PDA

View Full Version : Handed the game and we still lost...


ChrisToker
09-26-2011, 12:06 PM
All week we heard talking ish from the Titans how they were tuffer. Well they walked the walk, kind of. At no point in the game did they man handle us imo, except for the goal line stand (which was good call but should have already had play called instead of burning a TO to run same play). The Titans played "TUFF" alright and by tuff I mean bone headed, bush league bully ball. They had 11 penalties for 80 yards, some of them were critical drive halting ones that typically kill momentum. Yet still made Matt Hasselbeck look All Pro w/o CJ2K. Props to our coaching staff for making our guys poised, so we didn't get any retaliation penalties.

Congrats to Von Miller forced fumble #2 along w/ sack #2. This guy is beast. Nice that our DL also bottled up a slumping CJ2K. Any sunday that boy will be back on top, glad it wasn't on us.

Jetmeck
09-26-2011, 12:10 PM
How many times at that goal line stand did we have and with Titans penalties they tried to give it to us.

7-8 tries inside the five and cannot get it done. That is disgraceful. The offense should be running laps forever like my coach did us. Man up, take responsibility for the guy in front of you and get it done ONCE ?

What a joke, we DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN YESTERDAY..............

NFLBRONCO
09-26-2011, 12:22 PM
Omg this 4th and 1 failure mght result in 4-12 vs 5-11 season. Fans act like we got knocked out of the playoffs yesterday or something I would get the firestorm but, I don't with a team destined with a top 5 pick.

ChrisToker
09-26-2011, 12:30 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.

Gort
09-26-2011, 12:32 PM
How many times at that goal line stand did we have and with Titans penalties they tried to give it to us.

7-8 tries inside the five and cannot get it done. That is disgraceful. The offense should be running laps forever like my coach did us. Man up, take responsibility for the guy in front of you and get it done ONCE ?

What a joke, we DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN YESTERDAY..............

here is that drive in full.

1st and 10 @ TEN 13 - McGahee right guard for 2 yds
2nd and 8 @ TEN 11 - McGahee left guard for 4 yds
3rd and 4 @ TEN 7 - Penalty TEN offsides for 3 yds
1st and 4 @ TEN 4 - Penalty TEN encroachment for 2 yds
1st and 2 @ TEN 2 - Orton pass incomplete short right to Fells
2nd and 2 @ TEN 2 - McGahee up the middle for no gain
3rd and 2 @ TEN 2 - McGahee left tackle for 1 yd
4th and 1 @ TEN 1 - McGahee up the middle for no gain

change of possession on downs.

if only we had somebody on the roster who created matchup problems for the defense in the redzone.

Kaylore
09-26-2011, 12:32 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/101469/Kyle_Orton_2_dl.jpg

NFLBRONCO
09-26-2011, 12:34 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.

I dunno our Orton led O blows. LOL Kaylore

OBF1
09-26-2011, 12:44 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.

If we did that we would not have Von Miller and Rahim Moore... but 2 good DT's and kyle orton still = failure

maven
09-26-2011, 12:51 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.

If the team had spent all the cap room it's possible. The AFC West division isn't very good.

RhymesayersDU
09-26-2011, 12:55 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.

False.

If you think a DT turns this team around, you're insane. We need a DT or 2, no doubt. But it wouldn't change anything. We were never going to be close to the playoffs.

ChrisToker
09-26-2011, 01:00 PM
Insane is not addressing the glaring abyss that is our DT. We would have been relevant at least untill week 13-14. I think we can do better than most if healthy, but teams will be able to run all day up the middle.

jhns
09-26-2011, 01:04 PM
Omg this 4th and 1 failure mght result in 4-12 vs 5-11 season. Fans act like we got knocked out of the playoffs yesterday or something I would get the firestorm but, I don't with a team destined with a top 5 pick.

So far, starting Orton has put us at 1-2. If they had just used Tebow in the red zone, or started him, we are 3-0. That is with multiple starters missing. Fox is screwing this team out of what little chance it had.

TheReverend
09-26-2011, 01:07 PM
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/101469/Kyle_Orton_2_dl.jpg

I feel like that "C" on his chest is a cruel joke.

RhymesayersDU
09-26-2011, 01:09 PM
Insane is not addressing the glaring abyss that is our DT. We would have been relevant at least untill week 13-14. I think we can do better than most if healthy, but teams will be able to run all day up the middle.

We bottled up Chris Johnson pretty well. We would not have been relevant into week 13 or 14 either way. We were never going to be good this year.

It was impossible to address every deficiency in one shortened offseason.

ChrisToker
09-26-2011, 01:09 PM
Yeah have know idea why you protect ego of a QB thats not coming back next year. He could win 10 games and he'd give us the finger walking out the building.

Kaylore
09-26-2011, 01:14 PM
I feel like that "C" on his chest is a cruel joke.

He purses his lips at you!

RhymesayersDU
09-26-2011, 01:14 PM
I feel like that "C" on his chest is a cruel joke.

What do you mean? Doesn't that "C" stand for cúnt?

ChrisToker
09-26-2011, 01:16 PM
We bottled up Chris Johnson pretty well. We would not have been relevant into week 13 or 14 either way. We were never going to be good this year.

It was impossible to address every deficiency in one shortened offseason.

When you leave $25million dollars on the table when you could have got the best 3 DT's for just over $15mil if u got all 3 of them plus 10 mil more to spread around "cap minimum." Bowlen is just a cheap ass.

Maybe few extra CB's and I can't say we are weak starter wise.

mkporter
09-26-2011, 01:22 PM
Insane is not addressing the glaring abyss that is our DT. We would have been relevant at least untill week 13-14. I think we can do better than most if healthy, but teams will be able to run all day up the middle.

For starters, we did address the DT position. Unfortunately, two of the guys we signed are hurt, one out for the year. Even with our top two starters out, DT is not even close to our biggest problem (or even in the top 3). Bunkley has quietly been playing very well, and we'll get to see what Thomas can do in this defense soon enough. We have bigger issues at MLB, CB, and QB.

broncocalijohn
09-26-2011, 01:25 PM
Omg this 4th and 1 failure mght result in 4-12 vs 5-11 season. Fans act like we got knocked out of the playoffs yesterday or something I would get the firestorm but, I don't with a team destined with a top 5 pick.

It has to do with not winning the game at hand. What makes you think the same problem won't rise up and bite us in the ass again? It did many times since last year and it won't be the last from yesterday. I just want to know Toker, who is "tuffer"? Broncos or Packers? I think the tuffest is going to be someone other than Packers. Most tuff might be Raiders at home.

Br0nc0Buster
09-26-2011, 01:29 PM
We could have Suh in there and we arent going to win games because we cant score any freaking points

Two of our top three DTs are hurt, and Bunkley has been playing well

Our DT situation is not good, but its not the biggest weakness on our team

Our defense has been keeping us in games, only to watch our offense piss it away

Rock Chalk
09-26-2011, 01:55 PM
Blaming THAT red zone failure on Orton? Really guys?

He had 2 Red zone TDs in that game and that one was all runs except for one ****ing play.

Let's blame Orton for that.

Im not advocating Orton or nothing but you ****ing people are retarded. That Red Zone failure is on the coaches, not the QB.

Swedish Extrovert
09-26-2011, 01:57 PM
Orton's not a difference maker, but no one on the team is right now. Defense and O-line are getting better but aren't spectacular...

You put Orton on the 1999 Ravens, and they would have breezed through the Super Bowl.

jhns
09-26-2011, 01:59 PM
Blaming THAT red zone failure on Orton? Really guys?

He had 2 Red zone TDs in that game and that one was all runs except for one ****ing play.

Let's blame Orton for that.

Im not advocating Orton or nothing but you ****ing people are retarded. That Red Zone failure is on the coaches, not the QB.

When the other QB is the solution, the starting QB is the problem. You are correct though, the coaches are to blame.

Broncos4Life
09-26-2011, 02:45 PM
How many times at that goal line stand did we have and with Titans penalties they tried to give it to us.

7-8 tries inside the five and cannot get it done. That is disgraceful. The offense should be running laps forever like my coach did us. Man up, take responsibility for the guy in front of you and get it done ONCE ?

What a joke, we DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN YESTERDAY..............

I don't think we deserved to win any of the 3 games....

Orton is bad enough in the red zone. Throw in ultra conservative Fox into the equation and you get a steaming pile of crap!

Archer81
09-26-2011, 03:08 PM
If we had picked up a few DT worth a **** we could have been playoff bound or at least in discussion near end of season.


Picking up DT = successful 4th and 1 try?

Explain this.


:Broncos:

DarkHorse30
09-26-2011, 04:14 PM
Orton's not a difference maker, but no one on the team is right now. Defense and O-line are getting better but aren't spectacular...

You put Orton on the 1999 Ravens, and they would have breezed through the Super Bowl.

THIS is a complete lie. Look, Orton got outplayed by MATT HASSLEBECK yesterday. Name ONE veteran starting QB that is WORSE than Orton, other than Cassell. He does not exist.

Orton is a BELOW average starting QB. Period.

WolfpackGuy
09-26-2011, 04:29 PM
Orton's not a difference maker, but no one on the team is right now. Defense and O-line are getting better but aren't spectacular...

You put Orton on the 1999 Ravens, and they would have breezed through the Super Bowl.

And gotten past the 14-2 Jaguars, 13-3 Titans, and 13-3 Rams?

Come on!

HAT
09-26-2011, 05:15 PM
THIS is a complete lie. Look, Orton got outplayed by MATT HASSLEBECK yesterday.

You do realize that Orton doesn't get to face Denver's D in these games, right?

gunns
09-26-2011, 05:34 PM
:Whaaaa!:

:vermeil:

LRtagger
09-26-2011, 05:40 PM
Orton outplayed Hasselback last year. It doesn't really mean anything. Denver's secondary sucks balls and Orton sucks balls.

Swedish Extrovert
09-26-2011, 10:59 PM
2000 Ravens.

sgbfan
09-26-2011, 11:18 PM
THIS is a complete lie. Look, Orton got outplayed by MATT HASSLEBECK yesterday. Name ONE veteran starting QB that is WORSE than Orton, other than Cassell. He does not exist.

Orton is a BELOW average starting QB. Period.

Alex Smith,Tavaris Jackson, maybe even McNabb. Hasselback looked above average, but he was going against below average CB's. I'd take Hasselbacover Orton though. He at least looks like he cares.

i4jelway7
09-27-2011, 03:37 AM
This loss is on John Fox ... in that situation up by 4 pts in the 4th, 4 trys from the goal line, 1 pass-- incomplete, 3 runs up the middle for nothing... you KICK the damn FG to be up by 7... no reason they should of went for it there.. maybe if the run game had been working, but it was not & the middle of the field was stuffed all day long ... horrendous play calling.. what makes it worse is Fox says he would make the same call next week... WTF really John Fox? ... really? you would.. wow where do I apply to be the head coaching job? .. so I guess we are sucking for luck

jhns
09-27-2011, 06:05 AM
This loss is on John Fox ... in that situation up by 4 pts in the 4th, 4 trys from the goal line, 1 pass-- incomplete, 3 runs up the middle for nothing... you KICK the damn FG to be up by 7... no reason they should of went for it there.. maybe if the run game had been working, but it was not & the middle of the field was stuffed all day long ... horrendous play calling.. what makes it worse is Fox says he would make the same call next week... WTF really John Fox? ... really? you would.. wow where do I apply to be the head coaching job? .. so I guess we are sucking for luck

This. If you think that situation is so imoortant that you would go for it, at least put your best goal line weapon in. He is giving away games by making mistakes that a high school coach doesn't make. While failing, he decides to handicap himself just to make it fun for him.

You don't give away games like that at this level. I have a feeling he won't be around long.

Drek
09-27-2011, 06:19 AM
For starters, we did address the DT position. Unfortunately, two of the guys we signed are hurt, one out for the year. Even with our top two starters out, DT is not even close to our biggest problem (or even in the top 3). Bunkley has quietly been playing very well, and we'll get to see what Thomas can do in this defense soon enough. We have bigger issues at MLB, CB, and QB.

We didn't sign two guys, we resigned one of our own scrubs and brought in another. So we added one DT in FA. Traded for another.

And some of us were saying even when we signed that one other DT that its real damn stupid to bet on a guy who is >30 years old, > 300 pounds, and has been out of football for >12 months.

Three strikes man. Yet we still gave Warren more money than the Pats were willing to, for him to play in the same defensive front.

Bunkley has done ok. Thomas has been a scrub every season of his career, I don't know why we'd assume this to suddenly change.

DT sucks. We've got one guy who isn't an embarrassment at a position where we should have three solid options at a minimum.

MLB is an issue, but that is why we drafted one in the 3rd round. CB is an issue and it something I've been railing on since FA. It just came to a head now because we're without Champ. QB is obviously a problem but of all the issues its clearly the one this staff is least willing to solve.

DT is a serious issue on this club, we just have a **** ton of other serious issues.

Blaming THAT red zone failure on Orton? Really guys?

He had 2 Red zone TDs in that game and that one was all runs except for one ****ing play.

Let's blame Orton for that.

Im not advocating Orton or nothing but you ****ing people are retarded. That Red Zone failure is on the coaches, not the QB.

Isn't the entire point to going with a veteran QB so that you can trust him to read the defense and make calls at the line? Why wasn't there a single audible? Not once did Orton look across the line and say "****, they're reading the up the gut run." and change over to a FB screen or something?

We sure as hell aren't playing Orton based on his raw physical talents. So if he is going to show the awareness and savvy of a first year starter why not go with a first year starter who destroys him athletically?

crawdad
09-27-2011, 06:28 AM
I get the sense that all plays are called by the coach and Orton doesn't have any chance to audible out! Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that Orton is just a Fox puppet and has been told that he will not audible out of any call!

Drek
09-27-2011, 07:06 AM
I get the sense that all plays are called by the coach and Orton doesn't have any chance to audible out! Correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that Orton is just a Fox puppet and has been told that he will not audible out of any call!

I'd agree. But then where is the "veteran advantage" we're supposedly going with in playing Orton?

oubronco
09-27-2011, 07:19 AM
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.hdforums.com/get/forum/images/smilies/icon_slap2.gif

Tombstone RJ
09-27-2011, 07:36 AM
This loss is on John Fox ... in that situation up by 4 pts in the 4th, 4 trys from the goal line, 1 pass-- incomplete, 3 runs up the middle for nothing... you KICK the damn FG to be up by 7... no reason they should of went for it there.. maybe if the run game had been working, but it was not & the middle of the field was stuffed all day long ... horrendous play calling.. what makes it worse is Fox says he would make the same call next week... WTF really John Fox? ... really? you would.. wow where do I apply to be the head coaching job? .. so I guess we are sucking for luck

whatever. If the Broncos score Fox looks brilliant and if they don't people like you nitpick the call ad nausium.

Tombstone RJ
09-27-2011, 07:39 AM
Blaming THAT red zone failure on Orton? Really guys?

He had 2 Red zone TDs in that game and that one was all runs except for one ****ing play.

Let's blame Orton for that.

Im not advocating Orton or nothing but you ****ing people are retarded. That Red Zone failure is on the coaches, not the QB.

Did you see the one pass by Orton? It was 10 yards out of bounds. He never even gave the WR a chance to catch the ball. Terrible pass. Terrible.

jhns
09-27-2011, 07:41 AM
whatever. If the Broncos score Fox looks brilliant and if they don't people like you nitpick the call ad nausium.

That is true for some calls in football. Not this one. I called it a horrible call the second I realized they were going for it. It woukd have been a bad call no matter what. You go up by seven in that situation, even if you weren't just stuffed a few times before trying the same thing...

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 07:44 AM
I'd agree. But then where is the "veteran advantage" we're supposedly going with in playing Orton?

It must be the constant locking onto his primary receiver. Or the lack of ability to find a passing lane. ::)

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 07:48 AM
That is true for some calls in football. Not this one. I called it a horrible call the second I realized they were going for it. It woukd have been a bad call no matter what. You go up by seven in that situation, even if you weren't just stuffed a few times before trying the same thing...

Honestly I really don't get why people don't understand how bad a call that was. In a low scoring game where we are struggling to run the ball at all, they go for it late on the goalline with a run, rather than take a seven point lead. It's so unbelievably stupid it boggles the mind, and there are quite a few people on these boards who think going for it was a sound decision (often criticizing the playcall rather than the fundamentally flawed decision). Wow...

Gort
09-27-2011, 07:53 AM
Honestly I really don't get why people don't understand how bad a call that was. In a low scoring game where we are struggling to run the ball at all, they go for it late on the goalline with a run, rather than take a seven point lead. It's so unbelievably stupid it boggles the mind, and there are quite a few people on these boards who think going for it was a sound decision (often criticizing the playcall rather than the fundamentally flawed decision). Wow...


we were leading.
it wasn't late (it was the beginning of the 4th quarter).
you rarely get that kind of field position. when you do, you have to try to get 7.


it was a good call going for it, but the play calling that whole series was lousy.

that's what we should be complaining about. not going for it on 4th, but running up the gut 3 straight times. stupid.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 07:58 AM
we were leading.
it wasn't late (it was the beginning of the 4th quarter).
you rarely get that kind of field position. when you do, you have to try to get 7.


it was a good call going for it, but the play calling that whole series was lousy.

that's what we should be complaining about. not going for it on 4th, but running up the gut 3 straight times. stupid.

We couldn't run all day and neither team could score. How is it a good decision to go for it with an ineffective run game in the toughest spot to run it on the field rather than take a bigger lead in a low scoring game? I don't get it.

jhns
09-27-2011, 08:02 AM
we were leading.
it wasn't late (it was the beginning of the 4th quarter).
you rarely get that kind of field position. when you do, you have to try to get 7.


it was a good call going for it, but the play calling that whole series was lousy.

that's what we should be complaining about. not going for it on 4th, but running up the gut 3 straight times. stupid.

You and Fox are the only two people on this planet that agree with the call. You take the TD lead in that situation, every time. This is especially true when your run just got stuffed twice and your offense has been bad. You go for it with a four point lead ifthe score is something like 30-34, not in a defensive struggle.

TonyR
09-27-2011, 08:11 AM
Everybody keeps knocking Hasselbeck, but check out his numbers this year:

Week 1: 21-34-263-2-1
Week 2: 30-42-358-1-1 (against Baltimore!)
Week 3: 27-36-311-2-0

I don't know where it's come from but he's played well all year.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 08:19 AM
Everybody keeps knocking Hasselbeck, but check out his numbers this year:

Week 1: 21-34-263-2-1
Week 2: 30-42-358-1-1 (against Baltimore!)
Week 3: 27-36-311-2-0

I don't know where it's come from but he's played well all year.

He's on pace for 5000 yards!!! Hilarious!

TonyR
09-27-2011, 08:47 AM
You and Fox are the only two people on this planet that agree with the call.

I think a lot of people have expressed that they are okay with going for it in this situation. What they have a problem with is the play call and/or execution. Score a TD there and you win the game. Fox was going for the win. It's an aggressive call but one a lot of coaches are probably going to make. As has been said, if we took the field goal and lost the game you'd have some people complaining about how we should have gone for it.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 08:49 AM
I think a lot of people have expressed that they are okay with going for it in this situation. What they have a problem with is the play call and/or execution. Score a TD there and you win the game. Fox was going for the win. It's an aggressive call but one a lot of coaches are probably going to make. As has been said, if we took the field goal and lost the game you'd have some people complaining about how we should have gone for it.

A lot of coaches are not going to make that call. Are you serious? Nine times out of ten a team kicks the field goal and takes the points, especially with a struggling offense.

TonyR
09-27-2011, 08:53 AM
A lot of coaches are not going to make that call. Are you serious?

I am. You guys act like this (teams going for it on 4th down from the 1 yd line or closer) has never happened before. I bet it happens double digit times every season.

jhns
09-27-2011, 08:54 AM
I think a lot of people have expressed that they are okay with going for it in this situation. What they have a problem with is the play call and/or execution. Score a TD there and you win the game. Fox was going for the win. It's an aggressive call but one a lot of coaches are probably going to make. As has been said, if we took the field goal and lost the game you'd have some people complaining about how we should have gone for it.

McDaniels wouldn't even go for it in that situation and I thought he was the worst coach in the league. Get aggressive when you have the ability to execute your agressive play calling. No one watching that game could have been impressed with our offensive showing. Again, that call is alright if the score is 38-34 and you are pretty sure the other team will score a couple more times. I was very surprised to see a defensive coach make that call in a low scoring game.

jhns
09-27-2011, 08:55 AM
I am. You guys act like this (teams going for it on 4th down from the 1 yd line or closer) has never happened before. I bet it happens double digit times every season.

The fact that you simplify the situation in such a way tells me that you don't understand the situation.

TonyR
09-27-2011, 08:55 AM
I was very surprised to see a defensive coach make that call in a low scoring game.

Maybe Elway made the call from the box.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 08:58 AM
I am. You guys act like this (teams going for it on 4th down from the 1 yd line or closer) has never happened before. I bet it happens double digit times every season.

So you think every 4th and goal from the one is the same? You think every team has the same chances of succeeding? Is that what you are saying?

It would've been a sensible call for a hard-nose running team that can consistently get a push on the line and get the tough yards. Do you think that describes the Broncos?

TonyR
09-27-2011, 09:15 AM
The fact that you simplify the situation in such a way tells me that you don't understand the situation.

I think it's clear you're young and haven't been watching football very long. Football coaches are stubborn, arrogant, prideful people. Fox decided "damnit, we're going to punch it in here!" and went for it, consequences, logic, reason, whatever be damned. He wanted to win a football game and took a gamble to win it. Happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're overthinking this a little, and clearly thinking isn't something you're terribly practiced at so you might want to give your overburdened noggin a little rest.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 09:18 AM
I think it's clear you're young and haven't been watching football very long. Football coaches are stubborn, arrogant, prideful people. Fox decided "damnit, we're going to punch it in here!" and went for it, consequences, logic, reason, whatever be damned. He wanted to win a football game and took a gamble to win it. Happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're overthinking this a little, and clearly thinking isn't something you're terribly practiced at so you might want to give your overburdened noggin a little rest.

So you're argument is "coaches are stubborn"? That makes it a good call?

Rohirrim
09-27-2011, 09:19 AM
I think it's clear you're young and haven't been watching football very long. Football coaches are stubborn, arrogant, prideful people. Fox decided "damnit, we're going to punch it in here!" and went for it, consequences, logic, reason, whatever be damned. He wanted to win a football game and took a gamble to win it. Happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're overthinking this a little, and clearly thinking isn't something you're terribly practiced at so you might want to give your overburdened noggin a little rest.

I see the Tebow tag team is working you over. Ha!

Give it up. For these guys, if Tebow doesn't get to play, everybody, and everything else in the world is a catastrophe.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 09:20 AM
I see the Tebow tag team is working you over. Ha!

Give it up. For these guys, if Tebow doesn't get to play, everybody, and everything else in the world is a catastrophe.

What the **** does this have to do with Tebow? Jackass.

jhns
09-27-2011, 09:21 AM
I think it's clear you're young and haven't been watching football very long. Football coaches are stubborn, arrogant, prideful people. Fox decided "damnit, we're going to punch it in here!" and went for it, consequences, logic, reason, whatever be damned. He wanted to win a football game and took a gamble to win it. Happens all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're overthinking this a little, and clearly thinking isn't something you're terribly practiced at so you might want to give your overburdened noggin a little rest.

You are the one that defended the coach the past two years and you are going to call my knowledge into question? At least you are good for a laugh.

I do get that some coaches are stupid. They are the ones that end up with first overall picks. Shanahan doesn't make retarded calls like that. He also doesn't come close to first overall picks, even when his team lacks talent. In fact, he took over a four win team and never has come close to the first overall pick. Just because retarded coaches do it, doesn't make it a good call.

jhns
09-27-2011, 09:23 AM
What the **** does this have to do with Tebow? Jackass.

The situation wouodn't have existed if Tebow was in.

TonyR
09-27-2011, 09:54 AM
So you're argument is "coaches are stubborn"? That makes it a good call?

Again, my position is that going for it isn't a "bad call", but running it up the gut probably was. If they'd have run an option play for Tebow you and jhns would think it was a good call.

Agamemnon
09-27-2011, 09:57 AM
Again, my position is that going for it isn't a "bad call", but running it up the gut probably was. If they'd have run an option play for Tebow you and jhns would think it was a good call.

No I wouldn't. I'm not a fan of going for it in low scoring games when you already have the lead. If you can't get it in on three straight downs, the fourth one probably isn't going to be any better. Tebow or no Tebow.

jhns
09-27-2011, 10:21 AM
Again, my position is that going for it isn't a "bad call", but running it up the gut probably was. If they'd have run an option play for Tebow you and jhns would think it was a good call.

That would have been a great call on first, second, or third downs...

mkporter
09-27-2011, 10:37 AM
We couldn't run all day and neither team could score. How is it a good decision to go for it with an ineffective run game in the toughest spot to run it on the field rather than take a bigger lead in a low scoring game? I don't get it.

It's really about expected outcome. You have a very high likelihood of making the field goal, call it 100%. You have a decent chance of converting the fourth and 1, let's say 50% (should be higher, but we aren't that good at running the ball. Put Tebow in, and call it 75%). How much more likely are you to win the game if you are up by 7 instead of 4? A little more likely. The other team already needs to get a TD, but now that only gets them to a tie instead of a win. Call it 25% more likely to win. How much more likely are you to win if you are up by 11 instead of 4? A whole lot. The other team now has to score two touchdowns. Probably 75% more likely to win.

Going for the field goal gives you a 100% chance of being 25% more likely to win = 25% more likely to win.

Going for the TD gives you a 50% chance of being 75% more likely to win = 37.5% more likely to win.

Maybe you disagree with the numbers I chose, and that's reasonable, but it's silly to act like it was obvious to take the FG.

jhns
09-27-2011, 10:41 AM
It's really about expected outcome. You have a very high likelihood of making the field goal, call it 100%. You have a decent chance of converting the fourth and 1, let's say 50% (should be higher, but we aren't that good at running the ball. Put Tebow in, and call it 75%). How much more likely are you to win the game if you are up by 7 instead of 4? A little more likely. The other team already needs to get a TD, but now that only gets them to a tie instead of a win. Call it 25% more likely to win. How much more likely are you to win if you are up by 11 instead of 4? A whole lot. The other team now has to score two touchdowns. Probably 75% more likely to win.

Going for the field goal gives you a 100% chance of being 25% more likely to win = 25% more likely to win.

Going for the TD gives you a 50% chance of being 75% more likely to win = 37.5% more likely to win.

Maybe you disagree with the numbers I chose, and that's reasonable, but it's silly to act like it was obvious to take the FG.

You want to know how it is really easy to judge the decision? We lost because of it. It isn't silly to act like it is obvious to make the correct call... This is really basic and you are defending it...

We had a 50% chance of converting when we failed three straight times running? Your math doesn't even make a little bit of sense.

TonyR
09-27-2011, 10:50 AM
You want to know how it is really easy to judge the decision? We lost because of it.

Nope. Gross oversimplification. Numerous other potential outcomes that were impacted by numerous other plays. Even if we kick the field goal there and end up in OT we still could have lost. Not getting those 3 points did not by itself lead directly to the loss. We could have kept them from scoring. We could have scored more.

mkporter
09-27-2011, 10:50 AM
You want to know how it is really easy to judge the decision? We lost because of it. It isn't silly to act like it is obvious to make the correct call... This is really basic and you are defending it...

We had a 50% chance of converting when we failed three straight times running? Your math doesn't even make a little bit of sense.

Perfectly exemplifies why your opinion is so well respected here.

jhns
09-27-2011, 10:53 AM
Nope. Gross oversimplification. Numerous other potential outcomes that were impacted by numerous other plays. Even if we kick the field goal there and end up in OT we still could have lost. Not getting those 3 points did not by itself lead directly to the loss. We could have kept them from scoring. We could have scored more.

That single decision is the one coaching decision that completely changed the way the game was going.

jhns
09-27-2011, 10:55 AM
Perfectly exemplifies why your opinion is so well respected here.

Maybe it should be more respected Mr. 0-3 = 50%. It is pretty easy to see that I have been right a lot more than most here. You want to start bumping old threads to compare past opinions?

Eldorado
09-27-2011, 11:10 AM
Maybe it should be more respected Mr. 0-3 = 50%. It is pretty easy to see that I have been right a lot more than most here. You want to start bumping old threads to compare past opinions?

http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/5309/original/doitus4.jpg?1247475150

jhns
09-27-2011, 11:25 AM
http://cdn1.knowyourmeme.com/i/5309/original/doitus4.jpg?1247475150

You sure you want that? I just went through your posts. The first thing that stands out is you almost never discuss football. The other thing that stands out is you were a McFan and really don't know **** about this sport, which explains the first thing.

mkporter
09-27-2011, 11:48 AM
Maybe it should be more respected Mr. 0-3 = 50%. It is pretty easy to see that I have been right a lot more than most here. You want to start bumping old threads to compare past opinions?

We had two running plays before fourth down:
2nd down: McGahee for 0 yards
3rd down: McGahee for one yard

On fourth down we needed one yard. Up to that point on this series we had been 50% to get one yard. Even naively using small number statistics you are wrong.

i4jelway7
09-27-2011, 11:49 AM
whatever. If the Broncos score Fox looks brilliant and if they don't people like you nitpick the call ad nausium.

even if they score the TD there it is still a bad call in the situation.. and yes any one with an ounce of football knowledge would question or "nitpick" it as you say.. no matter how you or anyone trys to spin it in that situation it was a poor decision & poor utilization of the roster .. BAD CALL end of story

jhns
09-27-2011, 12:31 PM
We had two running plays before fourth down:
2nd down: McGahee for 0 yards
3rd down: McGahee for one yard

On fourth down we needed one yard. Up to that point on this series we had been 50% to get one yard. Even naively using small number statistics you are wrong.

Three rushing plays that weren't converted <> 50%, sorry. Lets use your math though. You say 0/2 before the fourth, which equals the same 0%.

What makes this call even more of a joke is we tried running on third down earlier in that game and got -4 yards. We tried running on the goal line earlier in that game and got -2 yards. We rush a couple more times on the goal line and get stuffed a couple more times. So what do you do after this on fourth down, while uo by four late? Well, you do what hasn't been working! Duh!