Everyone who's pointed Fingers after the Pittsburgh Loss

[Boobs McGee]

I'll admit it, I'm a jake homer. I've defended him from day one of the offseason, after that horrible loss. It wasn't his fault, we were already down when he threw those picks, defense wasn't stopping on 3rd downs.

WELL, to everyone out there who has been defending our quarterback (and everyone that put the loss squarely on his shoulders), here's another reason why I'm glad we've got Jake at the helm for another few years.

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_3673027


couple of quotes from the article-

If it weren't for the mistakes I made, we probably win that game," Plummer said. "If you ask Al (Wilson), he'd say we lost the game because the defense didn't make enough stops, but that's a team. We all take the blame. But I really do think if I didn't make my mistakes, we would have won."

OKAY HATERS, there ya go. He's a big man, he admitted it. That's what a team leader does. He's ready to come back out next year and kick some major ass.


secondly -
Eight days after the loss to the eventual Super Bowl champion Steelers, Denver coach Mike Shanahan brought in Owens for a visit. Owens wound up signing with Dallas last month. Plummer said he happily would have accepted Owens, who alienated Jeff Garcia and Donovan McNabb, the last two quarterbacks he played with.

"I would have welcomed him," Plummer said. "He's a playmaker. I always want to play with playmakers. I really don't think it would have been a problem here. Attitudes don't work here. I'm playing with one of the greatest players to ever play the game in Champ Bailey and he doesn't come in here with an ego, and I wouldn't expect T.O. to have come in here like that, either."


well, i don't know if he would have "happily" accepted T.O., but it's nice to know that Jake is willing to do whatever it takes to win.

He also talks about Darius Watts having "sick" talent and how excited he is for David Terrell.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Mane, the regular season is just too far away.


GO BRONCOS

[Smiling Assassin27]

Here's a thought--maybe a different guy doesn't make those mistakes. Admitting you sucked doesn't make the fact that you sucked any less true. Still, i concur that Jake's an asset and the best guy for the job right now.
And another thing--the only thing sick about Watts is his mind. Kid's got a mental block the size of a country mile and will flame out DESPITE his 'sick talent'. As for Terrell, let's hope the guy either flames out early or does what he was supposed to coming out of UM.

Fluff pieces get us through the summer!

[NaptownChief]

I'm glad we've got Jake at the helm for another few years.





If Jake is your starting QB 6 games into the 2007 season I will eat my hat. "Few years at the helm" nothing. Mid-way through next season Cutler will be the guy at the latest. If the Donks happen to be off playoff pace this year Cutler will be out there. Man crush or not your guy Jake's days are numbered...

[BroncoInferno]

If Jake is your starting QB 6 games into the 2007 season I will eat my hat. "Few years at the helm" nothing. Mid-way through next season Cutler will be the guy at the latest. If the Donks happen to be off playoff pace this year Cutler will be out there. Man crush or not your guy Jake's days are numbered...

How do you feel about Denver getting Cutler? I know you posted some glowing remarks about him a couple of months prior to the draft.

[spdirty]

Why do you have to rehash Black Sunday?

God, Ive tried to rewatch that game about 8 times, and every time they show that Champ coulda woulda shoulda pick for a touch, my heart sinks to my stomach and I have to turn it off.

[Ballhawk]

If Jake is your starting QB 6 games into the 2007 season I will eat my hat. "Few years at the helm" nothing. Mid-way through next season Cutler will be the guy at the latest. If the Donks happen to be off playoff pace this year Cutler will be out there. Man crush or not your guy Jake's days are numbered...

We are a veteran team and I doubt that Shanny will stick a rook in and split the locker room, but in 2007 there will definately be an open QB competition with Jake needing a decisive edge to keep the job.

[Boobs McGee]

If Jake is your starting QB 6 games into the 2007 season I will eat my hat. "Few years at the helm" nothing. Mid-way through next season Cutler will be the guy at the latest. If the Donks happen to be off playoff pace this year Cutler will be out there. Man crush or not your guy Jake's days are numbered...

I"M NOT BEING SACRELIGOUS HERE....but here's what I've been thinking. Of course we're going to continue our drive into history with our outstanding running game. From an observational standpoint, it looks like Mike is trying to make us a LOT more multi-dimensional. He just brought in some BIG new weapons for jake this year, and I wouldn't be the least bit suprised to see us throwing the ball at a much higher percentage. Given that chance, Jake's going to excel and this is our superbowl year. Believe me when I say that if Jake can't carry this team, bring in the new guy and lets win some championships. Just cant help thinking that with all of the wonderful new additions and jakes continually improving game (AND the fact that he's got a Future Hall of Famer on his ass now ), we're gonna see fireworks this year. And after a ring or two, then we'll start seeing cutler

[NaptownChief]

How do you feel about Denver getting Cutler? I know you posted some glowing remarks about him a couple of months prior to the draft.


I don't like it at all....I think it was a great move for the Donks but bad for everyone else in the AFC. He has the physical tools to be great but from the games I watched he also has as all the intangibles to get the job done. The fact that he was able to show that on such a bad team in a tough conference is pretty amazing. After one year of learning the system he will beat Plummer like a rented mule out of his job.

[defenseman]

Naptown, I believe you are correct in your prediction. He will probably beat out Plummer next year. However , not this year...dman

[watermock]

Why do you have to rehash Black Sunday?

God, Ive tried to rewatch that game about 8 times, and every time they show that Champ coulda woulda shoulda pick for a touch, my heart sinks to my stomach and I have to turn it off.

I literally shut down. I was exausted by the time the game with the anticipation, and literally said I have to lay down. I wake up with us down 24-10 and driving and bam!. Ugg.

Look, leaders take the blame. Plummer had a poor game, but he didn't let Pitt convert 21 of 26 third downs either. Al Wilson stepped up and took some blame, Shanahan took some blame (I think...he might just been livid), but he bears it too. The whole team did. Even tho it was a disaster, noone pointed fingers on the team, only themselves. The only person pointing fingers is Lelie, and I'm pretty ambivalent about that attitude. If we could of replaced Lelie with a 3rd rounder, we should of done it. Stomping his feet like a toddler isn't going to get him a #1 job. Put down the glass pipe.

[spdirty]

I literally shut down. I was exausted by the time the game with the anticipation, and literally said I have to lay down. I wake up with us down 24-10 and driving and bam!. Ugg.

Look, leaders take the blame. Plummer had a poor game, but he didn't let Pitt convert 21 of 26 third downs either. Al Wilson stepped up and took some blame, Shanahan took some blame (I think...he might just been livid), but he bears it too. The whole team did. Even tho it was a disaster, noone pointed fingers on the team, only themselves. The only person pointing fingers is Lelie, and I'm pretty ambivalent about that attitude. If we could of replaced Lelie with a 3rd rounder, we should of done it. Stomping his feet like a toddler isn't going to get him a #1 job. Put down the glass pipe.

Yeah, and Ill be interested, if he does sit out this year and becomes a FA, who would want him, what kind of salary he'd get, and if he'd even be a #2. The guy is just screwing himself.

[watermock]

I don't like it at all....I think it was a great move for the Donks but bad for everyone else in the AFC. He has the physical tools to be great but from the games I watched he also has as all the intangibles to get the job done. The fact that he was able to show that on such a bad team in a tough conference is pretty amazing. After one year of learning the system he will beat Plummer like a rented mule out of his job.

Moving from 29 to Cutler and still getting Walker and another second was smoke and mirrors. We kept all our 4ths as well and got some line depth.

Plummer didn't even blink either. Said he would do anything to help Cutler. (kinda scary since Jay likes to force throws too). Jay doesn't have a weakness other than having to throw off the back foot, but he can even do that effectively. See Joe Montana on the catch.

[Beantown Bronco]

Good quotes by Plummer.

Griese would've blamed his receivers for the loss.

[rbackfactory80]

The most perfect example of a quaterback change is how Cincy handled it with Carson Palmer. The one year bench time let him figure everything out and the next year by the end he looked like a pro bowler. I hope we let Jake have the entire year without him looking over his back.

[Boobs McGee]

The most perfect example of a quaterback change is how Cincy handled it with Carson Palmer. The one year bench time let him figure everything out and the next year by the end he looked like a pro bowler. I hope we let Jake have the entire year without him looking over his back.

I don't see us doing any worse than last year, and that being said, Jake's job should be pretty secure. I think once he's established his first few sound wins, the looking over his back attitude will dissapear. I definitely think the added competition is going to be healthy for the start of his season though

[Bronco X]

No, it wasn't all Jake's fault. The Broncos got beat by a better team, period. But Jake was part of that. And you have to look at every aspect where the Broncos failed and look to make improvements. And let's say the rest of the team plays better and Jake still makes those mistakes... the Broncos likely still lose. I'm not saying I'd support the Broncos getting a new QB after this season if they hadn't drafted Cutler, but now that they have, I feel it is right for the Broncos to put Jake under a lot of scrutiny this next season if he wants to remain the Broncos quarterback. Take last season for what it was. Jake had a solid regular season, in which you could see that Shanahan and Kubiak had to coach the hell out of Jake to reduce his mistakes. But that came at the expense of his playmaking ability. And in the playoffs, he was nothing short of mediocre. The only reason they advanced against the Patriots was the turnovers. How many chances do you give a 30+ year old QB? I'm sure Shanahan was thinking along the same lines. It seems to me he was planning for some time to maneuver up to grab Cutler. It wasn't just the case of him moving up as high as he could then grabbing the best player available.

I'm not a betting man and I don't make predictions. But if I had to make one, this one would be pretty safe: it may not be fair, but if Jake doesn't improve his game considerably more than he did last season, and most importantly, if he doesn't play WAY better in the playoffs, 2007 will be his last season as a Bronco.

[Smiling Assassin27]

even if this team tanks this year, i think cutler doesn't see a single minute of regular season time.

[watermock]

First, that's two seasons away so it's not a reach at all. We could have worse problems than at QB. There is nothing wrong with a 30+ QB. I didn't see Jake slowing down. I saw Anderson slowing down. We might be in the best QB position in franchise history.

I get sick and tired of the perception of Jake being "dumbed down", it's simply not true. It's called "playing within the system" and it has to be followed even if your John Elway. I'm tired of the Jake bashing. He had a top 10 year when we were desperate for a QB.

[watermock]

even if this team tanks this year, i think cutler doesn't see a single minute of regular season time.

I could see some mop up duty. If we are eliminated by week 14 we might start him, that's it.

[bendog]

even if this team tanks this year, i think cutler doesn't see a single minute of regular season time.
Ah, we get homefield sewed up by game 15, the kid could see some snaps (-:

[Paladin]

There is no question that Cutler, if given proper coaching and time to learn, could be a very substantial player in the relatively near future. However, I do think it will be two years before he is on top of the game. He does not have to move any faster than that; the Broncos have a very good team without needing Cutler to do anything but learn the game and the O, and to learn the Ds he will face.

The CC game was not lost because of Plummer. I think the D left the game early and I think the rookie CBs were having problems, and the D scheme was not well executed. One could argue that Coyer's D was the reason the game was lost. Plummer tried to make some plays and forced the ball a time or two, and he also dropped the ball on roll outs that cost field position and made it a bit easier for Pitt. But the Broncos, even with all the mistakes and near TOs, were not blown out of the game. I didn't like the game because the Broncos couldn't get over the hump to win it, but then, it was what it was.

To say that Cutler "has a tendency to force the ball" is laughable. The only place where anything like that could be said is in films of the Vandy games, and I think he had to try to put the ball in to his "not-so-good" WRs who couldn't get open very well or consistently. If he has a group of WRs that can get open, I don't think he will "force" the ball since he will have WRs that are open.

Elementary, Watson.

I am looking forward to the QB camp on Mnday to maybe get a few pictures of him in a Broncos' uni.

[Paladin]

PS. In three years, I will be ecstatic to see the Broncos and Indy in a game at Mile High in the playoffs. Payaton who?

[Popps]

Here's a thought--maybe a different guy doesn't make those mistakes. !

Right, and maybe that different guy could have also suited up as a DE, gone in... and attempted to stop ONE of the FIVE CONSECUTIVE scoring drives that buried us in a 24-3 ****-hole in the first half. (17-3 before Jake ever threw his first pick.)

Not one stop in the first five drives.... that's high school stuff, guys.

Defense wins championships. Pittsburgh took apart three of the best offenses in a row to win it all. They shut down three of the most efficient QBs, three games in a row and you people think it was somehow unique to Plummer?

How do you think it might have been that Jake played so well all year... and then not so well against Pitt?

I wonder if it's the same reason Manning and Hasselbeck didn't play so well? I wonder if it's because their team was built to grind the ball and play swarming defense. (a.k.a. playoff football.)

[BleedingOrange]

And the offense scored exactly 0 tds and held the ball for how long in the first half? The defense stunk, but the offense did nothing to help them.

[Popps]

And the offense scored exactly 0 tds and held the ball for how long in the first half? The defense stunk, but the offense did nothing to help them.

You don't win playoff football games by digging yourself a hole and expecting your offense to bail you out. That's simply not how Dec/Jan games are won.

Take a little glance through the last 100 years of playoff football and you'll find dozens of examples of teams starting out playoff games slowly on offense, and yet winning the game.

Happen to catch the Superbowl? Pittsburgh had 7 pts at the half. They won.

Happen to catch the Denver/NE game? Denver had 10 at the half... 7 of which were scored in the closing minute. We had ZERO offense in the first half.

Yet... we won... yet... Pittsburgh won the Superbowl.... I wonder how that happened?

Conversely, go through the history of playoff football and I'll bet you can't find 10 teams that have won their game when their D allowed 24 points in the first half.

If you guys want to be the Chiefs/Colts, that's fine. Let's just pretend the defensive problems don't exist. Let's be an offense-only football team. Let's go against the last 100 years of football knowledge and assume that you only need a marginal defense and a high powered offense to succeed in the playoffs.

[Popps]

Super Bowl XL was a stop-and-start kind of game, with the momentum changing frequently but neither team taking charge until the fourth quarter. The Seahawks dominated the first half, but their inability to finish drives left the door open for the blue-collar Steelers. In the end, big plays proved the difference.

All three Pittsburgh touchdown drives were keyed by gains of 37 yards or longer. Despite Seattle’s domination of the first half (a 154-113 advantage in total yards), it could put only three points on the scoreboard during the first 30 minutes. Josh Brown’s 47-yard field goal near the end of the first quarter came shortly after a 16-yard TD pass from Matt Hasselbeck to Darrell Jackson was nullified by Jackson’s offensive pass-interference penalty.

After going three-and-out on their first three possessions and getting intercepted on the fourth , the Steelers put together an 11-play, 59-yard drive. The key play was a 37-yard pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Hines Ward on 3rd-and-28, on which Roethlisberger eluded Seattle’s pass rush and barely stopped short of crossing the line of scrimmage before finding Ward at the Seahawks’ three. After Jerome Bettis was held to two yards on two carries, Roethlisberger ran around left end on a designed keeper and was hit at the goal line. The head linesman initially signaled the QB down short of the goal line; then he raised his arms. Seattle head coach Mike Holmgren challenged the call, and the TV replays appeared to be inconclusive. After reviewing the replays, referee Bill Leavy said the call stood — touchdown, with 1:55 left in the half.


Wow, it almost sounds like Pittsburgh's offense started out slowly.... and Seattle dominated the first half time of possession.

Yet, Pitt won the game. Just like dozens of other Superbowl champions. Just like we did against New England. Just like you do in the playoffs.

[Ballhawk]

And the offense scored exactly 0 tds and held the ball for how long in the first half? The defense stunk, but the offense did nothing to help them.

I agree. Our Defense was 3rd in the league allowing 16.1 ppg. That after a complete opening day meltdown. I can not really think of one game last year where the offense bailed out the D. If our D does not have a good game we lose.

Our D was struggling, but thats when it is nice for an Offense to work some clock and respond with a TD. Outside of our FG drive we had 1 1st down and that was on the opening drive. Twice our O gave Pitt starting position at our 39. With our D not playing sharpe the O did nothing to help them out but instead helped them look worse.

Basically it was one bad game at the wrong time. Pitts did not expose some great weakness that all other teams overlooked all year round. If we give up just 16 ppg again this year I like our chances.

[Popps]

I agree. Our Defense was 3rd in the league allowing 16.1 ppg. That after a complete opening day meltdown. I can not really think of one game last year where the offense bailed out the D. If our D does not have a good game we lose.

Hey, the Colts had a GREAT regular season. They had a chance to go 16-0.
The Chiefs have made the playoffs many times with a high powered offense.
Too bad when they both got into the playoffs... their defenses were exposed, just like ours.

Let's talk about the playoffs and what has happened to us the past three years.

Opposing teams have come out of the gate and just BURIED us before we even knew what happened.

I'll say it again... you can probably find over 100 playoff winners in history where the offense scored less than 10 points in the first half, including this year's Superbowl winner. I'll bet you can't find 10 who have won despite giving up more than 24 in the first half.

You can talk about the regular season all you want. (Where our O ranked 5th and our D ranked 15th, and 30th in pass-rushing.)

I'd rather talk about winning playoff games, and you do that with a swarming, dominant defense. A quick glance through football history will make that abundantly clear.

[Ballhawk]

Please stop trying to compare our 03-04 D to that of 2005. We had a completely different front 4, DJ playing a new position and 2 new CBs. Half the D was new starters for christ sake.

We also did not have the 15th ranked D, it was #3 unless the NFL decided yards and not points win games.

We all know the D played ****ty in the Pitt game, but looking at the 18 games we played I would say that was not the norm.

[Sodak]

What's the point in pointing fingers at the loss. Nevermind the D coming out flat, or Pummer's errors. Pit just outplayed the Broncos, came in with a great game plan and put it to work, and took it to the Super Bowl.

[El Minion]

I agree. Our Defense was 3rd in the league allowing 16.1 ppg. That after a complete opening day meltdown. I can not really think of one game last year where the offense bailed out the D. If our D does not have a good game we lose.

Our D was struggling, but thats when it is nice for an Offense to work some clock and respond with a TD. Outside of our FG drive we had 1 1st down and that was on the opening drive. Twice our O gave Pitt starting position at our 39. With our D not playing sharpe the O did nothing to help them out but instead helped them look worse.

Basically it was one bad game at the wrong time. Pitts did not expose some great weakness that all other teams overlooked all year round. If we give up just 16 ppg again this year I like our chances.

The O was a priority and the PIT game showed it. Put Walker in that game and the O would not stall like it did. So what does Shanahan recognize and do? Drafts and trades for offense, Elvis is the exception that proved it. We finally have the play-making player in Walker.

[Popps]

Please stop trying to compare our 03-04 D to that of 2005. We had a completely different front 4, DJ playing a new position and 2 new CBs. Half the D was new starters for christ sake.

We also did not have the 15th ranked D, it was #3 unless the NFL decided yards and not points win games.

We all know the D played ****ty in the Pitt game, but looking at the 18 games we played I would say that was not the norm.

Of course it was the norm....

Passing Defense

Denver: Yards per game - Rank 29th

Denver: Sacks - Rank 30th

Denver: Touchdowns Allowed - (20) Rank 17th

Denver: 3rd down conversions allowed - Rank 15th


Our pass defense is ****ing horrible. We've been eaten alive with the pass three playoff years running. Teams come out and throw at us and we stand there with our thumbs in our asses. It's an embarrassment.

[Popps]

The O was a priority and the PIT game showed it. Put Walker in that game and the O would not stall like it did.

No one was a bigger fan of the Walker trade than me, but he wouldn't have made jack-squat of a difference in that game. Even after our offense had a decent drive and ate up a little clock, Pitt turned right around and went NINETY yards to punch it in.

Defense.

[Raider Bill]

I gotta go with Popps on this one. You have to occasionally stop someone.

[BleedingOrange]

You also don't win if your offense keeps going three and out. They have to put up more than 3 points in the half to win against a good team. If they go down and score on our first drive it's a totally different game. Instead they turn the ball over in our territory and the rest is history.

[Kaylore]

We got killed on third down. If you can't rush the passer, you will lose your third down battles.

[Popps]

You also don't win if your offense keeps going three and out.

Wrong.

Superbowl XL....

Pittsburgh's first four possessions all started at their 20-yard line. The Steelers gained 11, six, zero and 28 yards on those drives. They punted three times, and lost the ball the fourth time on an interception by Michael Boulware.

So, no... you DON'T necessarily lose if you go 3 and out. True playoff teams have defenses to overcome those situations.

Conversely, you can scan the last 100 years of football and you'll be lucky to find a team that wins when allowing other teams to score on their FIRST FIVE drives, without a stop.

Furthermore, let's investigate your claim that we "kept going 3 and out"...

Broncos first drive: Started at their own 20, ended up at Pittsburgh's 44 and consumed 4:00 of clock time.

Broncos second drive: Started at their own 20. 2 plays, 18 yards, and then a Pittsburgh defensive linemen penetrated and stripped the ball from Plummer on a pass rush. (Remember that, we'll get back to it.)

Broncos third drive: Started at Denver 40 and ended with a FG at Pitt's 12.
Consumed 5:00 minutes of clock time. (Denver's defense responded by allowing Pitt to march 80 yards down the field, eat up most of the 2nd half and punch in a TD, not once... but twice after the refs called back the first.)

Broncos fourth drive: Down 17-3 and the defense showing no signs of stopping anyone, we come out in pass-only mode, Pitt reads it and steps in front of a pass for the FIRST INT. (Late in the half.)


So, as you can see... there were no "3 and outs."


A week later, Pittsburgh's offense sputtered MUCH worse than ours did, and yet... their defense held a much better offense almost scoreless.

THAT is playoff football. THAT is why we are having this conversation every year at this time. You can check the regular season pass-defense stats, or you can just look at our yearly playoff spanking. Either way, the answer is crystal clear. We can't rush the passer and we can't stop anyone on third down. Teams pass at will on us.

[Raider Bill]

Playoff ball tends to be like that. You have to match the other team stop for stop and keep it a one possession deal.

[listopencil]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=2151&dateline=1146876286

That's not really Croyle, is it?

[Raider Bill]

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/image.php?u=2151&dateline=1146876286

That's not really Croyle, is it?


Nah.. It's Croyle's dome with Napo Dynomite's face photoshopped in

[BleedingOrange]

One game does not prove your point. The Chief/Colts playoff game showed that you can win if your defense doesn't stop the other team but once.

Two plays and a turnover is still 3 and out... unless they changed math.

The point is that you don't beat good teams by only having one side show up. And unlike you I can see that neither made an appearance.

[Taco John]

I think Plummer's right. I think that if he didn't throw those two interceptions, that we could have won that game. Hell, I think if he didn't throw the second one, we would have won. I had, just prior to that, told Garcia that I think we have a shot at this game still... The team was finally firing on both offense and defense... Then Plummer stared down a safety and threw the ball to him.

The defense surely had their problems. But the offense turning the ball over four times in a playoff game is inexcusable. It just is.

Javong Walker would have definitely made a difference. Plummer needed another target out there. I think he'd have felt less flustered if there was one more playmaker on the field, especially a physical presence like Walker. .

[rubaiyat]

Right, and maybe that different guy could have also suited up as a DE, gone in... and attempted to stop ONE of the FIVE CONSECUTIVE scoring drives that buried us in a 24-3 ****-hole in the first half. (17-3 before Jake ever threw his first pick.)

Not one stop in the first five drives.... that's high school stuff, guys.

Defense wins championships. Pittsburgh took apart three of the best offenses in a row to win it all. They shut down three of the most efficient QBs, three games in a row and you people think it was somehow unique to Plummer?

How do you think it might have been that Jake played so well all year... and then not so well against Pitt?

I wonder if it's the same reason Manning and Hasselbeck didn't play so well? I wonder if it's because their team was built to grind the ball and play swarming defense. (a.k.a. playoff football.)

Didn't he fumble it earlier?

But I agree, two INT's in the endzone, and another easily returnable for a touchdown...and we got squat for it.

[Popps]

The point is that you don't beat good teams by only having one side show up. And unlike you I can see that neither made an appearance.

The difference is, playoff games are REGULARLY a battle of defenses. You'll REGULARLY see teams score little or no points in the first half of playoff games, and still win the game.

But, when your defense comes out and allows 24 points in the first five possessions to the opposing team, it doesn't matter what your offense does. The game is over.

Our defense forced our offense into a throw-only hole early in that game, and you're not going to be able to do that against a real playoff defense like the Steelers.

Again, you're confusing this for another game. What you're talking about DOES exist, this just wasn't it. We've been destroyed out of the gate three years running.

You don't surrender 24 points in the first half of three consecutive playoff games, and blame your offense. That's simply not how playoff football works. Once again, glance through the last 100 years of football. There are countless examples to support my point, and almost none to support the "give up 24 in the first half and still win" camp's position.

[Northman]

I'll admit it, I'm a jake homer. I've defended him from day one of the offseason, after that horrible loss. It wasn't his fault, we were already down when he threw those picks, defense wasn't stopping on 3rd downs.

WELL, to everyone out there who has been defending our quarterback (and everyone that put the loss squarely on his shoulders), here's another reason why I'm glad we've got Jake at the helm for another few years.

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_3673027


couple of quotes from the article-

If it weren't for the mistakes I made, we probably win that game," Plummer said. "If you ask Al (Wilson), he'd say we lost the game because the defense didn't make enough stops, but that's a team. We all take the blame. But I really do think if I didn't make my mistakes, we would have won."

OKAY HATERS, there ya go. He's a big man, he admitted it. That's what a team leader does. He's ready to come back out next year and kick some major ass.


secondly -
Eight days after the loss to the eventual Super Bowl champion Steelers, Denver coach Mike Shanahan brought in Owens for a visit. Owens wound up signing with Dallas last month. Plummer said he happily would have accepted Owens, who alienated Jeff Garcia and Donovan McNabb, the last two quarterbacks he played with.

"I would have welcomed him," Plummer said. "He's a playmaker. I always want to play with playmakers. I really don't think it would have been a problem here. Attitudes don't work here. I'm playing with one of the greatest players to ever play the game in Champ Bailey and he doesn't come in here with an ego, and I wouldn't expect T.O. to have come in here like that, either."


well, i don't know if he would have "happily" accepted T.O., but it's nice to know that Jake is willing to do whatever it takes to win.

He also talks about Darius Watts having "sick" talent and how excited he is for David Terrell.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Mane, the regular season is just too far away.


GO BRONCOS


Well, its good that Jake accepts responsiblity for his ****ups in that game caue the Jake homers are never man enough to admit when he does **** up.

[Popps]

I think Plummer's right. I think that if he didn't throw those two interceptions, that we could have won that game.


Of course you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to pin the loss on Plummer and give a free pass to our horribly ranked pass defense.

If Plummer doesn't throw that first pick (late in the first half)... the score would be 17-3. What makes you think our defense would have suddenly decided they could rush Rothlisberger? They hadn't so much as got in the way all day long. They were suddenly going to start playing just because Jake didn't throw a pick?

There is absolutely no factual or logical data from the early progression of that game to back that up.

[Popps]

Well, its good that Jake accepts responsiblity for his ****ups in that game caue the Jake homers are never man enough to admit when he does **** up.

Happen to catch Superbowls 21, 22 or 24? John Elway played like holy hell in all three of them. Guess we should have replaced him.

I mean, if a QB throws an interception at some point in the game, it automatically means he was to blame for the team's loss. I wonder how that ****ty Elway ever won a couple of SBs?

Jake, like John, like all quarterbacks will eventually **** up if their teams put them in pass-only holes. When your defense can't stop a single of the opposing team's first 5 drives, you are ****ed, no matter WHO your QB might be.

Again, ask Elway... he'll tell you.

[Northman]

Happen to catch Superbowls 21, 22 or 24? John Elway played like holy hell in all three of them. Guess we should have replaced him.

I mean, if a QB throws an interception at some point in the game, it automatically means he was to blame for the team's loss. I wonder how that ****ty Elway ever won a couple of SBs?

Jake, like John, like all quarterbacks will eventually **** up if their teams put them in pass-only holes. When your defense can't stop a single of the opposing team's first 5 drives, you are ****ed, no matter WHO your QB might be.

Again, ask Elway... he'll tell you.


Ask John how many times he brought us from behind. Or did you forget already? Of course John had bad games but it was his reputation of never giving up that gave the team hope. You dont get that with Jake. Funny, you pick John's bad moments to justify your love for Jake. Jake has NEVER brought us back to win a game. To put Jake in John's class is not only insulting but totally irrelevant. Ive never said that Jake was totally to blame for the loss to Pitt but he was much more of a factor because with his turnovers he gave us NO shot to come back and win.

[Popps]

Ask John how many times he brought us from behind. Or did you forget already?

That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a defense being overmatched in the playoffs.

We're not talking about comebacks, we're not talking about offense.... we're talking about a team coming out and absolutely being dominated by an opposing offense.

Elway can tell you all about it. He had to suffer through it for 3 Superbowls while people pointed the finger at him.

Later, we went out and got a defense and a running game and miraculously won two SBs.

[Popps]

To put Jake in John's class is not only insulting but totally irrelevant.

Funny, this is always where people go when you make an analogy.

First of all, that's not remotely accurate. Show me where I "put Jake in his class."

Jake is a good QB. John was a great QB.

Put both of them in 21 point **** holes in the first half of a playoff game and the EXACT same result will happen every time. I'm not sure how much proof you need. It's all there for you, though.

[Popps]

with his turnovers he gave us NO shot to come back and win.

His first and most crucial turnover was FORCED by a swarming, playoff-qualilty front 7. (We should look into that at some point.)

Secondly, putting your offense in the dumps and expecting them to bail you out in the playoffs is not how playoff football games are won. Again, check your football history. This is all very well documented.

[Northman]

That's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about a defense being overmatched in the playoffs.

We're not talking about comebacks, we're not talking about offense.... we're talking about a team coming out and absolutely being dominated by an opposing offense.

Elway can tell you all about it. He had to suffer through it for 3 Superbowls while people pointed the finger at him.

Later, we went out and got a defense and a running game and miraculously won two SBs.


Totally agree that we finally got John some help. But your not going to sit there and tell me that Jake is the best thing on THIS team. Our defense was good and it was good enough to beat Pitt but our offense did NOTHING in that game. Top that off with the defense folding and you have issues. But to lay this squarely on the defense is ludicrous.

[Popps]

But your not going to sit there and tell me that Jake is the best thing on THIS team.

O.K... this is where the "I'm wasting my time" red flags start to pop up.

Dude, did I say he was the "best thing on this team?"

Was Tom Brady necessarily the best thing on his championship teams? How about Kurt Warner? Troy Aikman? Trent Dilfer?

You need high quality QB play, but your QB doesn't have to be a hall of famer to win it all. We saw high quality QB play all year until we faced a dominant defense. Now, why do you think that might have been?

Top that off with the defense folding and you have issues. But to lay this squarely on the defense is ludicrous.

You don't "top it off" with the defense folding, you START there. Our defense STARTED by ****ing us.... 5 drives, 24 points and not so much as getting in their way. They killed any chance we had in that game right out of the gate, so yea... you DO lay the blame on the defense for laying the foundation for that loss. Had our offense pulled us out of that crap-hole, it would have been making playoff history. It would have been one of a tiny handful of games that defied history.

Instead, the game very closely followed playoff history. Pitt's D swarmed all over our offense and our D bent over and took it, 5 straight drives out of the gate.

[Popps]

I just love how everyone assumes it must have been our offense sucking, too. It couldn't have been Pitt's dominant defense.

Never mind that in three consecutive games, they shut down three of the most high powered offenses in the league.

[Northman]

O.K... this is where the "I'm wasting my time" red flags start to pop up.

Dude, did I say he was the "best thing on this team?"

Was Tom Brady necessarily the best thing on his championship teams? How about Kurt Warner? Troy Aikman? Trent Dilfer?

You need high quality QB play, but your QB doesn't have to be a hall of famer to win it all. We saw high quality QB play all year until we faced a dominant defense. Now, why do you think that might have been?



You don't "top it off" with the defense folding, you START there. Our defense STARTED by ****ing us.... 5 drives, 24 points and not so much as getting in their way. They killed any chance we had in that game right out of the gate, so yea... you DO lay the blame on the defense for laying the foundation for that loss. Had our offense pulled us out of that crap-hole, it would have been making playoff history. It would have been one of a tiny handful of games that defied history.

Instead, the game very closely followed playoff history. Pitt's D swarmed all over our offense and our D bent over and took it, 5 straight drives out of the gate.


Killed our chances? What are you talking about? We were on offense as well and did nothing with our CHANCES. You get behind in games because your offense fails to produce any points. You making it sound like we had the 2000 Ravens defense for crying out loud. In order for this team to have succeeded last year we needed balance on both sides of the ball. The offense failed to give that balance and add in the fact they ( Jake ) turned the ball over killed us. Did you forget about the week before when it was the DEFENSE that bailed us out of that game with the Pats? Now, unless your going to tell me that our offense sucked ass than ill accept your arguement but i see both squads being about even. And that means the offense for two weeks straight didnt produce ****.

[Popps]

Killed our chances? What are you talking about? We were on offense as well and did nothing with our CHANCES. You get behind in games because your offense fails to produce any points.

Once again, you need to check your football history.

To make it easy for you, I'll just point you to the VERY NEXT GAME played.

Pittsburgh was dominated in the first half. They went 3-out on their first three drives and threw and INT on their 4th.

That's WORSE than our offense started out.

Yet, they won the SB. Now.... just why do you think that might have been?

Because the game followed the time-tested formula of playoff games being decided by the more dominant defense.

Pittsburgh sent three of the best offensive teams packing three weeks in a row. Indy is one of the most explosive offensive teams in the history of the game. Yet, Pitt beat them.... at HOME.

Why? Because defense trumps offense in the playoffs. You certainly need balance, but Indy had it... we had it... Seattle had it. Pitt had balance, but also had a swarming, dominant playoff defense.

You can argue with me, but you're just arguing with the factual history of 100 years of football. There is a template set forth and you can choose to ignore it if you want, but it doesn't negate it's validity.

[Popps]

[QUOTE=Anubis Did you forget about the week before when it was the DEFENSE that bailed us out of that game with the Pats? .[/QUOTE]

Ahhh... now you're starting to get it. Only, they didn't "bail us out"... they played playoff style defense. Our defense trumped NE's offense.

In other words, our D kept us in the game while our offense got on track, and we eventually got it together and won the game.

Yet, the next week... we came out and did the opposite... and we lost.

Funny how that works, huh?

[Northman]

Once again, you need to check your football history.

To make it easy for you, I'll just point you to the VERY NEXT GAME played.

Pittsburgh was dominated in the first half. They went 3-out on their first three drives and threw and INT on their 4th.

That's WORSE than our offense started out.

Yet, they won the SB. Now.... just why do you think that might have been?

Because the game followed the time-tested formula of playoff games being decided by the more dominant defense.

Pittsburgh sent three of the best offensive teams packing three weeks in a row. Indy is one of the most explosive offensive teams in the history of the game. Yet, Pitt beat them.... at HOME.

Why? Because defense trumps offense in the playoffs. You certainly need balance, but Indy had it... we had it... Seattle had it. Pitt had balance, but also had a swarming, dominant playoff defense.

You can argue with me, but you're just arguing with the factual history of 100 years of football. There is a template set forth and you can choose to ignore it if you want, but it doesn't negate it's validity.


Defenses have bad days, that is factual as well. Ours had a bad day which means the offense needed to step up and didnt that is also a fact. Pitts defense looked horrible at times last year so it isnt like they were that dominant. Obviously your set on blaming the defense on everything even though they bailed us out of a lot of games last year including the Pats game. Lets not forget the bad calls against the Seahawks in the SB either, had those been the right calls Pitt may not have won that game. There are TWO sides to every story Popps.

[Northman]

Ahhh... now you're starting to get it. Only, they didn't "bail us out"... they played playoff style defense. Our defense trumped NE's offense.

In other words, our D kept us in the game while our offense got on track, and we eventually got it together and won the game.

Yet, the next week... we came out and did the opposite... and we lost.

Funny how that works, huh?


Our offense never got on track though? how hard is it to go 1 yd?

[BleedingOrange]

The problem is that the offense has disappeared in those three blowout losses along with the defense. Good teams can score and in two of the losses the defense was playing the best offense in football at the time. You give a pass to the offense because they were playing a dominating defense, but the same doesn't apply to the our D? The Steelers also had a pretty good offense.

Teams win championships. When one side of the ball is having trouble, the other has to step up and keep the team in the game. Look at SB 32, GB drives down and scores on the opening drive. Elway leads the team down and the score is tied. Next play the defense gets a turnover. What would have happened if Denver wouldn't have scored and GB did on its next drive?

I blame the D for not stepping up and holding the score down, but I also blame the O for rolling over and only putting up 3 in the first. The offense also turned the ball over 4 times and the first TO lead to a score that can't be blamed on being behind. You don't win many playoff games that way.

[Northman]

The problem is that the offense has disappeared in those three blowout losses along with the defense. Good teams can score and in two of the losses the defense was playing the best offense in football at the time. You give a pass to the offense because they were playing a dominating defense, but the same doesn't apply to the our D? The Steelers also had a pretty good offense.

Teams win championships. When one side of the ball is having trouble, the other has to step up and keep the team in the game. Look at SB 32, GB drives down and scores on the opening drive. Elway leads the team down and the score is tied. Next play the defense gets a turnover. What would have happened if Denver wouldn't have scored and GB did on its next drive?

I blame the D for not stepping up and holding the score down, but I also blame the O for rolling over and only putting up 3 in the first. The offense also turned the ball over 4 times and the first TO lead to a score that can't be blamed on being behind. You don't win many playoff games that way.


Excellent post and that is exactly what i was trying to convey to Popps. There has to be a balance and if one faction isnt doing their part on the field than its a lost cause for the other part.

[Popps]

Excellent post and that is exactly what i was trying to convey to Popps. There has to be a balance and if one faction isnt doing their part on the field than its a lost cause for the other part.

No one has to "convey" the concept of balance to me. I'm well aware of what that is.

The problem is, "balance" is always upset when your defense comes out and allows over 200 yards of offense in the first half, and scores on the opposing team's firsts 5 drives.

Again, you need to ask yourself why Pittsburgh was able to run through three of the highest powered offenses in the league in consecutive weeks.

2005 Offensive Rankings

#2 Indy
#3 Seattle
#5 Denver

Now, three of the top 5 offenses couldn't beat Pittsburgh. Ask yourself why that was?

Pittsburgh has a grinding, efficient offense and a swarming, dominant defense. That organization has been smart enough to build a championship defense and the three teams they beat haven't been.

You're just arguing with history, guys. Not very fruitful.

[Popps]

The offense also turned the ball over 4 times

The first and most crucial turnover was a FORCED fumble, the result of a swarming Pitt front 7.

The second came at the end of the half, where we were already down 17-3 and naturally, our defense bent over and let Pitt walk down and score.

You can't just write numbers down here, you need to give them context.

Our offense didn't just turn the ball over... PITTSBURGH'S DEFENSE FORCED some of them, particularly the first and most crucial.

Defense trumps offense in the playoffs.

[Northman]

No one has to "convey" the concept of balance to me. I'm well aware of what that is.

The problem is, "balance" is always upset when your defense comes out and allows over 200 yards of offense in the first half, and scores on the opposing team's firsts 5 drives.

Again, you need to ask yourself why Pittsburgh was able to run through three of the highest powered offenses in the league in consecutive weeks.

2005 Offensive Rankings

#2 Indy
#3 Seattle
#5 Denver

Now, three of the top 5 offenses couldn't beat Pittsburgh. Ask yourself why that was?

Pittsburgh has a grinding, efficient offense and a swarming, dominant defense. That organization has been smart enough to build a championship defense and the three teams they beat haven't been.

You're just arguing with history, guys. Not very fruitful.



If that is the case than we had no shot at beating Pitt. Is that what im gathering as your opinion here? Why should we have even played the game then? Why didnt we just throw in the towel before it started? There is a such thing as parody in the NFL and anyone can win on any given day. Sure, your logic does hold a lot of merit but then so does ours. If we were so dominately overmatched than why blame just the defense? or in your case why blame the defense at all? I would understand your arguement if you came out and said we just got outplayed on both sides of the ball but your singling out the defense only which i feel is wrong. But, that is your opinion and i respect it although i still believe we could have beaten that team without the turnovers. Good debate though Popps, it was fun.

[Popps]

If that is the case than we had no shot at beating Pitt. Is that what im gathering as your opinion here? Why should we have even played the game then? Why didnt we just throw in the towel before it started? There is a such thing as parody in the NFL and anyone can win on any given day. Sure, your logic does hold a lot of merit but then so does ours. If we were so dominately overmatched than why blame just the defense? or in your case why blame the defense at all? I would understand your arguement if you came out and said we just got outplayed on both sides of the ball but your singling out the defense only which i feel is wrong. But, that is your opinion and i respect it although i still believe we could have beaten that team without the turnovers. Good debate though Popps, it was fun.

Look, I'm all for improving the offense. (See my posts begging for us to bring in Walker.)

I'm just saying that there's enough historical proof of how playoff games bare out to support the need to have a dominant defense.

Someone else posted it here and said it better than me, but to paraphrase... you have to be prepared for your offense to stall out in playoff games. It's a regular occurrence. Pittsburgh was ready, and they won the SB because of it. We were ready against NE, and we won. We were not ready against Pitt, and we lost.

I know it's not as sexy as improving the offense, but it'll make the difference.

Neil Smith was the last major piece of the puzzle that we acquired before winning two Superbowls. In my opinion, that was no coincidence.

[Popps]

Compare it to baseball and the pitching/hitting debate.

Baseball historians will almost all tell you that when all things are equal, pitching wins out. It's not as sexy, but it's historically true.

Same in football.

[BleedingOrange]

Indy had a great opportunity at the end of that game to beat Pitt. Seattle was not only playing against the Steelers, but also the refs.

Pittsburg was firing on all cylinders and yes their defense played a big part. However, to downplay the fact that their offense put up points, didn't turn the ball over and kept those high powered offenses off the field isn't right.

[Cito Pelon]

There's lots of different ways to win Titles. Sure, a super-duper D gives you a chance in every game. If the opposition can't score, well, they're pretty much f'd. That doesn't happen every year, and it's not something you can hang your hat on every year. You gotta have an O and ST's that make the great D's worn out come 4th Q. You gotta have a good 3-phase team.

As for last years AFC Title game, I've played on a lot of teams, and it is god-awful hard to win a title of any kind. There's so many things that have to come together right to go on a roll in a single-elimination, one game series format like the NFL playoffs, fans should be proud to even get to a Confernce or League Title game. The players on the team should be proud of themselves for getting themselves to the AFC Title game, not be ashamed at all, and try to tweak their games just that little bit more to win that next level of Title, and so on, and so on . . .

So Denver got whooped up on in last year's AFC Title game, so what? So they got whooped up on three years straight in the playoffs, so what? The team is gonna line up again this year, and we'll see who comes out on top. That's all you can do, tee it up, and let's see who's best. You can't win 'em all, you just play hard and let the chips fall where they may.

[Popps]

Indy had a great opportunity at the end of that game to beat Pitt. Seattle was not only playing against the Steelers, but also the refs.

Pittsburg was firing on all cylinders and yes their defense played a big part. However, to downplay the fact that their offense put up points, didn't turn the ball over and kept those high powered offenses off the field isn't right.

Well, Pittsburgh's offense is built to control the ball, much like ours. Those types of offenses don't always come flying out of the gate. So, when they don't, their defenses have to be strong enough to hold them in the game.
Pitt's D was not just strong enough to keep them in it, they were strong enough to FORCE a crucial turnover against us.

As for playing against the refs, I seem to recall Indy getting a nice little break on an INT against Pitt. I also recall Pitt's D holding up after a key Bettis fumble.

Again, Pitt's offense absolutely stunk it up in the first half of the SB and they still won. Had their DEFENSE stunk it up, they would have lost. That's just how it works in the playoffs.

[2KBack]

I'm guessing this argument is going to last through the next few months

[Popps]

I'm guessing this argument is going to last through the next few months

Hopefully not into next off-season. :wiggle:

[BleedingOrange]

If Pitts O would have stunk against Indy in the first half, Indy wins.

Denver won two SBs without a dominating D. The Rams won one with the greatest show on turf. It's nice to have a dominating D, but you can win without one.

[2KBack]

Hopefully not into next off-season. :wiggle:

Oh god I hope not

[Popps]

If Pitts O would have stunk against Indy in the first half, Indy wins.



You've got nothing to back that up. Pitt's O sucked in the first half of the SB and they won. Pitt's D held Indy in check in the first half. So, there's no basis to what you're saying.

Denver won two SBs without a dominating D.

Really? Let me ask you something... how do you think our defense now stacks up against our SB defenses? Enlighten me. Which do you think was more dominant?

The Rams won one with the greatest show on turf. It's nice to have a dominating D, but you can win without one.

Oh, so you're grasping at the exception instead of the norm, I see. The Rams might be one of the few exceptions in the history of football, and even THEY struggled before finally getting some big playmakers on that defense. Ask Rams fans what was the final key to them winning that championship. Ask them if it was the continual tinkering with the offense... or the addition of playmakers to their defense. They'll tell you.

[Popps]

Oh god I hope not

Don't worry, I'm just killing time at the office. Once my baby gets here, I won't have time for this stuff anyway. :D

[Cito Pelon]

. . . . . . .. I also recall Pitt's D holding up after a key Bettis fumble. . . . ..



And Roth tackled the guy that picked up that fumble to prevent a TD. It's a team game, my friend.

You put together good arguments for the D being downright ugly in 3 consecutive humiliations in the playoffs, and sure it would be nice to have a D that can take on all comers. You can't assume that's gonna happen every year, you can't put all your eggs in that basket. Pitt has had good D's for years and years, but it took the best 3-phase game in the League to get them over the top, no?

[Popps]

And Roth tackled the guy that picked up that fumble to prevent a TD. It's a team game, my friend.


You'll never get an argument from me on that. I've stated it several times in this thread.

However, a "team" that can win in the playoffs has to be comprised of a very specific balance and 99 times out of 100, that balance consists of a swarming, dominant defense... which we simply don't have. Those are just the facts.

Check out how our defense ranks against the pass. We're horrible.

[BleedingOrange]

How many points did Indy put up in the second half compared to Pitt? That shows that once Indy started rolling the only thing that saved the game was the lead the O had built in the first half. Pitt gets blanked or puts up 3 points in the first half and the game is Indy's.

Name one person who considered our SB D dominant. They were good but it helped to play with a two score lead most of the time. 31-24 for SB 32, the D didn't dominate the Packers.

The exception is one dimensional teams. New England was a balanced team: 3 SBs. Pitt in the 70s was a balanced team: 4 SBs. San Fran was balanced when they won their SBs. Dallas same story. San Fran, Dallas, and New England were known for the names on offense. Pitt was known for the D, but had Harris, Swann, and Stallworth on O.

[Northman]

As for playing against the refs, I seem to recall Indy getting a nice little break on an INT against Pitt. I also recall Pitt's D holding up after a key Bettis fumble.

Although most of your post is correct i think this is a little off. Pitts D didnt break but they did bend while Indy moved the ball on them at will. If not for Vanderpoopin's shank there wouldnt be much to your theory.

[Cito Pelon]

. . . .However, a "team" that can win in the playoffs has to be comprised of a very specific balance and 99 times out of 100, that balance consists of a swarming, dominant defense... which we simply don't have. Those are just the facts.

Check out how our defense ranks against the pass. We're horrible.

Denver needs upgrade at safety soon. The safeties we have now do not swarm to the ball. Not much speed at safety. There are speed guys on the team at safety, but they can't play football. At CB and LB we have lots of speed and swarming and tackling ability. Might be another smoke and mirrors year on D again. On the other hand, the pass rush can improve, but it depends on Courtney. This is the first year in his career he's been healthy going into camp, and that's pretty important. He can actually train now. Lang is an upgrade over TP, IMO. The O is going to have to be better, because the D on paper is not going to be dominant.

I think it will be a pretty good year overall. The D is going to have to be addressed next year.

[Popps]

Although most of your post is correct i think this is a little off. Pitts D didnt break but they did bend while Indy moved the ball on them at will. If not for Vanderpoopin's shank there wouldnt be much to your theory.

Well, look... Bettis doesn't fumble that ball 99% of the time, so his shank never would have mattered. We may be splitting hairs, but it certainly doesn't diminish the validity of what I'm saying.... which is only an observation of factual history.

I'm not giving my opinion on how playoff games are won, I'm giving a historical, factual account. Yes, there are exceptions.... no, it is not wise to build your team around "the exception."

[Popps]

So Denver got whooped up on in last year's AFC Title game, so what? So they got whooped up on three years straight in the playoffs, so what?

I'd just prefer not to end up like the Chiefs/Colts.

All show... no go.

[Cito Pelon]

I'd just prefer not to end up like the Chiefs/Colts.

All show... no go.

Denver's philosophy is a hybrid. The FO wants a balanced team, they just can't get one. Great philosophy, haven't put it together. Great formula, can't get the ingredients correct. The team is right there on the cusp of putting together a great team and coaching staff, but haven't put it all together yet.

I don't know what the f is going on, why they can't go on a roll in the playoffs. But they haven't been able to do so. Maybe your philosophy is correct, build a superb D, and let the chips fall where they may.

Myself, I'll stick with the balanced approach. That way, every season you have a chance to run the table. You're in the Title hunt every year. It's just a matter of how your guys play on gameday, and how the staff manages the game.

[Tombstone RJ]

Super Bowl XL was a stop-and-start kind of game, with the momentum changing frequently but neither team taking charge until the fourth quarter. The Seahawks dominated the first half, but their inability to finish drives left the door open for the blue-collar Steelers. In the end, big plays proved the difference.

All three Pittsburgh touchdown drives were keyed by gains of 37 yards or longer. Despite Seattle’s domination of the first half (a 154-113 advantage in total yards), it could put only three points on the scoreboard during the first 30 minutes. Josh Brown’s 47-yard field goal near the end of the first quarter came shortly after a 16-yard TD pass from Matt Hasselbeck to Darrell Jackson was nullified by Jackson’s offensive pass-interference penalty.

After going three-and-out on their first three possessions and getting intercepted on the fourth , the Steelers put together an 11-play, 59-yard drive. The key play was a 37-yard pass from Ben Roethlisberger to Hines Ward on 3rd-and-28, on which Roethlisberger eluded Seattle’s pass rush and barely stopped short of crossing the line of scrimmage before finding Ward at the Seahawks’ three. After Jerome Bettis was held to two yards on two carries, Roethlisberger ran around left end on a designed keeper and was hit at the goal line. The head linesman initially signaled the QB down short of the goal line; then he raised his arms. Seattle head coach Mike Holmgren challenged the call, and the TV replays appeared to be inconclusive. After reviewing the replays, referee Bill Leavy said the call stood — touchdown, with 1:55 left in the half.


Wow, it almost sounds like Pittsburgh's offense started out slowly.... and Seattle dominated the first half time of possession.

Yet, Pitt won the game. Just like dozens of other Superbowl champions. Just like we did against New England. Just like you do in the playoffs.

You can also make the arguement that Seattle let the game slip away because it couldn't score points, especially in the first half where they dominated the game statistically. If Seattle gets into the endzone in the first half, then it forces Pitt to gamble a little more in the second half.

[El Minion]

The problem is that the offense has disappeared in those three blowout losses along with the defense. Good teams can score and in two of the losses the defense was playing the best offense in football at the time. You give a pass to the offense because they were playing a dominating defense, but the same doesn't apply to the our D? The Steelers also had a pretty good offense.

Teams win championships. When one side of the ball is having trouble, the other has to step up and keep the team in the game. Look at SB 32, GB drives down and scores on the opening drive. Elway leads the team down and the score is tied. Next play the defense gets a turnover. What would have happened if Denver wouldn't have scored and GB did on its next drive?

I blame the D for not stepping up and holding the score down, but I also blame the O for rolling over and only putting up 3 in the first. The offense also turned the ball over 4 times and the first TO lead to a score that can't be blamed on being behind. You don't win many playoff games that way.

Ask yourself the question what did Shanahan and the FO do to improve the AFC West Champions, who where one game away from SB XL? Offense, offense and more offense - Cutler, Walker and the Draft.

[Popps]

You can also make the arguement that Seattle let the game slip away because it couldn't score points, especially in the first half where they dominated the game statistically. If Seattle gets into the endzone in the first half, then it forces Pitt to gamble a little more in the second half.


Right, man.... but that's the whole point. Do you think it was a coincidence that three of the league's best offenses just happened to not be able to score points in three consecutive weeks?

How did Jake go all season playing well, and then got bottled up and beaten up against Pittsburgh?

How did Indy light up the scoreboard like a pinball machine, then couldn't manage to punch it in against Pittsburgh?

How did Seattle run all over teams all season long.... then couldn't get it done against Pittsburgh?


At a certain point, you stop looking at what offenses didn't do, and you start looking at what defenses did do.

[Popps]

Ask yourself the question what did Shanahan and the FO do to improve the AFC West Champions, who where one game away from SB XL? Offense, offense and more offense - Cutler, Walker and the Draft.

Right, and they also signed Dale Carter, iHop and kept Brian Griese a couple of years too long. They don't make mistakes?

We're almost last in the league in pass-rush, who should I thank for that?

Front offices screw up, and ours has been screwing up the d-line for about a decade. I'm all for the offensive improvements, but they shouldn't be exclusive. We need defensive help in a major way.

[Taco John]

Of course you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to pin the loss on Plummer and give a free pass to our horribly ranked pass defense.

If Plummer doesn't throw that first pick (late in the first half)... the score would be 17-3. What makes you think our defense would have suddenly decided they could rush Rothlisberger? They hadn't so much as got in the way all day long. They were suddenly going to start playing just because Jake didn't throw a pick?

There is absolutely no factual or logical data from the early progression of that game to back that up.



Actually, if Jake doesn't throw an interception there, and instead drives for a touchdown, we leave the half at 17-10. Hardly an insurmountable lead. Instead, Jake threw a pick. You might not be able to accept that it happend. But Jake does. And he's right. Those interceptions killed our chances. We needed a better game out of Jake than we got there.

[Popps]

Actually, if Jake doesn't throw an interception there, and instead drives for a touchdown, we leave the half at 17-10.

Wait a second, who says we would have driven for a definite touchdown. Furthermore, we hadn't stopped them all day. What, we're going to suddenly start? Our offense had a nice long drive for 3 points, and Pitt came right back and stuffed it 90 yards down our throats.

Are you reading any of this, man? Do you understand that it's not ONLY up to our offense, but also involves the defense we're playing against?

Answer the question... how is it that three of the league's best offenses just so happened to have trouble scoring in three consecutive playoff games?
Why do you think that might be?

[anon]

Just a newbie but I completely agree with Popps. I love our moves so far with the offensive improvements and planning for the future, but if we had another serious playmaker on the D-Line aside from Warren, our defense would be something else, even with the aging safeties.

I think every year we ignore the D-Line and are simply content with "good depth", we are wasting the best years of our best players: Champ, Al, DJ, Warren, etc. We have some great pieces and to not complete the puzzle with a more effective D-Line is just a shame.

Hopefully, we try to do something before the season begins. If not, I think next offseason, we can afford to focus more on defense.

[Cito Pelon]

Right, man.... but that's the whole point. Do you think it was a coincidence that three of the league's best offenses just happened to not be able to score points in three consecutive weeks?

How did Jake go all season playing well, and then got bottled up and beaten up against Pittsburgh?

How did Indy light up the scoreboard like a pinball machine, then couldn't manage to punch it in against Pittsburgh?

How did Seattle run all over teams all season long.... then couldn't get it done against Pittsburgh?


At a certain point, you stop looking at what offenses didn't do, and you start looking at what defenses did do.

Those are good arguments. There's also good arguments for having an O that can move the chains consistently, and ST's that can bust one for 40 yds once or twice a game. Pitt last year didn't have just a good D. Sure, you can build a great D as Pitt did for year after year after year through the 90's and 00's, but to win the big one, you need an O and ST's also.

You keep bringing up stats that say D wins Titles, but that isn't always the case. There's all kinds of ways to make Titles. If you have 10-12 guys on your team that have want-to, work together well and know how to play football, you can win a Title. It's a big deal how players play when the whistle blows in playoff games. There's some guys that relish playoff games, there's some where it's no big deal to them, and some players are more interested in making a teammate look bad than winning the game. I've played on teams in football, soccer, baseball, softball, and once you make the playoffs you'll see how some guys personalities change. There will be guys that don't want to win so much as make a name for themselves. Once in a while, you get the perfect combo, as Pitt did last year, and as Denver did in 97-98, and Dallas, and SF.

Mostly, you can f it up, where your team chemistry doesn't work out for you come second season. So you stick with the guys you like, and the guys that like you, and maybe it works out for you come second season. It hasn't worked out for Denver come second season the past three years. So we'll see how it works out this year.

Rant over.

[Popps]

You keep bringing up stats that say D wins Titles, but that isn't always the case. There's all kinds of ways to make Titles.

Look, I keep repeating this over and over...

I fully and completely understand the concept of balance.

I also understand that some teams are more offense-based than others.

But, there is a fundamental truth to 99% of the championship teams out there, and that truth is that their defense is strong enough to protect their offense, not the other way around.

I'm not saying teams shouldn't be balanced, they should. But there is a dynamic that must exist to win championships. Your defense has to be able to step up and protect your offense when it gets off to a slow start. It doesn't work the other way around. You can't come out and take a crap on defense and expect your O to be able to bail you out.... not in the playoffs.

You're talking about "moving the chains," etc. Again, you must be talking about a different game. That game wasn't about moving the chains, it was about our defense not making a single stop of Pitt's first 5 drives.

It doesn't matter if you "move the chains" when your D gives up 24 in the first half.

Plus, when we DID move the chains... at up some clock and put up a few points, you know what our defense did?

You guessed it, they let Pitt walk 90 yards down the field, eat up most of the 2nd half and punch in another TD.

Don't confuse this with a game that was close, or a game where the defense ever showed up. Offenses need defenses to protect them in the playoffs... even the best offenses.

Again, see Indy, Seattle..etc. All the best offenses sent packing by Pitt.

Ask yourself why.

[Cito Pelon]

Just a newbie but I completely agree with Popps. I love our moves so far with the offensive improvements and planning for the future, but if we had another serious playmaker on the D-Line aside from Warren, our defense would be something else, even with the aging safeties.

I think every year we ignore the D-Line and are simply content with "good depth", we are wasting the best years of our best players: Champ, Al, DJ, Warren, etc. We have some great pieces and to not complete the puzzle with a more effective D-Line is just a shame.

Hopefully, we try to do something before the season begins. If not, I think next offseason, we can afford to focus more on defense.

Sure, a better pass rush everybody wants. The FO f'd some things up between "98 and now, but the FO didn't get their cleats knocked off and then handed to them with a joke and a laugh in three consecutive playoff blowouts. That was the players problem to deal with, and now they get a chance to open a can of whoopass on somebody else.

I admire the FO's philosophy of giving the same guys as last year a chance to put the whoopass on somebody come second season this year. These guys are being given the chance to prove they're warriors. There will be no doubt about if these guys are men or boys this year.

[rubaiyat]

Look, I keep repeating this over and over...

I fully and completely understand the concept of balance.

I also understand that some teams are more offense-based than others.

But, there is a fundamental truth to 99% of the championship teams out there, and that truth is that their defense is strong enough to protect their offense, not the other way around.

I'm not saying teams shouldn't be balanced, they should. But there is a dynamic that must exist to win championships. Your defense has to be able to step up and protect your offense when it gets off to a slow start. It doesn't work the other way around. You can't come out and take a crap on defense and expect your O to be able to bail you out.... not in the playoffs.

You're talking about "moving the chains," etc. Again, you must be talking about a different game. That game wasn't about moving the chains, it was about our defense not making a single stop of Pitt's first 5 drives.

It doesn't matter if you "move the chains" when your D gives up 24 in the first half.

Plus, when we DID move the chains... at up some clock and put up a few points, you know what our defense did?

You guessed it, they let Pitt walk 90 yards down the field, eat up most of the 2nd half and punch in another TD.

Don't confuse this with a game that was close, or a game where the defense ever showed up. Offenses need defenses to protect them in the playoffs... even the best offenses.

Again, see Indy, Seattle..etc. All the best offenses sent packing by Pitt.

Ask yourself why.

But again, there were at least 3 TO's that would have done exactly that, and not one went our way. It was just a bad day at the office.

Champ makes that INT and runs it for a TD and it's a completely different day...likely with much of the passing game being curtailed. Any of the endzone INT's stay in our possession and that is not only a TD off the board, but a hit to the Pitt O's confidence.

[Popps]

But again, there were at least 3 TO's that would have done exactly that, and not one went our way. It was just a bad day at the office.


Context.

The first turnover was THE RESULT of a dominant defense. They FORCED the turnover. We were already looking like we were outclassed... that just set the wheels further in motion.

The next turnover was towards the end of the half when we were in pass-only mode due to our garbage defense.

You can't just throw out numbers. There needs to be context.

Now, if Jake came out and fired three picks on his first three series, I'd agree with you.

That's not what happened. Context tells you that these turnovers were the result of an opposing defense that was kicking our ass out of the gate.

[Cito Pelon]

Look, I keep repeating this over and over...

I fully and completely understand the concept of balance.

I also understand that some teams are more offense-based than others.

But, there is a fundamental truth to 99% of the championship teams out there, and that truth is that their defense is strong enough to protect their offense, not the other way around.

I'm not saying teams shouldn't be balanced, they should. But there is a dynamic that must exist to win championships. Your defense has to be able to step up and protect your offense when it gets off to a slow start. It doesn't work the other way around. You can't come out and take a crap on defense and expect your O to be able to bail you out.... not in the playoffs..

Sure, I agree with that. But that's not gonna happen every year. DE's you draft 'em, and when the rookie contract is up they get seven times the original deal in FA. And is a great D a giuarntee of a Title of any kind? No.

You think a SB title is gonna come around just because Mario Williams or Julius Peeper is on the team? Pepper has never played on a SB title team, Bruce Smith either. There's so many parts that have to come into a Championship formula, you can't single one element out. Once in a while you get a team that can run the table, most of the time you gotta be happy with a team that challenges running the table. It's god-awful hard to run the table.

[Cito Pelon]

Right, man.... but that's the whole point. Do you think it was a coincidence that three of the league's best offenses just happened to not be able to score points in three consecutive weeks?

How did Jake go all season playing well, and then got bottled up and beaten up against Pittsburgh?

How did Indy light up the scoreboard like a pinball machine, then couldn't manage to punch it in against Pittsburgh?

How did Seattle run all over teams all season long.... then couldn't get it done against Pittsburgh?


At a certain point, you stop looking at what offenses didn't do, and you start looking at what defenses did do.

Those are good arguments. There's also good arguments for having an O that can move the chains consistently, and ST's that can bust one for 40 yds once or twice a game. Pitt last year didn't have just a good D. Sure, you can build a great D as Pitt did for year after year after year through the 90's and 00's, but to win the big one, you need an O and ST's also.

You keep bringing up stats that say D wins Titles, but that isn't always the case. There's all kinds of ways to make Titles. If you have 10-12 guys on your team that have want-to, work together well and know how to play football, you can win a Title. It's a big deal how players play when the whistle blows in playoff games. There's some guys that relish playoff games, there's some where it's no big deal to them, and some players are more interested in making a teammate look bad than winning the game. I've played on teams in football, soccer, baseball, softball, and once you make the playoffs you'll see how some guys personalities change. There will be guys that don't want to win so much as make a name for themselves. Once in a while, you get the perfect combo, as Pitt did last year, and as Denver did in 97-98, and Dallas, and SF.

Mostly, you can f it up, where your team chemistry doesn't work out for you come second season. So you stick with the guys you like, and the guys that like you, and maybe it works out for you come second season. It hasn't worked out for Denver come second season the past three years. So we'll see how it works out this year.

Rant over.

[Inkana7]

All of these arguments for a tip-tier, shut down defense is very compelling, but you really have to ask yourself how Pittsburgh made Denver's D look like Houston's.

With a potent offense, perhaps?

It's downright unfair to use the AFC Championship game to make assumptions about the team. No one played good that day, in fact, the only potent player on either side of the ball was Ashley Lelie..hold your laughter.

The defense couldn't get a stop on 3rd down, and the offense couldn't convert a 3rd down. Part of this is Jake's Gunslinger mentality when he's behind, part goes to Shanny who completely abandoned the run game, and part goes to Dick LeBeau, who discovered that "Hey! If we double Rod Smith every passing down, Lelie is inconsistant, and Jeb is Jake's 3rd read(or is attempting to block someone)!"

Bringing in Javon Walker will give us a consistant #2 reciever, and I have the utmost faith in Brandon Marshall to catch the ball while being covered by a nickel corner who is a good 4 inches shorter. Our run game will be top 3 like usual, and I have a feeling Jake will have another good year.

Relax, Denver has not gotten worse, Denver has gotten marginally better.

[Popps]

All of these arguments for a tip-tier, shut down defense is very compelling, but you really have to ask yourself how Pittsburgh made Denver's D look like Houston's.

With a potent offense, perhaps?


By every measurement, Pittsburgh's offense is slightly above average. "Blue collar" is the word you'll often hear. It's hardly an offense that comes to mind when you think of the elite.

But, they looked at game film and saw the obvious... we can't defend the pass. They came out and passed at will. 10 for 16 on 3rd downs... and scores on their first 5 drives.

It's downright unfair to use the AFC Championship game to make assumptions about the team. No one played good that day, in fact, the only potent player on either side of the ball was Ashley Lelie..hold your laughter.

The defense couldn't get a stop on 3rd down, and the offense couldn't convert a 3rd down. Part of this is Jake's Gunslinger mentality when he's behind, part goes to Shanny who completely abandoned the run game, and part goes to Dick LeBeau, who discovered that "Hey! If we double Rod Smith every passing down, Lelie is inconsistant, and Jeb is Jake's 3rd read(or is attempting to block someone)!"

Bringing in Javon Walker will give us a consistant #2 reciever, and I have the utmost faith in Brandon Marshall to catch the ball while being covered by a nickel corner who is a good 4 inches shorter. Our run game will be top 3 like usual, and I have a feeling Jake will have another good year.

Relax, Denver has not gotten worse, Denver has gotten marginally better.


I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but you have to think about the kind of offense we have. It's similar to Pittsburgh. Heavy on the run, controlled passing. NOT an offense you put in a hole and expect to bail you out. Our offense is meant to play in close, grinding games. We're not the Colts. If people WANT to be the Colts, we should scrap the next three years and we can build a nice, gimmicky offense. Personally, I'd rather use our productive, efficient offense and actually put together a defense that can stop a couple drives in the playoffs.

As for us getting better.... we've gotten better on offense, which won't matter if our D plays like they did against Pitt next time we're in the playoffs.

Does anyone here honestly think that Walker would have been the difference in that game? I'm a huge Walker guy... but he wouldn't have meant squat in that game, nor would a different QB. Not until the D learns to play playoff football.

[Cito Pelon]

All of these arguments for a tip-tier, shut down defense is very compelling, but you really have to ask yourself how Pittsburgh made Denver's D look like Houston's.

With a potent offense, perhaps?

It's downright unfair to use the AFC Championship game to make assumptions about the team. No one played good that day, in fact, the only potent player on either side of the ball was Ashley Lelie..hold your laughter.

The defense couldn't get a stop on 3rd down, and the offense couldn't convert a 3rd down. Part of this is Jake's Gunslinger mentality when he's behind, part goes to Shanny who completely abandoned the run game, and part goes to Dick LeBeau, who discovered that "Hey! If we double Rod Smith every passing down, Lelie is inconsistant, and Jeb is Jake's 3rd read(or is attempting to block someone)!"

Bringing in Javon Walker will give us a consistant #2 reciever, and I have the utmost faith in Brandon Marshall to catch the ball while being covered by a nickel corner who is a good 4 inches shorter. Our run game will be top 3 like usual, and I have a feeling Jake will have another good year.

Relax, Denver has not gotten worse, Denver has gotten marginally better.

Just couldn't stand pat anymore, had to chime in? Good to hear from you. Gets pretty in-bred here at times.

[Ballhawk]

It's downright unfair to use the AFC Championship game to make assumptions about the team. No one played good that day,


Oh no we do not have bad games, only glaring weaknesses. You should have been around after the opening day loss to Miami.

[Inkana7]

Oh no we do not have bad games, only glaring weaknesses. You should have been around after the opening day loss to Miami.
Was "Fire Shanahan!" a phrase thrown around? That's the vibe I get when people talk about that game.

[Ballhawk]

Was "Fire Shanahan!" a phrase thrown around? That's the vibe I get when people talk about that game.

Fire Coyer was the major theme. It was pretty much a we suck fest that only really reached it's peak around halftime of the SD game week #2.

[Sassy]

Was "Fire Shanahan!" a phrase thrown around? That's the vibe I get when people talk about that game.
Ha! Every time there is a Bronco loss? ;D

[Inkana7]

Ha! Every time there is a Bronco loss? ;D
I'm sure there are some.

But I wouldn't know, I started visiting Bronco Boards about three weeks after the AFC Championship. Talk about Jake bashing aplenty...