the second coming of Ronald Reagan with how teflon he is.”

I think it’s pretty harmless (and kind of funny), but I have to admit, it struck me as a pretty negative shot at RR the first time I skimmed the article. Then my boss left and I read it more carefully.

Frankly, I’m still more offended by Sunday’s loss than anything else….

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 10:52 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

You know, the teflon comment is not something I made up

It was made up when I was a kid, and he was President. If you Google “Teflon Reagan,” you get more than 1 million hits. He made it through several scandals, with minimal damage to his standing or reputation, that’s all I am saying. Do you think somebody could survive Iran-Contra today, in the era of the 24 hour news cycle? I don’t think that comment was provocative at all.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 11:50 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I wonder what comes up if I search

“Teflon Daley”

(as in Mayor Daley here in Chicago… lol)

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 11:52 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Probably a lot of hits...

It’s a really commonplace metaphor

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 11:53 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Yea

Daley however epitomizes the phrase. The man is so corrupt, yet completely untouchable for some strange reason. =/

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 11:55 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you were well within your bounds there.

If someone takes offense that doesn’t make your comment insensitive or over the line.

I hope MHR never gets to the point where no one can say anything vaguely political for fear of creating a drama storm.

by PDXTai on Nov 17, 2009 11:53 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Your comment was fine, Ted

I suppose when some few folks choose to be offended by what was truly a fair and neutral comment, projecting their own perceptions onto everything they see, well really there isn’t much help for that.

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Nov 17, 2009 12:55 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

tempest in a teapot

Taking this ‘argument’ at its face value, Ted, I suppose if you had made a comment about George Washington and a cherry tree then you’d making political commentary. And taking that so-called logic further, any comment about any political figure could be construed as political commentary. That’s not what I would interpret as making political commentary.

Moreover, the only comment that’s political in nature here is contained in one of the posts making the questionable complaint about Ted’s purported political comment.

I could say that I am offended that someone was offended but it’s hard to get worked up about such a merit-less charge.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 17, 2009 1:00 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

age of the readership

Younger posters may not be aware of the ubiquitous nature of “Teflon Presidency” comments related to Reagan.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 17, 2009 1:12 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

The phrase “Teflon president” was coined in 19831 by Patricia Schroeder, a then Democratic Congresswoman from Colorado, who said of then-President Reagan,

" After carefully watching Ronald Reagan, I can see he’s attempting a great breakthrough in political technology. He has been perfecting the Teflon-coated presidency. He sees to it that nothing sticks to him. He is responsible for nothing.1

Here is the link

Trust me, this is well-covered territory.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 11:52 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I understand but...

….following the line about apologists for all his mistakes, I am just saying I can objectively see how someone would take that negatively. I tend to think all politicians and politics are a joke, so it doesn’t make a difference to me either way. I know Reagan had the “teflon” label, and I also think Bush Jr, Obama, Clinton, all had (have) people ready to make excuses for them. I was only pointing out how an objective reader might read that line, in its context, to be a dig at RR.

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I mean, come on...

you did kind of liken the guy to Cutler…ewwwwww ;-)

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 12:08 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

which is just weird

I mean, Reagan was a RG in college, not a QB. Pshah!

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Nov 17, 2009 1:10 PM MST up reply actions   1 recs

I see Ted responded

with what I felt; this is a historically accurate reference in that Reagan was the first, I believe, to have the label used in reference to not having criticism stick. Whether you liked him or not doesn’t change the reference. I happened to like him, but that is absolutely only my opinion and really means very little, other than removing the worry that I chose this side of this small debate for political beliefs. McGeorge is right, though- it seems impossible nowadays use religious or political references to make a point or as a comparison.

by idahobronc on Nov 17, 2009 12:08 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed on McG's point...

Can you imagine people having this discussion on the DP boards, or anywhere else on the MM? The name calling and feces throwing would have started about 10 comments ago. one more reason to love MHR!

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 12:09 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Reagan and the Teflon issue

It’s only assumed to be a pejorative label by some here. Actually, Reagan wore it with pride, and journalists often used it affectionately to refer to his unflappable nature.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 17, 2009 1:19 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Your reaction proves the point Ted was making

One small comment and people come out in defense, much like Cutler’s 17 INTS of which none are his fault, please see the coaches, receivers, and O-line to direct your blame

by BigskyBronco on Nov 17, 2009 8:18 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Didn't you know...

that we aren’t ever supposed to talk politics? I mean, you wouldn’t want to ‘offend’ anyone. nor would we really want to actually talk about it.

Talking is bad, let’s all sit around and just talk in hush hush tones.

I mean…

We wouldn’t want to offend anyone…would we?

by Mhantra on Nov 17, 2009 12:57 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I actually was moe offended that You LIKE Ronald Reagan

than any other Political reference or example you made. But I am a Union member and a Native Californian. ;-)

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Nov 17, 2009 7:15 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I was not personally offended,

but I can understand where they are coming from, due to this section:

so I focused on that with the news chick, Angie Lau. I had nothing but nice things to say, as Ronnie was definitely a good fraternity man.

It could be inferred from this statement you would have had bad things to say about his actual service as President, but focused on the more fluffy human-interest story in the name of not making him look bad (which was of course admirable of you, given the circumstances).

I’m not criticizing you (and don’t mind the very minimal level of politics you sprinkled in this post), merely pointing out what could be construed as taking one side.

Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle

by appleshampoo on Nov 17, 2009 7:12 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Publicly calling yourself fair and neutral shows some balls

I have no objection to your original writing, Ted, but this is Belichick level gutsy. It is really tough to judge whether you have been fair – almost everyone thinks he was fair, even when this is not the case.

Having said that, I’d voice my reader’s opinion. I love your writing, Ted. Amount of work you put into it is astonishing and you product is well researched and readable. You have your opinions, but it is not pure spin – it is backed by hours of watching tape and working numbers. I’d hate to see it devalued by descend into politics. To compare, Yahoo has Michael Silver. He definitely has some good thoughts, but 2 things were constantly making me cringe: gratuitous politics and self-aggrandizing. Eventually, I decided there is enough football opinion around for me to go without him. I still visit Yahoo Sports page more frequently then any other sports site, but I do not open Silver’s articles any more. You are nowhere near that, but please watch your trajectory.

by si_ice on Nov 17, 2009 8:26 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Cut the guy some slack man.

He’s here do YOU a service. My take is I’ll read whatever Ted writes because it’s informed and highly readable. If it becomes a pattern to be off topic then sure, complain. I may have missed something but if this is about that Reagan story then you gotta start doing some yoga and chill out a little.

Man some people are sensitive. If you don’t like something it aint hard to skip something and move on to the next thing. Why make a song and dance about it?

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams

by orange&blue_aussie on Nov 18, 2009 2:58 AM MST up reply actions   1 recs

Thanks Ted. I love Tuedays.

Some of my own:
- The Broncos’ running game looked better. Not sure if it was just because I was looking for it, but I noticed more zone blocking plays than I has before. I liked the trend.
- DJ better be careful because even though he’s too small, Woodyard is making plays. He’s going to find himself behind Wesley.
- Legwold has a good article about the Broncos’ control of the LOS. They need to get back to that. Nolan said it was a matter of discipline.
- Orton can throw the deep ball, he just needs the space to set up and do it. If he’s harassed at all, he can’t get it downfield.
- I’m more confident in Simms if he has to go next week with a week of reps. He looked way better than that in preseason. I actually think his range could add a few wrinkles to the game plan (rolling him out, etc.). I’d rather see Orton be able to go, but won’t freak out if it’s Simms.
- Agree with your take on MNF booth. I don’t really hear Tirico anyway because I can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, I’m too focused on watching the play to hear him.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 17, 2009 7:45 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

re: WW and opponent's strategy

Another way of looking at Woodyard’s numbers (which I’ve read) is that teams are forcing us to go smaller in order to take advantage of size mismatches.

McDaniels answered the question about whether we’re being ‘out-physicaled’ by saying it was more a case of us missing assignments. I disagree somewhat. I agree with McDaniels but I don’t see the physical aspects as wholly distinct from execution (tending assignments). Fatigued players are more likely to ‘cheat’ on assignments. Moreover, our defense is more likely to become fatigued when our offense can’t move the ball, and thus places a burden back on our defense. As we saw last year, our performance on defense declines as drives get longer (timewise). Also, the hurry-up strategy we’ve seen lately from opponents limits our ability to substitute. It’s as much about preventing us from bringing in ‘fresher’ players as creating confusion.

Woodyard’s presence on the field can mean two things — one is good and one is bad. We’ve either forced the opponent into a passing (long yardage) situation or they’re using 3-receiver sets to spread us out and run the ball.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 17, 2009 2:45 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Good point

I wasn’t referring so much as to why WW was on the field, but moreso that when he was out there, he seemed to be around the ball. He’s just one of those guys (Doom is another) that seems to “get” the game.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 17, 2009 3:10 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

there's been a couple articles with this observation lately, although the thoughts are my own

It’s certainly not that I don’t like WW, but his weakness is being run straight at. Unlike DJ, who’s big enough to take on bigger blockers, WW has a major size disadvantage.

I’m not singling him out for blame or even implying that he deserves any, but we give up a lot of poundage if he’s in a situation where he has to take on a OL and a big back. It’s merely a question of how we match up scheme-wise.

There’s a theme that I’ve been developing lately and I used my comment above to reiterate it. We’ve struggled with offenses that pound the ball down our throats and our own offense has failed to do the same thing to our opponent’s defense. It’s partly strategy and partly opponents have found out as a way to beat us. It’s also a few other things, such as motivated opponents (Baltimore), and an eventual letdown after a fast start. And it’s a weakness that we’ve shown lately that we must address.

BTW — my thoughts have drifter to the draft lately, and it’s a subject I enjoy very much. Analysis of team needs is requisite to formulating a draft strategy. Strangely, I enjoy finding problems because it allows me the chance to create solutions through the draft and free agency. It’s like shopping for Christmas presents. Someone who doesn’t need anything is a annoying.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 17, 2009 6:11 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh, I agree with you completely

I know exactly what you’re saying about WW’s size disadvantage, my only point again was about keeping a playmaker on the field.

Can’t wait to see what you’re formulating about the draft. I’ve thought about that more as well but because I don’t watch much college football outside of Notre Lame, er, Dame, I don’t know much beyond what “analysts” tell me.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 18, 2009 10:21 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks, TB

I can’t believe the Belichick decision has to be defended. I still remember the Superbowl against the Rams, when John Madden blew a gasket about the Patriots not playing for overtime on the final possession. Same scenario, more or less: The guy paid to talk about the game pushes the pre-approved narrative, while Belichick reasons, correctly, that the game is over if the other team gets the ball.

I find it weird that there’s even a debate about this.

by Chibronx on Nov 17, 2009 7:50 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

i thought bellichick was gonna let them score...

… if they failed to convert. i mean you’re prolly not gonna stop manning so they come out, addai runs the ball you grab him and throw him into the endzone colts go up by 1, brady has 2 minutes to get the ball into field goal range and gostkowski wins the game. that seems liek a pretty legitimate plan.

by march20 on Nov 17, 2009 7:54 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

That is exactly what I thought the strategy was

and as soon as that guy made the tackle on the 1 or 2 yard line I knew the game was over and I called that the stupid play not the call for fourth down. If I was the coach I would have punted. But that’s because I’m an idiot and I’d play it conventionaly. I understood what Billichick was trying to do there though and I thought giving Brady the ball back with ample time to get a field goal against a defense that you’ve shredded all game was a smart move. The bonehead play was not the call but the tackle on the 1 yard line with a minute and a half left.

by T.Dot_Bronco on Nov 17, 2009 9:52 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I thought the same

Once in that situation, the other strategy that would have been fun to see was the defense tackling any receivers coming out. Oops! Flag, first and goal, and a few more seconds off the clock. The downs didn’t matter at that point, but forcing the Colts to run it in would have been cool.

by MakeCents on Nov 17, 2009 7:28 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Imagine that

People hate BB enough already but imagine he had his DB’s actually tackle the receivers at the line of scrimmage to force penalties. His haters (the millions of them) would be going insane.

by T.Dot_Bronco on Nov 17, 2009 10:17 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Ahh..I didn't even think about that!

That would have been a good call. “Okay, we failed to convert on 4 & 2. Give Peyton the ball and let them score quickly. Then Brady will have two minutes to take it down the field” ~Bill’s woulda-coulda thoughts

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Nov 17, 2009 1:13 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

For once i agree with Belichick

The thing is, if all you really want to do is win games, and if you have the football knowledge to understand the odds (both of which apply to belichick more than his detractors), then you play the odds, make your decision and live with it. more often than not, Belichick wins the gamble. the losses are the price he pays for the chance to win the games that he does. The fans and the media may be po’d about it, but the players understand that his coaching gives them the best outcome in the end. don’t give me this crap about how new England will have a hard time “recovering from the loss”, or that belichich didn’t show faith in his D. These guys are professionals and so is he. they’ll be back next week, and if it comes down to a gamble like that again Belichick will roll the dice again.

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Nov 17, 2009 1:12 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

From the replays

I saw I thought he actually got the first down. If he had a time out he would have challenged and I think he would have won. but those are the breaks of the game

by papasteven on Nov 17, 2009 4:42 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

AlI I ask for is a little respect........

As a Bengals fan, and you can look this up, I congratulated you on the win against us by way of the “immaculate deflection”. I don’t take anything away from your win as it would diminish Stokley’s ability to come up with the big play.

That being said, the Steelers/Bengals game was a study in defense and was anything but ugly. People who really know football found a lot the enjoy in this game. Frankly I wish there was some way that we could meet again this year so we would have a chance to earn your respect.

The Bronco’s problem is that people have figured you out. Orton is really just a pedestrian QB. He makes a lot of mistakes when people are in his face and your D, which I respect, cannot play great all the timel. They are going to struggle once in a while and your O just doesn’t have the fire power to make up for it as your Oline just cannot keep the D out of your backfield. I am actually rooting for you against the Chargers but they are getting better while you guys are falling off. It will be very hard for you to take this game. It is possible but the odd are against it. I fear your best days this season are behind you.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Nov 17, 2009 7:52 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

i think that was respect....

Ted just basically said he considered ya’ll on level if not better than the superbowl champions :)

plus “ugly” doesn’t mean a “bad” game. “ugly” means a defensive struggle between two dominating defenses :)

by march20 on Nov 17, 2009 7:56 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

My criticism of a game with no offensive TDs...

has nothing to do with either team. It has to do with my being an offensive-minded person, who thinks games like that are boring. I do respect the Bengals, and their accomplishments, and if you look up my past columns, I have been consistently complimentary of them this year. I just didn’t feel like watching a boring game, so I had nothing to say about either team this week.

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 7:57 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

you would love Canadian football Mr. Bartlett

all offense & no defense, relatively. unless its snowing.

its like they invented our terrible rules for people that ‘love them some offense !’ personally i hate it. (the CFL)

two teams playing great physical defense (old school!) is always really entertaining to me. i always come away from those games feeling like i learned a lot. you never see those games in the CFL.

by Jenna Talia on Nov 17, 2009 9:04 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm with you, Jenna

I really like watching two good defenses. I didn’t see the Pitt/Cincy game, but I imagine it was a fun one to watch. Great offenses on both sides, too.

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Nov 17, 2009 1:00 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

In retrospect, you are right. My bad.

We get a lot of pretty mediocre press here. I can get a bit too sensitive even for my own tastes occasionally. I apologize and retract the comment.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Nov 17, 2009 1:41 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Classy

As Bronco fans, we can relate.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 17, 2009 3:11 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Um

Orton wasn’t the problem on Sunday. The fact that he got injured was.

by Remember Keith Kartz! on Nov 17, 2009 9:45 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Well, for those of us that do know football....

there is a way for our teams to meet up again this year. It’s a little thing called the playoffs. Maybe the teams will meet in the post-season and get a chance to earn one another’s respect, as you say.

Not sure why you feel like the Bengals aren’t being given any respect. Maybe it’s because of so many years of futility and the subsequent lack of respect that goes with that, but here at MHR and throughout much of the MSM, I hear plenty of praise and respect for the Bengals this season. Earlier this season, many people waited for the inevitable implosion and simply hasn’t happened. But for the most part, especially the last few weeks, the Bengals have been given a tremendous amount of respect and kudos.

Perhaps you’re being just a tad overly sensitive to criticism, especially by insinuating that one of the smartest football people on our site, and probably yours (and most certainly smarter than you or I….especially given your rather limited, and fairly inaccurate, analysis of the Broncos above), that he doesn’t know the game (meaning the “people who really know football” comment).

In any case, just enjoy the strong season the Bengals are having, realize there’s a lot of football left to play (for the Bengals, the Broncos, for every team), pray that the Larry Johnson signing does not go through and hopefully we’ll see you in the playoffs.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes)

by RockyMtnHigh on Nov 17, 2009 10:56 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

See my apology above. It was sincere.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Nov 18, 2009 11:47 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Hey, I am rooting for you against the Chargers

I really do hope you win. My point is that your O line seems, from what little I have seen, having a problem and Orton is a decent pocket passer but has not shown me the ability to stay cool in traffic. He seems to get happy feet and does ill advised things that the top notch QBs in the league manage to avoid. I am not down on Orton. With another year in your system I expect him to improve. Frankly, I don’t think Cutler is much better in that respect. The Bengals completely rattled him when we put that big time loss on the Bears.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Nov 18, 2009 11:52 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

have to agree with this

KO does seem to get happy feet. I’ve been a supporter of his since the trade, but that happy feet thing is starting to piss me off

by RockyMountainHigh on Nov 18, 2009 5:45 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

There is no part of the above I disagree with….Nicely done!

-TSG

SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport

Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com
or
Call Me! (303)731-5605

Follow MHR on Twitter!
Follow MHR on Facebook!

by John Bena on Nov 17, 2009 8:42 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

+100

Well stated. So correct

"Precipitation, which side are you on?
Are you on the rise? Are you falling down?
Let me know, Come on let's go, yeah
Got some if you need it!" -EV

by sadaraine on Nov 17, 2009 8:54 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

And it is.

If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.

by kentuckybronco on Nov 17, 2009 9:38 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I finished watching the full Bronco game and that lose finished me off for the weekend.

I heard the Colts vs Pats was a great one. Oh well.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 9:20 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Rec'd

Had no idea what McDaniels saw in Preifer, KC’s Special teams last year is equally pathetic to our STs…

by CombatChuk on Nov 17, 2009 9:18 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

McG steppin it up

I find it harder and harder to disagree with you these days. You’ve been on your game for a while now. Good stuff.

by T.Dot_Bronco on Nov 17, 2009 9:57 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice post, BB.

I like your perspective on how to handle a loss, especially how you made the best of it with your son. Good stuff, and good to know that you’re molding him into a well-rounded fan.

- Jason

I gather speed by you f***ing with me - EV

by jubei on Nov 17, 2009 10:10 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Rec'd

For passing on to your son what it means to be a REAL fan!

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 10:43 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Good perspective Butte,

When it’s all said and done the time spent enjoying the Broncos with family and friends is more important than the outcome of a single game. Glad to hear that you are bringing up a Bronco fan that can endure the lows to enjoy the highs even more.

In fact reading this response just uplifted my day so thanks, i can’t wait for my 5 month old son to be at my side watching the games with me cheering on our team.

Rec’d

Denver rookie head coach Josh McDaniels doesn't have a grasp on how to build a team." - John Clayton, April 23rd, 2009

by diviesti on Nov 17, 2009 10:47 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Preifer is the problem.

My point is that they ran a trick play, we say this trick play coming from 10 miles away and yet, when they added an element of misdirection into their trick play, we were caught completely off guard.

Does it surprise anyone that there was a wrinkle to their trick play? There usually is an element of trickery in those type of plays and we had no idea how to deal with it (even after the TO).

I’m not expressing passion. I’m being very logical and to the point. Preifer really should lose his job over that play (add in the several other ST failures and there is more than enough grounds for dismissal). Denver would be much better off giving his job to someone that is not in well over his head. Preifer has been promoted well beyond his level of competence and it really showed on that one play.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 11:52 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree about firing Preifer

I agree that he should have had the team better prepared. I agree that our ST appear to be poorly coached this year. I don’t think you make a change at this point in the season. During the offseason, sure, but I think you need to ride Preifer until then. Hopefully he’ll take Sunday as a “learning opportunity” and improve his coaching from there.

by PDXTai on Nov 17, 2009 11:56 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure the McGeorge meant fire him mid-season.

But I personally doubt Priefer makes it through the off-season.

by idahobronc on Nov 17, 2009 12:13 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

In a vacuum, I think you make any and all decisions when it becomes obvious what that decision is. It has with Priefer, he clearly can’t cut it in his current role. As such, I’d fire Preifer last Sunday afternoon, around 4:45 pm EST.

Of course, I am certain there are a lot of financial and HR decisions (among other things) that factor into this and I’m feeling confident we have a new ST coach next season. I bet he sees the writing on the wall as well as the rest of us.

So… good riddance Preifer, in advance on your pending dismissal in January or February of 2010. You will not be missed and your dismissal will be meant with happiness from the Bronco fan base.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 12:55 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

That’s not how I see it. His dismissal will be the prologue to the agony of the next failed special teams coach.

Here’s my proposal. Rick Dennison did the best job in memory with the special teams. Since we’re moving to a gap blocking scheme, why not get a different OL coach and move him back to an area where he excelled?

Also, an analogy:

Denver : Special Teams
Chicago : Quarterbacks

by Chibronx on Nov 17, 2009 1:36 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Obsession

One bad play = blame the coach
Series of bad plays = blame the coach
Lots of bad plays = blame the coach
Get a new coach = blame the coach before he has even coached one game.

If McG has a pattern, it is blame the coach.

Personally, I blame the player(s) and the coach(es). Call me crazy. Yet I agree that Priefer is not doing a good job.

by Endzone on Nov 17, 2009 12:27 PM MST up reply actions   3 recs

great post

The “from the stands” perspective I had was that Phons had the deep weak side, or at least deep middle… and he bit on the intermediate routes rather than follow-rule #1 of his position, which is let NOTHING get behind you. He was completely lost in space, and even though the pass was anything but a strike (it was a big huge rainbow), he was still nowhere close to actually making a play on the ball…

I don’t know if someone (Thomas) was supposed to man-up on Sellers or not… but Phons was completely lost out there.

Berger continued to horrify me… his “long” punt was a complete line-drive, that only pure luck made any good. His 16 yard punt was absolutely atrocious… dropping Kern for this bag of suck was a HORRIBLE decision, even though Kern was no great shakes either.

by cjfarls on Nov 17, 2009 1:13 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Poor Phonz. He can’t do much right lately. He is not having a good rookie year by any standard. I was hoping he’d be a playmaker, but this was his biggest play of the year for all the wrong reasons.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 1:54 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

+100 to ButteBronco

I’m sure glad you took the time and effort to analyze the play. I was hoping for a 2nd look to better understand what I was seeing.

As McDaniels said, the error was in not rushing the punter rather than the coverage — although I don’t think anyone is absolving the ST’s coverage of blame.

no goats, no glory.

by Colinski on Nov 17, 2009 4:02 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Very nice take McG

But here’s my question: After the very obvious screw-up and time-out by the Redskins, where everyone in the stadium knows what’s coming, why the hell do we even have a special teams unit in the game? Why aren’t we playing this with our defense – I mean, what do we lose by doing that? I’m not sure you can lay everything at the feet of Preifer, but that which is not laid there comes back to McD. To stress situational football and then have a situation cost you the game . . .

It's "just" football

by Donkhead on Nov 17, 2009 11:13 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

100% agree

I was assuming we were going to come out after the TO with a defensive unit on the field.

by JALefor on Nov 17, 2009 11:15 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

If you watch the left side of the line, the TE stays in to block, but leaks out and no one goes with him.

Two rushers stop their rush to chase the TE, but it was too late. Obviously someone blew the coverage there. I’m not sure who should cover the TE in that situation.

by PDXTai on Nov 17, 2009 11:20 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

McGeorge, you are out of control!

Seriously, that’s the second of your comments I’ve rec’d today. Just settle down, okay?

"Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

by Colorado_Kitten on Nov 17, 2009 1:16 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Tiebreakers

If we lose to San Diego and are shooting for a WC i agree they are useless now and we probably will miss the playoffs.

However if we beat san diego and take our division thsoe tiebreakers could be extremely useful in getting us that 1st round bye.

by nsink on Nov 17, 2009 3:18 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks Ted,

I enjoy Gruden as a color commentator as well. You can tell he truly enjoys football, hard to say if he will sit next year out as a coach and give us another year of MNF.

Denver rookie head coach Josh McDaniels doesn't have a grasp on how to build a team." - John Clayton, April 23rd, 2009

by diviesti on Nov 17, 2009 8:04 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

The fact...

that he signed a 3-year extension makes it more than likely….I expect him to wait a few years before returning….

-TSG

SBNation's Denver Broncos Blogger
MileHighReport

Questions, Comments...E-Mail Me!
milehighreport@gmail.com
or
Call Me! (303)731-5605

Follow MHR on Twitter!
Follow MHR on Facebook!

by John Bena on Nov 17, 2009 8:43 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Good point John,

plus I think he is having more fun being a commentator than than even he would have expected. That alone will keep you going in any position in life.

"A great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do" Walter Gagenot
"Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible and achieves the impossible."

by bchiper on Nov 17, 2009 8:49 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow, didn't know that

Thanks for the info

Denver rookie head coach Josh McDaniels doesn't have a grasp on how to build a team." - John Clayton, April 23rd, 2009

by diviesti on Nov 17, 2009 8:57 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

No doubt he has a clause

anulling the contract if he is offered a head coach position, which probably will happen. Tirico doesn’t bother me (unlike Jaworsky, who with his fake enthusiasm seems more intent on faking people into accepting his self promotion than in imparting useful observations). Gruden has been a superb addition and I will be very sorry to see him go but I will be very surprised if he isn’t a head coach next year.

by warmick on Nov 17, 2009 12:18 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

+1

Jaw’s isn’t suitable for the job

by T.Dot_Bronco on Nov 17, 2009 10:31 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice as always Ted... a couple of extra points

that I’ve brought up elsewhere…

1) The Bellicheat (still can’t help myself) call reminds me of Shanny’s gutsy 2-pt conversion. You succeed and you are a genius; you fail and you are a goat. It’s just the way it works in the NFL… but you brought up some great points on why to go for it in that situation.

2) I agree with McG that the fake FG TD was inexcusable. But at the same time, I do give credit to the Hunter Smith for making what is NOT an easy throw. It was 40 yards downfield, almost 50 yards across the field… which yields by some pythagorean theorem math (lol) to be nearly 65 yards through the air. I remember Elway made a similar roll-out throw (longer though) against the Chiefs many a moon ago, where I remember reading the Chief defender saying he thought there was no way Elway was going to make a throw like that.

3) Did you see the MJD kneel down on their FG-winning drive? That was some heads up play and made me like MJD all the more. He’s awesome.

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 8:12 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Wide open receiver and no pressure on the passer.

As we all know at MHR, when throwing a long pass, the most crucial aspect of determining if the play will be a success is pass protection. A close 2nd would be tight, double or triple coverage. Denver had neither on the Skins.

If you have the arm, it was a pass some 300+ guys in the NFL could have made (RBs, WRs, punters, kickers, etc). Pitch and catch, just like you did with your buddies back when you were young.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:17 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Not to banter with you about this, but there's no way in hell I can even come close to 65 yards

I never played though in HS or college… so it might just be me. ;)

It’s a difference of opinions, sir. If you were a Washington Redskin fan, today you would be praising how great a throw that was. But because we are passionate Bronco fans, we tend to look at the negatives… which there were a lot with that particular play, don’t get me wrong. I’m just trying to look at it objectively and wanted to give credit where I think credit is also due… discredit our ST players and coaches for not playing smart, credit their ST for executing.

However, I still maintain that is NOT an easy throw for a punter. It’s 65 yards through the air and across the field, which is typically a cardinal sin for most QB’s. He didn’t have pressure, sure, but he still needed to get the ball there accurately and quickly (before Phonz had the chance to react).

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 8:28 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

It was not 65 yards in the air.

It was a standard issue bomb. Lots and lots of professional and armature athletes in several sports have the arm strength to throw a football that far. With no pressure and a WIDE open receiver, it was just like play ground pitch and catch.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:43 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Is my math wrong?

I admit to not having done the pythagorean theorem in about 20 years. lol

But I’m pretty sure my math was right. It was close to 65 yards through the air…

Anyways, you and I will have to live with disagreeing on whether or not it was a difficult throw. I say it is… for a punter.

In everything else regarding the play though we are in agreement. It was a pathetic and disappointing display of Bronco football.

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 8:46 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I would guess punters make around $850,000 per year and attend 100+ practices and weight lifting sessions each season. It’s a damn competitive job. I know it’s easy to make fun of kickers, but they are vastly superior athletes compared to your average Joe. NFL position plays are not average Joes, but comparing a punter to an NFL positional player must compromise everyone’s ability to correctly judge the athleticism of kickers/punters.

It was absolutely a pass I’d expect from a guy that is a professional NFL player getting paid handsomely to train his body to perform at the highest level.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:53 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Haha... ok, ok...

You obviously are still very very upset at the team for the play. I am going to back away slowly and just drop the subject…

Moving on… it’s CHARGER week. Gawd, I haaaate the Chargers so bleepin’ much.

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 9:22 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

If we beat the Chargers, I’ll just file that play in the back of my mind somewhere.

If that ends up costing us this season, I’ll have a very hard time ever getting over that play.

Come on Orton’s ankle. We need you to rest up and heal quickly.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 9:30 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

And on that, we can both agree...

C’mon sweeeeeep! It’s been waaaay too long since we have swept them.

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 9:45 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

ha, you're clearly not talking about berger
I know it’s easy to make fun of kickers, but they are vastly superior athletes compared to your average Joe.

by ssc on Nov 17, 2009 11:16 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

You got me there.

But I’ve been on record saying Mitch should have cut him at half time of his first game as a Bronco. I still still feel the same way about Mitch today.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 11:27 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe he's talking about Sea bass?

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 17, 2009 12:20 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps Chilean sea bass?

Apropos nothing at all, Chilean sea bass is a perfect example of favorable obfuscation. The fish itself is actually a hideous looking thing called a lungfish. Since no one wanted to look at it (It’s named because it looks much like an autopsied human lung) and yet it tasked wonderful, the name was colloquially changed to Chilean sea bass. It’s not Chilean and it’s not a sea bass at all, but the name permitted a tremendous marketing of the fish’s tasty flesh and brought a lot of jobs to those who caught, cooked and served it.

I think that’s about how we hire ST coaches. They look awful, but with a name change (the new team) we assume that the product will be tasty. Sadly, by the end of the year, many of them seem to be the same old ugly looking fish we started with.

Moreno/Buckhalter in '09

by Emmett Smith on Nov 17, 2009 5:16 PM MST up reply actions   2 recs

Colorfol analogy!

Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle

by appleshampoo on Nov 17, 2009 6:43 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Not sure where you were going with that

and then bam….brought it all together….nice

by T.Dot_Bronco on Nov 17, 2009 10:33 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

funny, but ... is this accurate?

wikipedia does not have it as a lungfish. not the same class either.

by ssc on Nov 18, 2009 8:34 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Story comes from the chefs I used to wrok with

It’s an ipse dixit, for what that’s worth. They tended to be accurate on the whole and that’s all I know on it.

Metaphor worked, though ;-)

Moreno/Buckhalter in '09

by Emmett Smith on Nov 18, 2009 1:14 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Nope

Was actually referring to a Polish Seabass who lines up at kicker for the faders.

Vastly superior athlete, that guy.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 18, 2009 10:24 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

which btw... you made a very very salient point that I haven't seen elsewhere

Why the heck was the TE running a yard 7-yd out triple covered while Sellers was open by about 20 yards in either direction??

It was a busted play… lack of execution… poor coaching… who knows. But hopefully Priefer and/or the rest of the players will be held accountable, learn from this, and NEVER let it happen again.

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 8:33 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I do know.

I know and I’m telling you. It was very very very poor coaching. That play should have never succeeded, but Denver was shockingly unprepared for the least surprising/most obvious fake FG attempt I’ve ever witnessed, on a 4th and 20 no less. It was the easily the single worst piece of Bronco coaching I’ve ever witnessed.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:40 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

you might not have been a fan

when we had Dan Reeves, i’m thinking.

my Dad is a huge Broncos fan also, and he can’t say Reeves name without swearing.

by Jenna Talia on Nov 17, 2009 9:09 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

in fact, if you wiki Dan Reeves

it has a cute little chart that shows his playoff record. it will make you swear.

by Jenna Talia on Nov 17, 2009 9:11 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I remember Reeves and I remember losing a lot of lot of Super Bowls. He was not a terrible coach nor does his name merit swearing over to this day.

Preifer’s name does though.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 9:23 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Preifer is the sole impediment to my trying to be a less emotional fan. I have to say I’ve made some pretty good strides, but that guy is really starting to try my patience.

Sporadic errors and lapses in judgment I can attribute to the players, but this consistent breakdown on special teams definitely smacks of coaching issues.

Part of what I find so frustrating about our continued issues in special teams is the idea that so much good done by the offense and defense can be negated by the special teams in ONE PLAY. Yesterday was the perfect example. I happen to think that the game swung in favor of the Skins on the fake FG. The way the offense was playing, they could have easily absorbed the Buck fumble and kept on going. Not so with the fake FG. That was a back-breaker.

Silly question, but could we have called our own TO after they came back out and started showing the fake the second time? I’ll admit that I don’t know what our TO status was at that point, but I think Zorn would have to have a cast iron set of stones to try that after showing it twice.

- Jason

I gather speed by you f***ing with me - EV

by jubei on Nov 17, 2009 9:44 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Ha... or I think Zorn at this point in their season

Is thinking “Ehhh, wth do I have to lose?? 4th and 20? Who effin cares? I sure don’t!!”

;)

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't you mean...

…Bingo-Boy up in the booth?

Thanks for another fantastic season...here's to Rocktober 2010!
"If you do it right 51 percent of the time, you will end up a hero." - Alfred P. Sloan

by Duncan1800 on Nov 18, 2009 12:32 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Sellers stayed in to block, then released

The rusher on that side tried to stop his rush to cover Sellers but was already beaten. There’s no way a D lineman is going to catch a TE.

It was actually a well executed misdirection play with everything going to the right while the throw went left.

by PDXTai on Nov 17, 2009 11:23 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

That's what I saw, also.

I guess my goat for that would be the LOLB, who should’ve notices when Sellers broke outside instead of blocking. it looked like everyone in the defensive backfield over-pursued to the right. . It was a really well executed plan on the redskins part, but the broncos still should have been able to handle it. I’m just speculating here, but if you’ve got 4th and 20, and the opposing team shifts into a fake just before the snap (I’m not even addressing the time out thing, that’s a whole other can of worms), shouldn’t there be a defensive audible to go into a straight up man defense? I mean, if ANY one of the db’s or LB’s was watching Sellers it wouldn’t have been a sucessfull pass. This has got to go on both the defensive players for not reacting properly, and on Priefer for not coaching them on this situation properly.

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Nov 17, 2009 1:25 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with McG

Hunter smith has been playing football for a long time, I was never a quarterback but I gotta tell you when you are practicing football for better than 75% of the year everyone and I mean everyone is going to have a lot of practice, whether it be just dicking around before practice, THROWING the ball. Tack on the fact that Hunter has been practing for 20 or so years throwing a ball around at practice a 40 yd cross field throw with no pressure on you at all to an extremely wide open player is the equivalent of sinking a put from 2 inches. It is the equivalent of them showing us the lame ass footage of Prater making seventy yarders pregame, just like those pregame situations there was no pressure on him at all so he had forever to read the whole field and see that Sellers was basically uncovered(covered by a DT).

by JALefor on Nov 17, 2009 11:01 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Sure

That’s cool, guys. You guys have your opinions of that throw; I have mine. After getting over my anger at the play, and reviewing it on NFLN, I just think it was an impressive throw. I suppose I’m just easily impressed. ;)

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 11:10 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

It WAS a very impressive throw

That is my whole argument, he IS and athlete and he made a hell of a throw that almost any WR/RB/P/K in the NFL could have made under those circumstances.

by JALefor on Nov 17, 2009 11:13 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

But...

That ball seemed to be in the air FOR-EV-ERRRR (with apologies to the kids in “The Sandlot”)….or maybe it only seemed that way to manic Broncos fans who may or may not have been jumping up and down, screaming at the tv while the ball was in the air. There should have been an in-flight movie on that pass..

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 11:28 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

in did hang forever

It was not a pretty pass… and Phons was so out of position either in the deep weak-side or cnter-field position, that he had no chance at it anyway. Horrible, horrible play.

by cjfarls on Nov 17, 2009 1:17 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Ha, we are going around in circles.

It is what it is (ugh, I hate that phrase). You guys think a punter should make that throw with ease. I say it is not an easy throw for a punter… It seems I have lower expectations than you guys. heh.

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 12:07 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Great post as always Ted...

I agree completely on Belicheck’s decision.

While a lot is being said about the fake FG/punt TD, I personally felt the game turned on a different play – the missed bomb to Royal. And I didn’t think either Orton or Royal was the problem on that one. The Skins’ DB clearly yanked at Royal as he was running by, and just as Orton was launching the ball. Had that not happened, Royal would have run right under it. As it was, it slowed him up and made him readjust for a moment before reacquiring the ball’s trajectory. We get that one, it’s 21-7, and who knows what happens next. I’m not going to whine about the refs, because I do think the calls even out over time, but it’s just a statement to how fragile the outcome of each and every game is. There isn’t as much difference between a Washington and a New England as the MSM would have anyone believe, and it only takes a few key plays to turn what “should have been a laugher” into a loss.

That and Simms looked AWFUL.

by ShawnDenver on Nov 17, 2009 8:41 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

No way.

The DB bump (illegal or not) on WR happens multiple times in every NFL game, disrupting several passes that would otherwise be complete.

But if you see another successful 4th and 20 FG that happens after of timeout where the kicking team showed their hand, I’ll send you a huge box of cookies (even if you live in Alaska).

The fake FG was your game changing play. Hopefully not the season changing play.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:47 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

All I'm saying...

is that the game progresses completely differently if we go up 21-7. The circumstances that produced the fake FG don’t even necessarily happen, and so forth. I’m certainly not defending Denver’s play on that fake – I agree it was inexcusable, especially on the part of Reid or whoever it was that let the FB go off the line.

But I disagree with your take on the Royal pass – the replay showed him being grabbed, not bumped.

by ShawnDenver on Nov 17, 2009 8:49 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

It should have been a flag, but as you said. Refs miss that call all the time and it usually goes both ways.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 8:55 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

It's a tie

Both the Buckhalter fumble and the TD off the fake were hugely important. But if I had to lean one way I’d say the fumble was more devastating (although I know it doesn’t derectly count for any points, as the TD off the fake did). We were driving to score and establishing the run while up 14-7. Would we have gone up 21-7 the Skins would not have been able to depend on the run so much to catch up. Campbell would have had to throw more. It completely changes every facet of the game.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Nov 17, 2009 8:55 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not a tie.

Buckhalter was trying his best to make a play. Did it really cost us, of course. But he was doing his job to the best of his ability. RBs fumble all the time when they are fighting for extra yards. It is just a part of the game. Buckhalter and Moreno will both likely fumble again this season doing something similar.

The fake FG looked like 11 Broncos running around like circus clowns. There was nothing to admire about that play and nothing positive to learn as a teaching point. We allowed a play that shouldn’t have fooled a middle school team to flip the game. If we see another successful fake FG on 4th and 20 (as poorly concealed by the kicking team) in the NFL over the next ten years, I’ll be shocked.

That is why the fake FG was THE game changing play. You likely won’t see another play like that again.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 9:04 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Not really the issue

We weren’t debating the merits of Buckhalter’s efforts on the play. He made a nice series of moves and, although you could fault him for getting stripped by a guy he’d already beat, it was a nice effort on his part.

More relevant is what was at stake on each play. I would argue that we were driving on the Skins’ 20 yard line to go up 21-7 when Buckhalter fumbled (after getting the 1st down) and the atmosphere at FedEx Field was one of somewhat dejection at that point. When he fumbled, the place went nuts and the crowd and team turned on that play. As I stated above, that changed the entire complexion of the game from us favoring the running game, to continuing to rely on the pass as much as we did – which led to Orton’s injury.

Of course the fake FG TD was embarrassing and a HUGE play in the game. But, again assuming the Skins make that FG IF they attempt it, it’s only a 4 point swing. Whereas the fumble was quite possibly a 7+ point swing.

Again, assumptions and speculation, but that’s what we’re doing here. BTW, Vonnie Holliday was “doing his job to the best of his ability” on the fake FG TD when he tried to cover Sellers on the route. He was on the end and that was his assignment on the play and, therefore, his “job”. But he sucked at it.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Nov 17, 2009 9:43 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

It was a 53-yard FG

They faked it because they weren’t going to make it.

by ClarkFan on Nov 17, 2009 9:56 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

BTW I'll keep my eyes open

just in case someone else does it so I can get that box of cookies. ;-)

Later, all… back to work….

by ShawnDenver on Nov 17, 2009 8:54 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Still stinging. Of truth.

I felt watching it unfold in front of me that it gave them a glimmer of hope. Good or bad, if you believe, anything can happen. Score at that time didn’t matter.

They start to block better. They run the ball. Better. Execute. Better. The Broncos don’t tackle. And that is a wrap.

I think what made it worse is that Redskins fans have given up on their team. I saw fans wearing “worse. owner. ever.” shirts. In team colors! They don’t show up, they aren’t loud, and they can’t wait for Snyder to sell the team. What! This is beat.

I should get over it. Give me 20 minutes. Here comes the Chargers.

by precisiontint on Nov 17, 2009 9:11 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Interesting Point

In terms of win probability, AdvancedNFLStats says that Touchdown would have taken the Broncos from .73 to .88. The game turned on the fake FG-Touchdown (which dropped the Broncs’ winning chances by 25%) and the Simms’ Int dropped them by an additional 19%.

The win probability stuff is fun, if anybody’s interested.

by Chibronx on Nov 17, 2009 8:49 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, buuuuut...

I know it’s making assumptions, but we’re speculating here. If you assume we would have scored on the drive where Buckhalter fumbled, that’s at least a 7 point swing. If you assume the Skins would have made the FG (another assumption) but ended up with a TD, that’s only a 4-point swing.

I know this is a far from perfect analysis, but I have to throw in the intangible of being at the game in DC and seeing how absolutely insane the crowd got when Buck fumbled. They, and I believe the Skins players, were on the verge of giving up if we scored on that drive. In stead, the whole stadium (minuse the many Broncos fans) was rejuvinated with the forced fumble and recovery.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Nov 17, 2009 9:01 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I hear you

But you can’t just assume they would have scored, right? They might have stalled, fumbled later, etc. The numbers say the win probability dropped by 13% on that play. I’m not saying that stats are everything, but I do think it’s useful to look at what a turnover at that place at that point in the game means in terms of the outcome.

by Chibronx on Nov 17, 2009 9:07 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you on the numbers

Always useful to look at the numbers and I enjoy win probability. However, I wouldn’t have assumed the Skins would succeed in running a fake FG TWICE in a row after blowing the formation against a team that’s played decent, smart defense most of the year. But I watched it happen…

Also, I doubt the Skins run that fake if they don’t have more confidence in their D after its stand when it forced the fumble. Remember, Rogers was benched after the 2 blown coverages and the secondary looked better after that. The only real danger after the Buck fumble was when Orton overthrew Royal.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Nov 17, 2009 9:18 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks for this explanation, Shawn . . .

I saw Eddie slow down, but I didn’t see the yank, even when I reviewed the play. So I have to take back part of what I said below.

BILLY THOMPSON GOT SHAFTED!!

by AZDynamics on Nov 17, 2009 11:25 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I hadn't seen that, but they reference stuff I did use

Good stuff Tunga

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Nov 17, 2009 8:58 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

np... btw, I just re-read your post in depth

I skimmed the first time and missed how you already mentioned the 2-pt conv analogy. Sorry to regurgitate stuff from your post in my comment above!

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 9:44 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Wearing down

We should keep in mind that the worn down defense premise doesn’t just apply within individual games – it is a season-long trend. Also, it doesn’t only manifest in wear-and-tear injuries. If you’re on the defensive line and your knee hurts a little or a lot more this week than last because you played 15 more plays or 5 more minutes in the 3rd and 4th quarters against a BIG offensive line last week (see Pittsburgh), it WILL have an effect.

Also, our 5-2 is being exposed due to one of its perceived previous strengths: player rotations. As has been mentioned here before, we aren’t able to make the substitutions we’d like to when teams roll out 3 and 4 WR sets quickly. We all knew we were susceptible to the hurry-up, but when we’re forced to spread the field and rely on a tied interior DL guys like Betts have good days.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Nov 17, 2009 8:51 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Indeed... injuries and tiredness I think is a big problem for our weak D-line

McBean being out, and then Peterson going out is when the interior DEF really fell apart.

We’ll see if they can pull it back together.

by cjfarls on Nov 17, 2009 1:22 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Whodathunk

Who would’ve believed 6 months ago that McBean would be such a key cog in the machine? His being out has had a big impact, tho.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 17, 2009 3:14 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

That's been my concern all year long

I’d hate to see this D end up like 2006’s D, which was great after 6 games but just kept getting hung out to dry by the O, which was statistically impressive but couldn’t control the pace of the game.

Ironically, the drive in which Simms threw the killer interception was one of the few recent drives in which the O was controlling the ball and moving steadily down the feild. Moreno was wearing down the D and the clock. He had a nice run, took a breather, and didn’t see the ball again (and only 2 yards from his first 100 yard day!) that HURTS!

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Nov 17, 2009 1:29 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice work Ted,

but, I miss between the lines….

"A great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do" Walter Gagenot
"Hope sees the invisible, feels the intangible and achieves the impossible."

by bchiper on Nov 17, 2009 8:53 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Tremendous work on the probabilities.

Even though it’s hard to measure the situation, your mental calculus had to be spot on with regards to Belichick’s thought process. A few years ago I read a paper that empirically refuted the concept of punting— this study was cited by Belichick last year I think, and you can tell that Charlie Weis obviously subscribes to the theory. Based on the terrible play of our punter I’d say we should follow the trend, but our inability to convert in short yardage situations probably skews our probability of success.

Either way, great stuff. I’m kind of glad that we’re (the MHR community) some of the few fans that can appreciate what BB did on a different level than just spewing traditional garbage that we picked up as kids because, “That’s what you do in a football game”.

by legendarywalton on Nov 17, 2009 9:28 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Here's the paper

DO FIRMS MAXIMIZE? EVIDENCE FROM PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL

It’s by an economist named David Romer from the University of California at Berkley

by legendarywalton on Nov 17, 2009 9:33 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

This was such a strange game

There were a lot of plays that one could argue “turned” this game, but my vote goes to the Orton injury. If he’s healthy in the 2nd half, we win the game and the other “warts” don’t seem so glaring. Then, we’re 7-2, won a game on the road with an early start, and just need to step things up to take care of the Chargers the following week at home. In other words, I think a win and we’re back on track. Maybe the loss makes everyone dig deeper to “do their job” and we take the Chargers – the biggest game of the season.

by BroncosRock! on Nov 17, 2009 9:38 AM MST reply actions   1 recs

If I were to find a silver lining...

I know it’s a stretch, but when Orton went down several of the Broncos fans sitting around us actually voiced their happiness at Simms getting a chance without McD having to bench Orton. I personally thought that was ridiculous. At least now we won’t hear so much of that talk. I believe Orton gives us the best chance to win RIGHT NOW.

by JohnElwayOverdrive on Nov 17, 2009 9:47 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

Of course all of that comes back, and more, if Simms starts this week and beats the Chargers.

Hang on folks, road's a little bumpy in these spots.

by pubkeeper on Nov 17, 2009 10:40 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

me

Oh God, that might have been me. I was there and for one instant I was eager to see what Simms would bring.

by Dixie Donkey on Nov 17, 2009 11:41 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

but the downside is

Now if either Simms or Orton has a bad game next week (doesn’t matter whom), those same people will be calling for Brandstater – I guarantee it.

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Nov 17, 2009 1:31 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

And if he has a bad day...

They will call for a trade for Brady Quinn. It’s a fool’s game, but many like to play it.

Moreno/Buckhalter in '09

by Emmett Smith on Nov 17, 2009 5:17 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm beating a dead....errr...horse...

…but see “Plummer, Jake” for how we turn on QBs when some adversity shows up. For that matter, see “Elway, John” for about a year to two years after Tommy Maddox was drafted. I was a young Bronco then, but I still remember people actually called for Elway to be traded/benched in favor of Maddox!!!

by ncm42 on Nov 18, 2009 5:35 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Great post, Ted...

I look forward to your column every week….
Couldn’t agree more about Belichick’s decision. And left out of your equation is the fact that New England’s defense still had a chance to stop the Colts at the end, so that 70% chance of converting the 4th down goes up by, what, maybe another 8-10 percentage points (?) in terms of winning the game. I loved the decision. The MSM’s shallow herd mentality is once again on full display.

"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" -- Wimpy J. Wellington

by Broncs Cheer on Nov 17, 2009 9:49 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Belichick-

Even if you don’t go with the raw statistics… Don’t the same talking heads repeatedly criticize teams for “playing not to lose,” rather than playing to win.

He was playing to win, and that’s exactly what Teddy Bruschi would have said had the Pats made a first down and run the clock out.

by Velveeta on Nov 17, 2009 10:08 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Nice write up, something that seems to have been overlooked but Alfred Williams brought it up last night

What the hell was Chris Simms smiling about after the game, he is sitting there yucking it up with Albert Haynesworth and smiling like a school girl with a crush. You just lost, you had a horrible game, you perhaps cost this team a shot at the division title with your crappy play, why the hell are you happy. Same thing I saw with him at Texas, he basically doesn’t care, I want a QB who is pissed that he lost and played like crap, even if you are the backup. Show some freaking heart. It was disgusting IMO.

Reid may be the goat but the coaching staff is to blame and honestly, you can make an arguement that A. Smith was following the play, but he wasn’t watching the play, which is what he should of been doing, basically the tow underneath guys were covered, all he had to do was look back and see the other guy running free and take some steps over there in order to cover the chance that there was a pass to the backside, but he just stood there and followed the play, but I put most of the blame on the coaches for not having them ready for the play.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman

by Broncoman on Nov 17, 2009 10:24 AM MST reply actions   1 recs

I think someone brought it up yesterday in Horse Tracks...

And I saw it too (the Simms post game shots)… it was aggravating to watch to say the least… =/

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 10:30 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Orton looked pissed after the game.

So at least he gives a damn that we lost.

Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.

by MrFNSunshine on Nov 17, 2009 11:28 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

The Fake

I completely agree with you Ted that Darrell Reid was the goat. I’ll give some of the blame to coaching. But I will not jump all over the coaches like McG does above.

by Endzone on Nov 17, 2009 11:09 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

hmm, not sure if i agree

was Torry Holt better than Rod Smith? I took a moment to think and I think Rod Smith probably had a longer productive career but was never as productive as Holt in his prime. Difficult choice

by skithebert on Nov 17, 2009 11:11 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

Argument for Rod

Holt also played in the “Greatest Show on Turf” pass-happy attack with a few other quality WRs. Rod was surrounded by talent as well, but he played in a system that was run-first for most of his tenure with the team.

Also, I don’t know anything about Holt as a blocker. When it comes to picking a WR who is willing to get dirty and block downfield, play STs, whatever the team needs…I’m taking Captain Rod every time.

by ncm42 on Nov 17, 2009 11:30 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Or Eddie Mac

Miss that guy

Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle

by appleshampoo on Nov 17, 2009 6:57 PM MST up reply actions   2 recs

Agreed.

McCaffrey is still in my personal list of “Most Fun Broncos to Observe”.

Love that clip; thanks!

Thanks for another fantastic season...here's to Rocktober 2010!
"If you do it right 51 percent of the time, you will end up a hero." - Alfred P. Sloan

by Duncan1800 on Nov 18, 2009 12:39 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow, Easy Ed

Man, that was a great ride down memory lane. So many great and uncelebrated players have been with the Broncos.

Ted, great stuff, I am new here but love to read your articles. Still, given your timeline being in college when RR was POTUS. Can you really compare Lynn Swan to anyone? Do you remember his play? Also, Steve Largent has got to be one of the greats, he broke records in his time and without fact checking I believe his productive time in the NFL was one of the longest. I disagree with your opinions given on WR’s but …….

by Sean in Pa. on Nov 18, 2009 4:49 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

except...

I always cringed waiting for the huge hit he was sure to take every game. He always stayed in the game (and hung onto the ball!!!) though….

by ncm42 on Nov 18, 2009 5:36 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

They are both great.

I am a Broncos fan, and I live in St. Louis. One thing I can say is that Holt always had the upper hand in amazing catches. Rod was stable, tough, great route runner, but man, Holt would catch thing that were just crazy.

Holt is an exciting player, and his career is definitely comparable to Smith. I don’t need to choose one of the other, but from a St. Louis area person, he definitely deserves great respect.

by Mhantra on Nov 17, 2009 1:06 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you, Ted, for your perspective

on the deep miss to Royal. In their eagerness to do their usual bagging on Orton, several posters on another board talked about Orton’s errant throw. I thought it was a bad throw, too, until I reviewed the play.

Orton threw it to where he thought Royal would be, and where Royal should have been. Royal hesitated, and Orton could do nothing about it because the ball was already in the air. But the pass itself was on the money.

I really enjoy this column of yours, Ted, and I always look forward to Tuesday for that reason.

BILLY THOMPSON GOT SHAFTED!!

by AZDynamics on Nov 17, 2009 11:22 AM MST reply actions   0 recs

I'll buy that

I was very pleased with Orton’s performance, or at least the fact that he hit Marshall on two wide open routes. I thought it was a bad throw, but I haven’t reviewed any game film so I’ll believe you guys on this point. Could you imagine if Eddie would have been under that one?? Orton 7-7 for 236 yds and 3 td’s… Oh the little things that make us fans cringe, the first one for me was obviously the Ayers dropped INT for a TD that would have been…
Hopefully we can suck it up and get a win this Sunday, cause it’s a short week to Thursday Night against the Giants, at least we don’t have to travel on that short week though.

by JALefor on Nov 17, 2009 11:39 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

watch Royal's feet...

The ball was thrown well, and thrown to the spot where Eddie SHOULD have been. I actually thought Eddie slowed down while looking up for the ball, but I am hearing rumors that maybe he was tugged. Either way, It would have been spot on if Royal was max speed. We’re talking catch with no speed reduction, therefore touchdown.

by Mhantra on Nov 17, 2009 1:08 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

He was tugged, lightly, 10+ yards from where the ball was headed. He recovered his speed, then slowed up and mis-timed his leap.

by Chibronx on Nov 17, 2009 1:38 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Good tag on the Berger 65 yrd punt

That was not much of a punt and Berger has been a real disappointment. One of the comments above asked if the Broncs would keep him around because of Sproles. Any word on that anybody? A thirty yard punt with great hang time is still a bad punt.

by The Wad on Nov 17, 2009 12:09 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

De-Wayne Bowe just got a four game suspension for using Roids. He’ll miss the Bronco game in KC.

Ha ha. I never liked that guy.

This is my favorite website.

by McGeorge on Nov 17, 2009 1:57 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

Dick Jauron just got le fired

How is Mangini still employed???

by tunga77 on Nov 17, 2009 2:01 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

can't polish a turd.

that cleveland team is minus a few bags of talent.

…. not that i’m a mangenius fan… eh, okay, you convinced me. fire him.

by oxmouth on Nov 17, 2009 7:30 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes you can

Mythbusters proved it. ;)

But yeah, how did that guy get another HC gig after the Jets debacle, much less right away??

by AllBroncsallday on Nov 18, 2009 7:54 AM MST up reply actions   0 recs

I just saw the replay again today, on the Royal throw, the LOS was at the 20 yard line, Royal got his jerse grabbed by the Redskins at the 30 yards line and because of that grab he had to recover his speed and his tiing was off. That should have been pass interference since it was 10 yards from the LOS and the ref refused to call it.

by airflash12 on Nov 17, 2009 2:13 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

good post

I disagree a bit on point #1. Although the offense didn’t help the defense by sustaining a drive, the truth is that the Dline was getting blown off the ball in the first half too.

Washington’s first drive was the best anyone’s looked against Denver’s defensive team all year. And they were missing Cooley and Portis. And their Oline features more than one scrap heap player and to top it all off, Jason Campbell, who is a proven ‘bottom-third’ QB.

I thought the ball to Royal was overthrown and I think we’re speculating on that play. It looked overthrown. Even if Royal was a bit further upfield he’d have had to lay out for it. That shouldn’t matter though, the fact that he was open and Orton saw him and got the ball close is enough for me. I thout Orton looked good, but looked like he was in a hurry. He was a bit jumpy. Kyle had plenty of time to wait on Royal and nobody was anywhere near Orton. Orton pumps and the hurries his throw, rather than resetting his arm and then throwing it.

Orton had a great half going, regradless of that over throw, but the last Drive by Denver cost us Orton’s health and 4 points.

Denver had the ball at the WAS 21 with 52 seconds left and 2 timeouts left. Denver needs to run the ball once or twice a) to keep the defense honest, and b) because Moreno was getting shots at breaking into the second level on (what seemed like) 2 out of every 3 carries at that time. Also, I’m not sure what exact play it was, but there was a play where Orton scrambled and eventually threw the ball away high through the endzone and he had Scheff (I think) wide open underneth for at least a reception inside the 5. I think Denver should have come away with 7 and for some reason (maybe because they abandoned the run) the O-line broke down in the red zone.

I’m just picking nits, here. If Orton plays all game Denver wins, but barely. Denver couldn’t stop Washington’s running game and the defense has to be having some deja-vu. At the point of attack, Denver is getting mauled, not getting beat, getting KILLED. I mean, by the third quarter, they were getting pushed 3 and 4 yards backwards on obvious running downs.

Denver has the defense we all thought they had 10 weeks ago. That means that we have a good secondary (even though my opinion is that Champ is playing with a fork sticking out of his back and that this is either his last year in Denver or his last year at corner), a weak line, and medicore linebackers. I do like Dre Davis, but like I’ve said many times, DJ Williams just refuses to knock my socks off. Denver benefits from Woodyard’s speed when he’s in, but DJ doesn’t get to the edge quickly enough, in my opinion.

The fake FG debacle killed me. Everyone knew it. Why did Denver not take a TO in that situation? I don’t expect a ST unit to make a great play on that, but I also expect them to give the punter plenty of time to throw/run and just make sure evryone downfield is covered. They didn’t do that and I was shocked that Washington got 7 points out of that situation.

Denver doesn’t have the talent on defense to win in the playoffs. That’s the bottom line.

Denver’s offense came out strong, scoring 17 in the first and leaving what I thought was 4 to 11 points on the board by halftime. Denver’s offense is not explosive enough to win with the defense they currently feature and an offense that is averaging 1.7 TD’s per game from their offensive unit.

They have issues (just like every other team) on both sides of the ball.

In my opinion, Denver has to mix more running into their offense and they need to run into space more often. Knowshon runs middle and right at a 4.7 and 4.08 yard per carry clip. Interestingly Knowshon is weakest when running behind Clady and Hamilton/Hochstein (3.0 ypc). Buckhalter is the opposite, his production especially good on the outside. Up the middle, his ypc is 2.8 on 24 carries. On the right he’s getting 7.15 ypc on 26 carries and on the left he’s getting 7 ypc on 16 carries. So, Buck needs to get the ball a LOT more running towards the tackles and Knowshon’s our guy up the gut.

Offense: Denver needs to work on getting the ball downfield on early downs more often. I was expecting more of a screen game than I’m seeing as well and am not sure why we’re not seeing very often. Denver’s protection looks shaky at times. I am not sure why, but it seem like when Orton has time, he makes his plays. When he doesn’t have time, he doesn’t make much happen but he also doesn’t throw the ball into coverage or force anything.

Defense: Denver isn’t going to change the fact they’re losing the Dline battle. They can scheme more to play more run defense, but their current personnel doesn’t look like it can stack up against a physical Oline. Denver needs to bring Dawk up, bring an extra player up, and play press and hope to God they can screw up the timing of the offense. I’m not sure Denver’s 5-2 is working right now and may not work until Denver can add a legit OLB with enough size/strength to hold the point of attack. Teams are obviously trying to push Denver into a sub-set and Denver has been reeling for 5 games in sub-sets. What gives!?

Special Teams: If Denver is ‘prepared for every situation’ then why did Washington score a TD on a fake FG where the receiver was WIDE open AND they kew it was coming? Denver must get better production, coaching, and leadership from their coverage units.

Denver is out of excuses. They are who we thought they were. I just hope the team doesn’t regress past where they were last year. I’d settle for 9-7 or 10-6, in fact I won’t even be upset. But if Denver loses to OAK or KC, I’ll be embarassed. I didn’t expect Denver to make the playoffs before the season, and I adjusted my expectations after the Pats game. Now, I am re-adjusting my expectations that Denver is a playoff bubble team (which, prior to the season would have made me VERY happy!). I’ll adjust after the Colts game for the last time this season.

I sure hope they can get to the playoffs!

by super7 on Nov 17, 2009 2:26 PM MST reply actions   3 recs

Just a thought about Belichick's decision:

A number of years ago Dallas faced a punting situation when they were bucking a pretty good headwind. They were – as I recall – around their own 40. Instead of sending out their punter, they ran Emmitt Smith. He did not convert but I believe the Barry Switzer did the right thing. At least it was positive yards.

by Blackknigh on Nov 17, 2009 2:57 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

Thanks Ted

I didn’t think twice about Belichick going for it. I would have done it too. I appreciate the percentage break down, Nice work there. I agree, Joe Buck should stick to baseball. Between him and Troy Aikman, they combine to be the worst waste of announcers next to the irritating bias of Dan Dierdork.

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Nov 17, 2009 7:08 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

and that was the refreshing remark!

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks

by KaptainKirk on Nov 17, 2009 9:18 PM MST up reply actions   0 recs

Excellent post, Ted.

I didn’t have time to mention it in my earlier comment.

A couple of things that I would suggest to our team:
Make sure the captain of the ST is someone who can call out plays and know what is coming. At least get guys into a position they can be successful at.
I know some don’t like this – but Was ran the ZB against us with success early on. We ran it with some success. Stick with it and run the hell out of the ball against SD so we get 35-40 minutes of TOP. If Phyllis is on the sidelines, he can’t hurt us. I would give the rock to Larsen if Hillis isn’t ready as well as Moreno and Buck.
Get the D to be disciplined as they were the first 5 games. AZ last year had a disciplined defense in their run to the SB. That is what worked for us early on. We need it now. When Champ and DJ collided, that showed how undisciplined our guys were. Those who can’t stay in their assignments need more bench time.
Great post, Ted. I always look forward to your perspective.

by Blackknigh on Nov 17, 2009 9:09 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

Ted, great post!

Pay no attention to those who feel offended, your column is awesome as always.

by CyberSpartacus on Nov 17, 2009 11:29 PM MST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

MileHighReport(MHR) is the ultimate independent resource for the Denver Broncos on the web. Along with MHR Radio, the official podcast of MHR, we look to provide hardcore Denver Broncos fans positive, independent insight about the Broncos, 24/7/365!
Start posting about the Broncos »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Comcast NFL RedZone Moments from SB Nation

Music City Miracles
Tennessee Titans Red Zone Report
Bleeding Green Nation
Comcast NFL Red Zone stat of the week - Something doesn't have to give
Niners Nation
49ers Red Zone numbers: How effective are they?

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Bronco-pride_small
Sharing the Wealth
Small
To MHR. The Staff. The Fans. The Cynics. And The Koolaiders.
Rmthunder-98logo_small
How to Scout Players and Mock the Draft
20091006_115413_mcdaniels_small
2010 NFL Draft Watch: Defensive Tackles (part 2)
Johnelwayvortexhowler_small
The Front 3: Where we are. Where we're going

Recent FanPosts

Bronco-pride_small
Drew, A Feel Good Story, and A Broncos Connection
Broncoman_1__small
Dan LeFevour - Bronco QB of the Future?
Christmas_09_015_small
This Broncos Fan Is Intrigued by Adding Donovan McNabb
20091006_115413_mcdaniels_small
2010 NFL Draft Watch: Defensive Ends
003_small
Mike Mayocks take on a couple of DT's.
003_small
Denver Broncos 1 of 3 teams looking to trade for Donovan McNabb
Milehighreport_small
Don't book your trip to Dallas just yet...
Asmith_small
The Machinations of a Certified Homer—Early Draft Edition
Rex_small
Favorite Superbowl Commercials
Iwillownu2-flyingbroncoflag-72x72_small
March 5, New Years Day

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Getting Social With MHR

Facebook_badge_medium_medium
Black_generated_button

Milehighreport_email_medium

MHR Radio

SPONSORS

Web Stuff


General Manager/Head Coach

Milehighreport_small John Bena

Cyborg_small Jeremy Bolander

Asst. Head Coach

Mhr_small Steve Nichols

Tahoetim_small Tim Lynch

Tjpic1_small TJ Johnson

Christmas_09_015_small Sayre Bedinger

Quality Control

800px-john_brown_painting_small mdierk