Jump to content

Game Day Thread: week 5 Broncos at Jets


thebestever6

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

Haha, don't feel sorry for me. In a really messed up way, I am quite looking forward to seeing exactly where (I feel) it went wrong. My initial assertions seem to match yours on Offense - poor pass pro on 3rd and long (I've mentioned this several times) and we then combine that with Case being late in getting the ball out.

I really, really didn't see that coming from our run Defense. Intrigued to see where it went wrong. I've harped on all year about how predictable our Defense is on 1st down in our Nickel - Cover 1, every time. The deep Safety will always shade to the side of the formation with 2 WR's on, so the Jets put 2 WR's to the right of the formation knowing it would leave Anderson 1v1 with Roby to the left. Yeh, that didn't end well for us.

I know people keep saying, "you went away from the run". I actually agree with VJ's take from midweek - to score points in this league with any consistency, you need explosive plays and you need them on 1st down when Defense's can't say you're passing with 100% certainty (like they can on 3rd and long).

Yes, our running game has been good, but no team in the NFL can run on 1st down (consistently) when a Defense is expecting it. I don't know why people seem to ignore this; the league is just too athletic now to simply line men up and try and run it down their throat. Musgrave knows that we can't afford to get into 3rd and 6 after two running plays because a) Case isn't good enough to consistently move the chains in this scenario and b) our OL can't consistently hold up.

A lot of the local beat writers seem to be using the same narrative about coming away from the run, but I just think that's a bit of a lazy take. Just look at the rest of the league and tell me a good Offense that runs on 1st and 2nd down then throws on 3rd down; I bet you can't. The worst starting QB's in the league tend to have (their version of) success when throwing on 1st down because you get the more favourable looks - Blake Bortles is a prime example of this.

The fact is, this team has too many overpaid players and a poor QB (the QB fits both of these narratives) - that's a recipe for disaster in this league.

I mentioned this a few weeks ago but I don't think Musgrave knows what to do with a running game. Against the Chiefs 15 of our 22 running plays came on first down, 5 on 2nd and 2 on third. No too creative.

It might have been Walsh who said play callings easy, "run when they're expecting pass and pass when they're expecting run." We're just way too predictable. When we do run on 2nd and 3rd we've had pretty good results.

With our abilities to produce 10+ yard runs frequently we should have very few passing downs. I wouldn't be surprised if Shanahans teams had more 3rd and 10+ conversions on the ground than any team in history. 

Given our problems passing on 3rd and long you'd think we'd hand it off every so often.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AKRNA said:

It might have been Walsh who said play callings easy, "run when they're expecting pass and pass when they're expecting run."

I think this fits us because we're not good enough at the QB position to play any other way. I love it when commentators say, "it's 2nd and 2 so this is a great time to take a shot" - it's archaic. Teams with anything other than a top 10 QB will take their shots on 1st down.

Why? Because Defense's know that in an ideal world, an average Offense would try to run on 1st down and make it 2nd and 3-5, thus taking pressure off their average QB. So naturally, Defense's play run first on 1st down against those teams, hence why it's easier to take shots on 1st down.

The days of run for 3, run for 3, pass for 4 and a 1st down are gone. Kaput. The margins are too thin to trust an average QB to make those 3rd down throws with any consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VJ's comments yesterday:

"We don’t go into the game counting runs,” Joseph said. “We actually take what they give us. So if they’re playing single-high defense against our receivers, that’s the time to throw the football.

We can’t run the ball into a loaded box all game, especially when you’re down by that many points. That dictates kind of how the play calls are handled. Obviously when they’re playing shell, they’re playing Cover 2, we hand the ball off, we get 5.6 a carry and that’s good football also.

But you can’t continue to run the ball, get 1 yard, now you’re second-and-9 — run it again and you’re third-and-8? We don’t want to do that.”

This is basically what I am eluding to, and exactly what I made reference to in the Chiefs all 22 review. They played press coverage on the outside, single high Safety with the occasional blitz and said, "go on Case - punish us for trusting our CBs 1v1".

Until Case can find a way to get the ball to his receivers in man coverage on early downs, this Offense will go absolutely nowhere. You really don't need to look any deeper than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

VJ's comments yesterday:

"We don’t go into the game counting runs,” Joseph said. “We actually take what they give us. So if they’re playing single-high defense against our receivers, that’s the time to throw the football.

We can’t run the ball into a loaded box all game, especially when you’re down by that many points. That dictates kind of how the play calls are handled. Obviously when they’re playing shell, they’re playing Cover 2, we hand the ball off, we get 5.6 a carry and that’s good football also.

But you can’t continue to run the ball, get 1 yard, now you’re second-and-9 — run it again and you’re third-and-8? We don’t want to do that.”

This is basically what I am eluding to, and exactly what I made reference to in the Chiefs all 22 review. They played press coverage on the outside, single high Safety with the occasional blitz and said, "go on Case - punish us for trusting our CBs 1v1".

Until Case can find a way to get the ball to his receivers in man coverage on early downs, this Offense will go absolutely nowhere. You really don't need to look any deeper than that.

I'm absolutely stunned that Vance said something as insightful as you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that presser on the radio yesterday and I do get what Vance is saying about not wanting to run against a 8-man box.

That said, and I don't think he knew it, but he's basically admitting is that Case limits what the offense can do. Since March the Broncos' PR machine did a terrific job selling us that Case was a game-changer for the team, and a lot of the local media, especially the more sycophantical ones (MHR, The Fan, Mike Klis, etc.) ate it up with a spoon. Now the lipstick is off that pig and we're basically right back where we were last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

I heard that presser on the radio yesterday and I do get what Vance is saying about not wanting to run against a 8-man box.

That said, and I don't think he knew it, but he's basically admitting is that Case limits what the offense can do. Since March the Broncos' PR machine did a terrific job selling us that Case was a game-changer for the team, and a lot of the local media, especially the more sycophantical ones (MHR, The Fan, Mike Klis, etc.) ate it up with a spoon. Now the lipstick is off that pig and we're basically right back where we were last year. 

Anyone that's watched Keenum play prior to last season shouldn't be (and isn't) blinded by the talking heads in the Denver sports media. Minnesota legitimately was thinking about replacing him every step of the way last year, and we gave him $18M per. Just ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MakeDenverGreatAgain said:

Anyone that's watched Keenum play prior to last season shouldn't be (and isn't) blinded by the talking heads in the Denver sports media. Minnesota legitimately was thinking about replacing him every step of the way last year, and we gave him $18M per. Just ridiculous. 

That's the part that ppl forget - Zimmer was 1 more TO away from replacing him vs. WAS in the regular season.   And they tried to get Bradford to come back - but his knee wouldn't take it.   But yes, he's a "winner" that was the key to MIN's 2017 season.  SMH.  Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

VJ's comments yesterday:

"We don’t go into the game counting runs,” Joseph said. “We actually take what they give us. So if they’re playing single-high defense against our receivers, that’s the time to throw the football.

We can’t run the ball into a loaded box all game, especially when you’re down by that many points. That dictates kind of how the play calls are handled. Obviously when they’re playing shell, they’re playing Cover 2, we hand the ball off, we get 5.6 a carry and that’s good football also.

But you can’t continue to run the ball, get 1 yard, now you’re second-and-9 — run it again and you’re third-and-8? We don’t want to do that.”

This is basically what I am eluding to, and exactly what I made reference to in the Chiefs all 22 review. They played press coverage on the outside, single high Safety with the occasional blitz and said, "go on Case - punish us for trusting our CBs 1v1".

Until Case can find a way to get the ball to his receivers in man coverage on early downs, this Offense will go absolutely nowhere. You really don't need to look any deeper than that.

Seems insightful...but the coaching staff's in-game adjustments are horrid.  They look good for about the first quarter when everything is planned and scripted, until the opponent figures it out and they make an adjustment, then our coaching staff just doesn't seem to have a counter to their counter...they just keep doing the same thing wondering why it's not working.  Chess is not VJs game.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

VJ's comments yesterday:

"We don’t go into the game counting runs,” Joseph said. “We actually take what they give us. So if they’re playing single-high defense against our receivers, that’s the time to throw the football.

We can’t run the ball into a loaded box all game, especially when you’re down by that many points. That dictates kind of how the play calls are handled. Obviously when they’re playing shell, they’re playing Cover 2, we hand the ball off, we get 5.6 a carry and that’s good football also.

But you can’t continue to run the ball, get 1 yard, now you’re second-and-9 — run it again and you’re third-and-8? We don’t want to do that.”

This is basically what I am eluding to, and exactly what I made reference to in the Chiefs all 22 review. They played press coverage on the outside, single high Safety with the occasional blitz and said, "go on Case - punish us for trusting our CBs 1v1".

Until Case can find a way to get the ball to his receivers in man coverage on early downs, this Offense will go absolutely nowhere. You really don't need to look any deeper than that.

As to the bolded, I think thats where we screw up. VJ is confusing and combining topics. In one breath he says "take what they give you" in the next he infers that down and distance dictate the play. Thats why we falter. 

Every time we get a run stuffed we immediately go to the passing game. Chances of us running the ball in 2nd and 9 or 3rd and 8 are almost zero regardless of how the defense lines up.

IMO his statement is absolute BS. Our offensive play calls are dictated about 90% by situational football, IE down and distance. If they weren't we'd see a lot more production from our running game and a higher % of third down conversions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

As to the bolded, I think thats where we screw up. VJ is confusing and combining topics. In one breath he says "take what they give you" in the next he infers that down and distance dictate the play. Thats why we falter. 

Every time we get a run stuffed we immediately go to the passing game. Chances of us running the ball in 2nd and 9 or 3rd and 8 are almost zero regardless of how the defense lines up.

IMO his statement is absolute BS. Our offensive play calls are dictated about 90% by situational football, IE down and distance. If they weren't we'd see a lot more production from our running game and a higher % of third down conversions.

 

He's talking out of his *** being a fan since he's gotten hired has turned my stomach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AKRNA said:

As to the bolded, I think thats where we screw up. VJ is confusing and combining topics. In one breath he says "take what they give you" in the next he infers that down and distance dictate the play. Thats why we falter. 

Every time we get a run stuffed we immediately go to the passing game. Chances of us running the ball in 2nd and 9 or 3rd and 8 are almost zero regardless of how the defense lines up.

IMO his statement is absolute BS. Our offensive play calls are dictated about 90% by situational football, IE down and distance. If they weren't we'd see a lot more production from our running game and a higher % of third down conversions.

 

I mean, I don't think we can criticise the playcalling for not running on 3rd and 8. We certainly don't run the ball much on 2nd and 9 with a running formation (such as 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB) but when you've failed on 1st down in that exact scenario, I can understand the decision when your QB and OL aren't built for 3rd and 8.

I've just got to disagree a bit on this topic, especially in the last game where we had every reason to abandon the run to an extent (score and time).

Run/Pass selection is far from my biggest beef with this Offense - the execution in the passing game is a far, far, far bigger issue in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this on another thread - but it really should be here -

 

I see that the defence had a players only meeting - to discuss 'philosophical differences' between the players and the coaches - the players believe that the coaches are not putting them in a position to win. The meeting was to work out what they want to say to the coaches.

Apparently Joseph wants to hear their 'feedback' - probably because he hasn't a clue what he is doing himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...