I agree with the assessment on freak plays. Not just the Kuper play, but even on GB's last possession in regulation.  If Doom doesnt hit Favre's arm on that 3rd down play I'm pretty sure Champ would have intercepted the pass (he had a jump on it) and been going the other way for 6.  Once again, its something that you can't fault Doom for, he was doing his job, but it was just enough to screw up a good play.

You win some and you lose some... I'm just hoping we've alread had all of our bad luck plays for the season.

I personally would just be happy with a playoff berth this year, just to get some playoff experience for all of our young players so that next year we will be in a better position to contend for the Super Bowl, hopefully without a juggernaut Patriots team in our way.

I hate to state the obvious, but our record is misleading.  Only four teams have a worse point differential than ours (-63) this year and they have combined for three wins this year.  We are two seconds (one more off the clock in Buffalo and one more before calling the infamous timeout against Oakland) from being the one win team that our point differential indicates we should be.  For all the grit we showed in our too-close-for-comfort wins and this loss to Green Bay, we still got outclassed by the Colts in Indy, as well as manhandled by the Jags and embarassed by the Chargers at home.  

Our schedule may be favorable (a good team would finish up 10-6 with this start) but I just don't by that this team can win every game that it should.  Moreover - and Shanny himself would agree with me here - we play for Super Bowls or nothing here in Denver.  Benching Plummer in favor of Cutler during Jay's rookie season did not give us a better chance to win then, but the move was made with the future in mind because last year's squad simply couldn't compete for a championship.  Now it looks as though the same holds true today and, if we don't embrace a rapid and deep rebuilding of the defense, we may well be left with mediocrity for years to come.

All things being perfect, we're set on offense; but things are never perfect in the NFL.  Walker is fragile, Marshall is a hazard and Stokely's no spring chicken, so that perceived strength is far from assured.  We brought in a feature back and it looks as though he'll be facing a longterm suspension.  Mike Bell has falled so rapidly and completely that he wasn't even activated for a game in which we used two undrafted players at RB.  God knows how Young will hold up as the man and forgive me for thinking that every team in the league passed on him throughout the entire draft for a reason that will someday become painfully obvious to us all.  Then again, it's never really mattered for our success who lines up in the backfield.  Cutler is a stud, our TEs are set (though I'd like to see them each become more balanced and less specialized) as is our OL, so I'm with you there.  But you see how the picture is much muddier than the one you optimistically present.

On defense, I doubt we'll agree much.  Our CB tandem is very good, but the window of opportunity for them is closing.  While I see Champ being able to extend his career as a Pro Bowl caliber safety thanks to his athletisism, toughness, football IQ and leadership (a la Rod Woodson) I can't say that Bly will age well.  Lynch is a glorified LB at this point and Ferguson has been utterly useless for quite a while now.  The fact that these two have not been threatened with replacement (not even in obvious passing situations) lets me know that our depth there is garbage.  D.J. should thrive at MLB (or back on the outside if he's moved again), but there isn't another guy on the roster that I feel comfortable with.  Gold may be fast, but straight line speed isn't everything and it fades quickly in big bodies.  I don't think I need to say anything about the other side there.  I'm all for letting our young guys up front play (we did pass on a guy that should be playing every down at safety this year and for the foreseeable future in order to redundantly draft DEs on the first day) and I hope they pan out, but I haven't seen much out of them yet.  We'll need a big body that's more than just big to play along side Thomas because everyone else at DT has been worthless.

You were right about the special teams: they really seem to be looking up and they're the main reason why our balanced, high-powered offense has been so unable to score points.  That said, Elam and Saurbrun are quite old and they're likely to decline.

Bottom line is this: this team is much closer to the bottom of the barrell than it is to the cream of the crop.  Every single indicator out there shows just that.  Not only that, but our future isn't as secure as one might think at first glance.  There's a lot of work to be done and we may well be facing a prolonged period of mediocrity and hopelessness.  Here's the thing - and why I'll always prefer college sports to their pro counterparts - we'd probably be better off if we were winless and on pace for an elite prospect in the draft.  We need to stop wasting play time on vets that don't deserve it and rushing our stars back from injury to play at far less than 100% in order to try to steal a game this year.  Everyday experience would be just as good as playoff minutes and, more importantly, everybody on this roster needs to know that you can't play like they have and compete in this league.

Wow... this is an epic, rambling rant.  I apologize (I actually doubt this will be read, now that I look back at the sheer size of it) and hope that my dissent is not seen as a personal thing, bad fandom or simply ridiculous.  What more can I say other than this: go Broncos!

I am really stuck in the middle on this one.  I agree about the freak plays and bad bounces all going against us.  Not just in this game, but all season long.  I don't think we would have won versus SD anyway, but I remember every little thing going against us and ruining any momentum the team might be building.  Part of this is that Super Bowl quality teams do the little things right, but part of this is pure luck.

On both sides of the ball, I think we are close to putting things together despite all the injuries.  The kick coverage units have improved as have our returners.  If everything comes together perfectly, this team can make a run for the Super Bowl this year and compete with New England and Indy.  But I also recognize that is a huge IF.  I also recognize that there are a good number of players who will probably decline a bit next year as they age (I dont include Bailey and Bly in this group).  Part of me wants to see what guys like Cox and Abdullah can do, but part of me is still focused on making a playoff push.  (I completely agree with whoever posted earlier that a playoff game is a huge positive experience for the younger guys even if the team doesn't win).

As for this game, I may have been a bit too critical of Bly on that last play.  It sounds like he had good coverage but just got beat on a fly.  I guess I should focus my criticism on the fact that they were playing such tight man coverage in overtime with only one safety deep.  (BTW, Favre's post game press conference was quite informative.  He talked about both of the TD passes, the different defenses and his options on the play)  You just can't consistently have 8 men in the box in the NFL.  Even the best cornerbacks in the league are gonna get beat if you leave them one on one without safety help.

A had a quick rant against the NFL in general, but it got too long and off topic so it is now a diary .

1.  There was drooling over Elway.  On the other hand we didn't have Monday night crews devoting the entire game to discussion of one player.  Even the discussion of Cutler was in the context of comparing him to Favre.  If you still don't get this, I have four words for you, "My Brett, our Favre".  (Repeat those four words at least twice more as done on Monday Night).  

Even the Packer's fans I watched the game with were getting annoyed at the distraction from the game.

2.  I agree that slants didn't appear play after play like I thought they would.  I don't claim to be Nostradomus.  If I'm writing up a game prep for Denver fans I can only go on what what the other teams tendancies are.  Brett has made his living on slants coming out of the west coast system.  

You are correct on the 1st TD being a go route.  I try to bring a little technical flavor to what I contribute, but I also don't want to speak over peoples heads either.  I could write a very dry, technical breakdown (some folks may think I already do) and get very detailed.  To the average fan a go route and a slant look very much the same.

It's much the same (I would imagine) with writing a medical journal for laymen.  Here's an example.  "Flat line" (also known in the medical field as "asystole") on an EKG means no pulse.  Many people watch movies and tv shows and think that an electric shock can "restart" the heart.  It doesn't.  The shock can only correct an existing bad pattern.  When an EKG shows a bad pattern a person may have no pulse, but the EKG doesn't show pulses, it shows electrical firings on nodes of the heart.  So my point is...

If I were a doctor and talking to a family I might tell them that their loved one's heart stopped and the person died, but we were able to bring them back.  Technicaly untrue, but easy to understand.  I wouldn't fault the Dr., nor correct him.  If the same Dr. was giving a lecture on the case, he might more correctly point out the patient had an arythmia corrected with cardiac meds and defibrillation.

How correct I am versus how understandable my piece is becomes a judgement call.  I respect that for a fan as knowledgable as you that you want technical accuracy.  I'm trying to appeal to a wide audience, and trying to keep too much technical talk out of the equation.  For instance, you'll never hear me even bring up the terms "1 gap" or "2 gap".  I'll bet any amount of money that you (and several folks here) understand the terms and the concepts.  But a lot of people don't.  I hope you see my point.

3.  I don't think I overestimated Bailey and Bly.  Bly is almost a lock to get burned once a game because it is his nature as a gambling CB.  Bailey is going to get burned here and there because ANYONE who plays CB, no matter how good, can't stop every pass.  As you pointed out elsewhere, we only lost the game on two blown coverages.  It happens.  You also brought up Coach's defense of Bly in a favorable light and I agree.
4.  One technical point I might disagree with you on is writing that we played cover three with one safety.  It looked to me like we played CBs off of the receivers (Bailey in particular likes to play far off his assignment).  This may look like cover three, or might come across as a disguised formation.  I doubt it though since Favre is too experienced to fall for that kind of thing.  I think we had a single safety in middle zone most of the game, and I think he was worthless.

Once Lynch was out we might have played both safeties back with a nickle or dime corner to support them, but it seemed that even in those opportunities we still kept a safety in the box.

5.  I think we outplayed GB in every aspect except for the stopping the run.  Is that opinion?  Certainly.  How do I support it?  Easy.

GB won on two deep pass plays.  The rest of the game had Denver moving down the field and stopping GB.

The better team won, and Denver wasn't robbed.  You shouldn't read it that way.  My point was only that GB beat us on two singular plays, and the rest of the game looked great for Denver (minus the run stopping, which was the issue I was discussing).

Take away those two plays and just play the entirety of the rest of the game and who won the game?

6.  I don't recall a penetrating DT being the issue on the fumble, but I don't have the benefit of a recorded game either.  It looked to me like the instant the ball was snapped Kuper's right hand moved and knocked the ball down out of Cutler's hand.  

Either way I stand by my assertion.  Having the ball knocked out of your QB's hand is a freak thing, and I don't blame Kuper.  If some GB lineman wants to step up and take credit he should knock the ball out himself.

7.  There's no need to go back and forth on bad calls.  I made it pretty darned clear that I wasn't blaming the game on calls, so save the "countering".  I clearly pointed out that calls went both ways, and I felt the officials called a good game.  If you want to debate calls the best two "bad calls" were:

• Hurting GB - The refs didn't call Webster for taking off his helmet when he celebrated on a play.  They (refs) saw it because one of the refs walked over to warn Webster about it.  I seem to recall (because I was with my Packer friends watching the game) that Favre was the topic of discussion in the booth, and the commentators didn't discuss what was happening on the field.
• Hurting DEN - a 15 yard face mask automatic first down for GB when a Denver player's hand wasn't even touching the helmet or body of the player.  To the ESPN crews's credit they saw the bad call and noted it.

8.  The no-call holding/pass interference call against Marshall (Stokely?) happened when Shannahan stepped onto the field to argue the no call.  You may have forgotten it, but ESPN showed two replays and they commented that the play was a TD if it hadn't been for the hold.
9.  As to the discretion for making the call on Webster's helmet, I agree.  I think the refs should have called the penalty against Webster.  I also agree on the other calls you mention.  But again you're making my point.  The calls were even.

I tried to make the point that calls did not effect this game.  I tried to make it clear that in terms of pure gameplay (take away the calls) Denver did pretty well.  Take away the calls from GB and the result doesn't change much - they still played a great game.

In the end Denver played a great game and lost in OT.  The entire game came down to two plays.  Take away those plays and look at consistent drives and Denver looked very good.

No one is dissing GB or taking anything from them.  No one is blaming bad calls.  If you read my report as a "point - counterpoint" kind of thing then you're missing the context of the remarks.  I also can't predict the future, and I don't get a free pass to Denver's game plan sessions.  I do the best with what I have and hope that people enjoy whatever opinions I throw out (and they are just opinions).  Also consider that I'm not writing with Packer's fans in mind.  I'm contributing work to a blog for Denver fans, so of course I'm not going to pretend to be an unbiased, expert, sports media journalist.

We'll try to help GB out with beating DET.        

Good luck to you as well.

But I will take the opportunity to address a couple of things you have made more clear.  The other things we can disagree on and that's cool.

All right, let's get technical on the darn go vs slant issue.

A "go route" is typicaly a "streak" or a "fly".  If it incorporates a 45 degree "chair route" (as it was in the case of the first TD) and the player straightens out it is called a "shoot".  

Except for one thing:  

Your receiver crossed to the other side of the field and didn't straighten out at midfield.  So it's not a true "shoot" in this case.  He continued to the far side and finished out the "chair", which looks an awful lot like a slant to a lay person.

The following demonstrates how alike they are and perhaps why I'm not going to burden folks who don't draw up plays like I have or know their football plays and routes as you clearly do:

http://www.football.com/playbook/passtre.html

Note how close they really are.  As I said, technicaly you are correct, but a go with a full chair looks like a slant route.

On the hold we are clearly seeing two different plays.  The play I refered to and the commenters refered to had no movement of the player's head (so it should have looked at least incidental instead of flagerant for 15 yds) and the hand of the "offending" player was flat, the fingers extended and together, and not even in contact with the receiver's helmet.  The commentator's seemed to indicate that this might be an illegal contact to the face at worse, but the replay showed that this wasn't even called for.

Yes, the Bigby call was awful.  Again, why the tit for tat?  I keep trying to tell you that every game has bad calls, and typicaly it's the raider fans that gripe.  I didn't, and I hope you're not either.  Calls go both ways as they did in this game.

Cover two is a scheme, not a formation.  Cover three is a formation, not a scheme.  And many 4-3 foramtions feature two safeties back in zone coverage, but people will call it cover two.  I didn't see the cover three used on the OT play.

Three players in deep zone with a fourth in midzone is cover three.  Contrary to popular belief a cover two involves more than just "2 deep".  It is less a formation than a system.  To my knowledge there is a formation called "cover three" but not a system.  Cover two on the other hand is a system, but it is known for the adherance to two deep safeties and a MLB in central zone.  The philosophy and the plays that proceed from that philosophy make up the cover two (a mixture of zones, bend don't break, and help over the CBs).  Complicating matters is that there are at least three cover two schemes that I'm aware of.

I never ran a cover two system, but most of my formations featured two deep safeties.  Parents, local radio and even the local papers called it a cover two.  I didn't correct anyone, but I could see what they were thinking.  While my safeties played mostly in zone, My CBs almost always played man, my entire line was geared towards speed and penetration (including the DTs), my MLB played man on HB, and my OLBs either played outside contain / man FB,TE / or blitz.  I ran a bend don't break, man oriented, low blitz scheme built towards stopping the pass.  We ran a base 4-3 or a 3-3 nickle.  Our team was built around the OLB positions.  It was nothing like the cover two system.

And last, if you think GB moved the ball well outside of two big pass plays, I'd like to know the score without those two TDs.  (GB gets 5, but you didn't get to kich the PAT in OT so I'll give you 6).  I believe that if you take away the two big plays, you get our defense holding you to 2 FGs.  That just can't be construed as Denver not doing well keeping the GB offense in check.  Add in the two big plays and I credit GB on a job well done.

Again, good luck to you and the Pack.  I'll be pulling for you guys to beat Dallas in the NFC Championship, and pulling for you if you play against NE in the SB.