This game should have been 20-20 with 10 minutes left...

[toad]

This isn't a Jake-hatin' thread, just a "what if" thread. Jake's had a great year and lead us to a 14-4, division-winning season.

The loss to Pitt can't be hung squarely on his shoulders, but I do think his 4 TOs (specifically the first 3 of them) was more than a major factor in this game. Him constantly giving the ball back is one reason our DEF was constantly on the field.

It should have been a 20-20 game with about 10 minutes left in the 4th.

Here's the way I see it:

- His first fumble let to a Wilson TD. Take away those 7 points if he'd held onto the ball. Even if we'd had to have punted they would have had to have marched down the field.
- His first INT led to a Ward TD. Take away 7 more points had he just held the ball for 1:55. A INT on a floater to sideline as the half ends is totally uncalled for. No way should Pitt have gotten 7 points with us holding the ball inside the 2-minute to the half mark.
- His second INT took about 3 minutes off the clock and lost us 50 yards in field position. We only needed 13 yards of offense to get into comfortable Elam FG position.
- His last fumble led to the garbage time Roethlisberger TD. Take away 7 more points there as it was just garbage time rushing.

So, round about, his TOs led directly to 21 Pitt points...not to say they wouldn't have scored anyway and not to say our DEF shouldn't have held them to at least field goals (which would have made it 29-20 with 10 minutes to go...an interesting game).

Take away his first 2 TOs, which were the bad ones, and its a 20-17 game. Take away the 2nd INT, in which we were already close to field goal range, and give us the 3 points and its tied 20-20 with 10 minutes left in the game. Take away his last fumble and you can take away the Roethisberger rushing TD.

[azbroncfan]

- His first fumble let to a Wilson TD. Take away those 7 points if he'd held onto the ball. Even if we'd had to have punted they would have had to have marched down the field.
Take away his last fumble and you can take away the Roethisberger rushing TD.
Is it his fault the Oline got man handled and he gets hit from behind and stripped of the ball? Did you watch the game and realize the 2nd fumble was a turnover regardless if he fumbles or not?

[OrangeShadow]

the 4 dropped ints by our DBs didnt help.especially the one by champ that would of gone for 6. lynchs was almost as bad

[toad]

Is it his fault the Oline got man handled and he gets hit from behind and stripped of the ball? Did you watch the game and realize the 2nd fumble was a turnover regardless if he fumbles or not?

Yes, I did watch the game.....and am aware it was a 4th and 10 and we would have turned it over regardless.

I'm just speculating had we gotten a first on that series.

Foster did get man-handled all day and Jake was certainly running for his life on that particular play.

[B-Love]

This isn't a Jake-hatin' thread, just a "what if" thread. Jake's had a great year and lead us to a 14-4, division-winning season.

The loss to Pitt can't be hung squarely on his shoulders, but I do think his 4 TOs (specifically the first 3 of them) was more than a major factor in this game. Him constantly giving the ball back is one reason our DEF was constantly on the field.

It should have been a 20-20 game with about 10 minutes left in the 4th.

Here's the way I see it:

- His first fumble let to a Wilson TD. Take away those 7 points if he'd held onto the ball. Even if we'd had to have punted they would have had to have marched down the field.
- His first INT led to a Ward TD. Take away 7 more points had he just held the ball for 1:55. A INT on a floater to sideline as the half ends is totally uncalled for. No way should Pitt have gotten 7 points with us holding the ball inside the 2-minute to the half mark.
- His second INT took about 3 minutes off the clock and lost us 50 yards in field position. We only needed 13 yards of offense to get into comfortable Elam FG position.
- His last fumble led to the garbage time Roethlisberger TD. Take away 7 more points there as it was just garbage time rushing.

So, round about, his TOs led directly to 21 Pitt points...not to say they wouldn't have scored anyway and not to say our DEF shouldn't have held them to at least field goals (which would have made it 29-20 with 10 minutes to go...an interesting game).

Take away his first 2 TOs, which were the bad ones, and its a 20-17 game. Take away the 2nd INT, in which we were already close to field goal range, and give us the 3 points and its tied 20-20 with 10 minutes left in the game. Take away his last fumble and you can take away the Roethisberger rushing TD.

This thread is embarrasing to me. We made fun of the Pats fans who did the same thing last week and you type something like this.

We were outclassed and physically dominated by the better team. Move on.

[toad]

the 4 dropped ints by our DBs didnt help.especially the one by champ that would of gone for 6. lynchs was almost as bad

That was a major play. Major, major, major. What could have been 6 points for us goes to a Pitt 1st down and ultimately to a Reed field goal. So rather than starting off 7-0 Denver, its 3-0 Pitt.

I was telling my Steeler-fan friend that Champ makes that play 50% of the time....and, to top it off, on any tip it probably falls directly into the WRs hands only 10% of the time. The got lucky Champ missed it then got lucky on top of that when it fell directly into Ward's hands.

I also thought the reversal of the Parker fumble was a lucky break for them. From the 3-4 angles I saw there was no conclusive evidence that his elbow/forearm hit the ground before the ball. Maybe it was a good no-call to begin with, but I was suprised it got reversed (since it was so close).

He agreed....the cards just fell into place for the Steelers yesterday.

[B-Love]

Faulting Jake for either fumble is absurd.

On the first fumble Plummer got the kind of protection Morton got in SB 12. Porter essentially got to the "top of Jake's Pocket" the same time Jake did. There is no way Plummer can be blamed for that one.

And the 2nd one was a 4th down play, the guy was desperate and needs to try to keep the play alive. No fault at all there either. He showed great skills avoiding a great pass rush team.

Foote made a great play and I do put both picks on Jake. But the fumbles are not his fault.

[B-Love]

I think the Lynch pick opportunity was not as good as it seems. That ball bounced in front of him, I am pretty sure.

[toad]

This thread is embarrasing to me. We made fun of the Pats fans who did the same thing last week and you type something like this.

We were outclassed and physically dominated by the better team. Move on.

Our play yesterday was embarrasing to me.

We made fun of the Pats fans because they did this on OUR boards.

We're Broncos fans...I didn't think there was anything WRONG with discussing goods, bads, and "what ifs" among ourselves.

I agree, Pitt was better than us yesterday....but the turnover margain was likely the reason why.

[Mile High Shack]

Jakes 2 picks were all on Jake

his 2 fumbles were on his Oline

it doesn't matter

Steelers were the better team

[B-Love]

I thought Ward should have been called for Offensive Pass Interference on the almost Bailey pick. That's a tough call but that is why Bailey missed that ball IMO.

It would be a tough call to make in a Title game, but Ward held Bailey's arm back.

[texpat]

This thread is embarrasing to me. We made fun of the Pats fans who did the same thing last week and you type something like this.

We were outclassed and physically dominated by the better team. Move on.

An honest Bronc fan, well done!

[B-Love]

toad, sorry for the tone but I am game for some good 'what if' takes if there is reason for it.

If we had a close loss, it would hurt and I might try to justify the what if's? But they kicked the piss out of us.

[ROYC75]

This isn't a Jake-hatin' thread, just a "what if" thread. Jake's had a great year and lead us to a 14-4, division-winning season.

The loss to Pitt can't be hung squarely on his shoulders, but I do think his 4 TOs (specifically the first 3 of them) was more than a major factor in this game. Him constantly giving the ball back is one reason our DEF was constantly on the field.

It should have been a 20-20 game with about 10 minutes left in the 4th.

Here's the way I see it:

- His first fumble let to a Wilson TD. Take away those 7 points if he'd held onto the ball. Even if we'd had to have punted they would have had to have marched down the field.
- His first INT led to a Ward TD. Take away 7 more points had he just held the ball for 1:55. A INT on a floater to sideline as the half ends is totally uncalled for. No way should Pitt have gotten 7 points with us holding the ball inside the 2-minute to the half mark.
- His second INT took about 3 minutes off the clock and lost us 50 yards in field position. We only needed 13 yards of offense to get into comfortable Elam FG position.
- His last fumble led to the garbage time Roethlisberger TD. Take away 7 more points there as it was just garbage time rushing.

So, round about, his TOs led directly to 21 Pitt points...not to say they wouldn't have scored anyway and not to say our DEF shouldn't have held them to at least field goals (which would have made it 29-20 with 10 minutes to go...an interesting game).

Take away his first 2 TOs, which were the bad ones, and its a 20-17 game. Take away the 2nd INT, in which we were already close to field goal range, and give us the 3 points and its tied 20-20 with 10 minutes left in the game. Take away his last fumble and you can take away the Roethisberger rushing TD.


Could of, should of, would of .......... Does the New England game ring a bell ?Ha!

[Rulon Velvet Jones]

What's sad is the Pats board STILL going on with their "what ifs".

Pats=whiny fags.

[-Slap-]

It was just depressing to see our defense unable to capitalize on so many golden opportunities. Three or four chances at interceptions. A fumble overturned by replay. Another fumble that bounced straight out of bounds. Clearly, Cowher, Wisenhunt and LeBeau came in with a terrific gameplan, but the Broncos never made the plays when they were in front of them. Seeing Jake revert to turnovers was not as depressing as seeing our defense revert to being unable to force them.

[AgentOrange]

Our play yesterday was embarrasing to me.

We made fun of the Pats fans because they did this on OUR boards.

We're Broncos fans...I didn't think there was anything WRONG with discussing goods, bads, and "what ifs" among ourselves.

I agree, Pitt was better than us yesterday....but the turnover margain was likely the reason why.



Well said. I would like to add and give credit where credit is due. The Steelers O-line, that picked up the blitz, gave Ben all day too throw into a zone, or man coverage.

[Traveler]

It was just depressing to see our defense unable to capitalize on so many golden opportunities. Three or four chances at interceptions. A fumble overturned by replay. Another fumble that bounced straight out of bounds. Clearly, Cowher, Wisenhunt and LeBeau came in with a terrific gameplan, but the Broncos never made the plays when they were in front of them. Seeing Jake revert to turnovers was not as depressing as seeing our defense revert to being unable to force them.


What's really sad was seeing Pitt constantly convert all those 3rd and long situations. That's why we lost this game. The defense didn't step up when they had opportunities. Lay this loss on Pitts ablilty to exploit a weakness in our defense. They took us to task. They were definitely the better team yesterday.

I also agree that Jake should be held responsible for the two picks, but not the fumbles. I feel for him because as Phil Simms said yesterday, many in the media said Plummer would revert to his old form, and to some extent, Jake did just that. Now he'll have to hear that same **** all off-season.

[Rock Chalk]

The first pick I really blame Jake on. The second one, Im not so sure. The pass was good, but I think he just didn't see the player and the guy did make a good jump at the ball IIRC. Stil, Jake's fault, but not a typical "Jake mistake". That was more along the lines of the basic QB mistake that turns into an INT. The FIRST one was a ****ing jake mistake though for sure.

[TheChamp24]

Really, the first pick is the one that I am really upset about. No way should that of happened.
The second one, good play by the LB, but Jake trying to go for a big play, while Kyle Johnson is wide open by about 15 yards in the flat.
This just shows that if behind, Jake can not get us back into the game. He'll look to get the big play instead of dumping it off when he needs to.

[Taco John]

The first pick I really blame Jake on. The second one, Im not so sure. The pass was good, but I think he just didn't see the player and the guy did make a good jump at the ball IIRC. Stil, Jake's fault, but not a typical "Jake mistake". That was more along the lines of the basic QB mistake that turns into an INT. The FIRST one was a ****ing jake mistake though for sure.



He stared the route down and locked on the safety and just threw it to him. It was a typical Jake Mistake. He totally saw the player because that's where his eyes went immediately, locked on the safety, and he just threw it straight to him. I had a straight line between, Jake, the safety, and myself. It was like the play unfolded right in front of me. It was surreal.

[Beantown Bronco]

This just shows that if behind, Jake can not get us back into the game. He'll look to get the big play instead of dumping it off when he needs to.

Nobody had a problem with that on the Lelie TD.....

[-Slap-]

What's really sad was seeing Pitt constantly convert all those 3rd and long situations. That's why we lost this game. The defense didn't step up when they had opportunities. Lay this loss on Pitts ablilty to exploit a weakness in our defense. They took us to task. They were definitely the better team yesterday.

See, I'm willing to cut our defense a little slack on that. They were able to consistently force Pittsburgh into third down situations. I just give the Steelers a ton of credit for executing so well in those situations. Either Wisenhunt would call the perfect play for the defense we had called or their second year QB would calmly stand in and make the play.

[Popps]

Faulting Jake for either fumble is absurd.

On the first fumble Plummer got the kind of protection Morton got in SB 12.

It absolutely amazes me that you have to explain this to people around here.

This wasn't a Brian Griese-style, sitting there clueless with no pocket presence-type fumble. Jake was getting his ass kicked all day long. He had guys on him before he could finish his drop-back.

Do people even watch the game, or do they just look at stat-sheets? Seriously, it's mind-boggling.

[toad]

It absolutely amazes me that you have to explain this to people around here.

This wasn't a Brian Griese-style, sitting there clueless with no pocket presence-type fumble. Jake was getting his ass kicked all day long. He had guys on him before he could finish his drop-back.

Do people even watch the game, or do they just look at stat-sheets? Seriously, it's mind-boggling.

I watched the game and have spun the stats more ways than you can imagine....bottom line, for me, is that a QB on a "SuperBowl caliber" team protects the ball. Not to compare Jake and Manning, but Manning banged around last week than Jake was this week and he came up with 0 turnovers.

A smart QB recognizes the bull rush, knows when he's going down, and protects the ball.

I can appreciate Jakes aggressive nature to keep the play alive but I'd be willing to bet it backfires more often than not.

[B-Love]

I watched the game and have spun the stats more ways than you can imagine....bottom line, for me, is that a QB on a "SuperBowl caliber" team protects the ball. Not to compare Jake and Manning, but Manning banged around last week than Jake was this week and he came up with 0 turnovers.

A smart QB recognizes the bull rush, knows when he's going down, and protects the ball.

I can appreciate Jakes aggressive nature to keep the play alive but I'd be willing to bet it backfires more often than not.

toad, not good.

On the first turnover Jake couldn't even possibly see Porter. He blindsided him and was there in 1 second. There is no way Plummer is supposed to feel the rush on that play.

The 2nd play fumble was a 4th down play with us down 10. Was he supposed to "go down and protect the ball". Or is he supposed to try, with all his might, to keep our chances alive.

[manchambo]

Jakes 2 picks were all on Jake

his 2 fumbles were on his Oline

it doesn't matter

Steelers were the better team

On the radio this morning they were saying the first pick looked like a bad rout by Alexander. I was at the game, so I didn't see a bunch of replays, but based on what I did see I thought they might be right.

Which brings me to Alexander, the only time I noticed he was in the game all year was when he was dropping a pass or screwing something else up.

[toad]

toad, not good.

On the first turnover Jake couldn't even possibly see Porter. He blindsided him and was there in 1 second. There is no way Plummer is supposed to feel the rush on that play.

The 2nd play fumble was a 4th down play with us down 10. Was he supposed to "go down and protect the ball". Or is he supposed to try, with all his might, to keep our chances alive.

Agreed on the 2nd fumble as it was a last hope. The first, maybe it was an "honest mistake," but its still a fumble that setup an immediate TD.

By protect the ball I was referring to the INTs as well. There's no excuse for the first one and he was obviously thinking ahead of himself for the "big play" on the second (when in fact there was plenty of time/football left).

We've played top defenses before this year and Jake hasn't had 4 TOs...I like him but I'm not going to defend him when he coughs it up 4 times for 21 points.

I support Jake and his return to the orange and blue next year, but I feel he was one of the main factors in yesterday's lost.

I just think that losing 4 turnovers, 3 at "turning point" moments in the game did us in. That many TOs at the times they occured has the trickle-down effect to all aspects of the game. Why did PIT always seem to have great field position? Why was our defense always on the field? Why did we lose the TOP battle by 12 minutes? TOs.

Here's PIT's drive charts. Obviously far more successful on drives started from TOs. Our defense wasn't playing great but there's no reason to think the 21 points from TOs wouldn't have been less.

Pittsburgh's 6 Possessions From Kick-Offs and Punts:
1. Thier own 9, 62 yards in 6:29, FIELD GOAL
2. Their own 20, 80 yards in 7:28, TOUCHDOWN
3. Their own 26, 34 yards in 5:51, PUNT
4. Their own 29, 47 yards in 4:58, FIELD GOAL
5. Their own 41, 2 yards in 1:40, PUNT
6. Their own 40, 8 yards in 1:40, PUNT

Pittsburgh's 4 Possessions from Turnovers:
1. Our 39, 39 yards in 1:48, TOUCHDOWN
2. Our 38, 39 yards in 1:41, TOUCHDOWN
3. Our 39, 1 yards in 1:34, PUNT
4. Our 17, 17 yards in 4:42, TOUCHDOWN