Mum's the word for Broncos in preseason

[dragondawg]

By Jeff Legwold, Rocky Mountain News

Teams are reluctant to show too much, but winning still welcome

ENGLEWOOD - Psst, everybody's got a secret.

Tucked away in their training camp playbooks, waiting to come out. Just not before its time.

"We keep the bread and butter for ourselves," Broncos cornerback Dré Bly said. "We haven't shown any of our bread-and-butter stuff, and we're not going to. It's the preseason, so you play basic, just give us something we can line up and play. That's what it's all about, just lining up and playing."

And there is the rub of the NFL's month of full-priced games that don't count. Coaches say they want to win but don't commit many of their starters to do it. Teams say they want to play well but usually don't want to show during the ides of August much of what they really will be doing in September and beyond.

So the Broncos, like every other team, wonder: How much is enough in the preseason? Enough of the good stuff to stay happy, healthy and still be ready for the regular season.

"Sure, there are different philosophies with how much you show and how important it is," Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said. "When you first come in as a coach and the group of players you have might not be used to winning, you want them to end the preseason on a very positive note.

"On the other side, as you do get older and you feel like your football team believes it can win, it's not as important to game plan different games as it was earlier in your career."

Shanahan, as the second-longest-tenured coach in his current job in the league, certainly takes a conservative approach to the preseason. At this point in his career, he doesn't show much of his offensive or defensive playbook in the preseason. He plays starters only a limited amount and the Broncos usually keep things simple, looking for execution over fireworks.

During the loss Saturday against Dallas, the Cowboys looked far more aggressive, particularly on defense under first-year coach Wade Phillips. The Cowboys blitzed plenty throughout the game, coming after a battered Broncos offensive line, much like a team would in the regular season in picking on a trouble spot and pounding away at it.

"But sometimes in the preseason, teams have to do what they do, too," Broncos tight end Stephen Alexander said. "And that's what (the Cowboys) do. The blitzes are part of their defense, their base defense. That's who they are, their base package. To play base, they have to blitz; that's what they have to play. It would be like us changing our whole offense just because it's the preseason."

Said Broncos cornerback Champ Bailey, "No, you don't want to show anything. You've got to show something, though. You can't just go out there and stand around. You play your base stuff, or at least enough of it to get through the game."

But opinions always have varied around the league as to what the preseason can prove in terms of football. New coaching staffs often do a little more during such games, flash a little more of what they will do in the regular season, trying to build confidence in their own program, in their own locker room.

Still, even longtime coaches are searching for the answer. Hall of Fame coach Joe Gibbs, frustrated by last year's 0-4 showing in the preseason - when he took a measured, conservative approach to how much his starters would play, leading to a 5-11 season - changed things up this time.

This year, he said he wouldn't tell his starters how much they were going to play in each preseason game. The idea was to force them to be prepared to play more than they might have expected.

And there are those who are looking at the quality of play, at how players run the basic parts of the playbook, more than the final score.

After his team's 48-13 loss to the Green Bay Packers on Friday, Seahawks coach Mike Holmgren said "there's losing in the preseason and there's losing poorly."

Holmgren went on to say that if he was getting the "right answers" on players, he could almost tolerate losing a "game or two" in the preseason.

"But I think you have to be more basic in the preseason, you've got young guys, people new to the system, you can't just throw everything in at them," Alexander said. "It's more about what guys can do, how they can cut it loose and play.

"They're not out there thinking, 'Am I messing up?' They're just playing. That's what the preseason's for, to see how guys play, but the objective is to win. I have never been at a place where they didn't care about the preseason. They want to win, but usually win with just your basic stuff."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nfl/article/0,2777,DRMN_23918_5680362,00.html

[chrisp]

Perhaps some more knowledgeable maners can put me right on this: Technically, a blitz in when you have linebackers or secondary rushing the passer, non-blitz is when only the D-line rushes?

This would mean that in ANY 3-4 defense, where one of the outside linebackers is essentially a glorified DE rushing the passer on almost every down, technically, the Blitz IS part of the base package, and you're blitzing almost every passing down, unless you only rush three?

I know that in our 4-3 defense we're said to be blitzing when we rush 5 or more......

That would seem to tally with what Alexander was saying and was what i originally thought when i heard people saying the Cowboys were blitzing a lot in that game - inother words a storm in a teacup....

I didn't see the game but I did hear some people moaning afterwards.....

[FrontRowSeat1]

How do they know they can win if they have not won?

Somehow, this story confuses the daylights out of me. Its like practicing a skill, never doing it well, but telling yourself that you can do it right if you want to.

Did Mike really say what the story says? That comes across like...when you are new and young you care about winning. As you get older, its not so important.

Just how disturbing is this

[no-pseudo-fan]

Perhaps some more knowledgeable maners can put me right on this: Technically, a blitz in when you have linebackers or secondary rushing the passer, non-blitz is when only the D-line rushes?

This would mean that in ANY 3-4 defense, where one of the outside linebackers is essentially a glorified DE rushing the passer on almost every down, technically, the Blitz IS part of the base package, and you're blitzing almost every passing down, unless you only rush three?

I know that in our 4-3 defense we're said to be blitzing when we rush 5 or more......

That would seem to tally with what Alexander was saying and was what i originally thought when i heard people saying the Cowboys were blitzing a lot in that game - inother words a storm in a teacup....

I didn't see the game but I did hear some people moaning afterwards.....

In a 3-4 D, you are going to send 1 LB to rush the passer, but you never no when, where, who, or if it is coming. The Cowboys regularly sent 5 6 and 7 men on the pass rush. This is a BLITZ. If Denver sent a LB on the Pass Rusher against the Cowboy's, which I don't remember happening, they would drop a DL, technically a zone blitz. So at no time during the game did Romo have more than 4 men rushing him.

[Paladin]

Exhibition games are just that. Too much is made of what is or is not "shown" in these glorified practice sessions, and fortunes can be lost betting one's impressions from them. I said that the Exhibition game with Dullas was more important to them than it was to Denver. I am not at all surprised that Phillips was quite aggressive in that game because he needs to impress the home folks. Needs ego time? I dunno. But I can assume that the cowgirls will not look that "super" when the real season rolls around. That's why the crapola dealt out by the trolls is rather childish and inane. Games don't mean much, and I am surprised how the Fandom hereon falls for the crap with pointed, sharp rebuttals that add humor, but little substance.....

I do believe that the Cowgirls rushed not only one of the 'Backers. but also a DB in many of their their schemes which means it was a different blitz. From a 3-4, rushing the LB does not constitute a blitz. But you add a DB or another LB, then it becomes a page out of the blitz package. That's JMO.

Should the Fandom be concerned about the team's performance? Well, not really. Yet. But if they lose to Buffalo, then I'd start to wonder......

[jonny1]

How do they know they can win if they have not won?

Somehow, this story confuses the daylights out of me. Its like practicing a skill, never doing it well, but telling yourself that you can do it right if you want to.

Did Mike really say what the story says? That comes across like...when you are new and young you care about winning. As you get older, its not so important.

Just how disturbing is this

Not disturbing at all to me.

Shanahan is saying that if the team has been a consistant winner, then you don't need to win in the preseason (see Indy the last few years, I think they are 1-7). It is more about evaluating the players, and seeing what they can do without disguising anything.

A team that has been mired in a losing atmosphere, then yes, they need to try to get some positives going.

[ludo21]

we still looked bad in Dallas. But Ill try to be optimistic and ready to go for the reg season.

SB or bust!!

[CBF1]

What gets me in this instance is that we lost our best DE in basically a practice. And do not get me started with almost losing our franchise RB in said "practice" as well.

[Drek]

How do they know they can win if they have not won?

Somehow, this story confuses the daylights out of me. Its like practicing a skill, never doing it well, but telling yourself that you can do it right if you want to.

Did Mike really say what the story says? That comes across like...when you are new and young you care about winning. As you get older, its not so important.

Just how disturbing is this
You pretty much completely missed the point of what Shanahan said.

A young, inexperienced core of players doesn't know if they can hold their own and win games at the NFL level. Winning preseason games, or at least doing well in the early parts when its starting unit v. starting unit builds that confidence. For a team with a capable veteran core though they know they've got what it takes, they can judge the talent of the team around them and don't need positive reinforcement like a meaningless preseason win to feel confident in the team's abilities to win on any week of the regular season.

We're a veteran team. We've put a young core in place, sure, but a lot of those guys are either already established pros in their mid to late 20's (see Walker, Bailey, Bly, Gold, Henry, and Graham) or guys who're playing in tandem with experienced veterans (see Pears and Kuper getting broken in now with the core of Lepsis, Hamilton, and Nalen still together, or Crowder, Moss, and Thomas getting heavy reps while we still have solid vets like Adams, Lang, Ekuban, and Engelberger to show them the ropes). Even at WR we have a good mix of young talent (Marshall, Hixon, and Clark) with veteran leadership (Smith, Stokley, and Walker as something of a 'tweener).

Add a very experienced coaching staff to it and you have a confident football team no matter how preseason breaks.

Cutler is the big X factor, a second year QB with Ramsey being the "safety net" (if you want to call it that). However, Cutler looks to be poised and confident well beyond his years both on and off the field so its not nearly as worrisome as it would be if he was making immature mistakes like getting himself suspended a game for team rules violations or swinging his throwing hand around in punches directed at his own teammates.

[Jason in LA]

This article sums up what I have said in a few threads, and what I say every preseason.

These games mean nothing. They are not a measuring stick for how good or bad a team is. Jobs are not won and lost during these games. They are won and lost on the practice field during training camp, where the coaches are running real stuff. There have been a number of players who were stars during the preseason, and then didn't do anything during the regular season, or didn't even make the team. There are a lot of players who do nothing during the preseason, and even look bad, and then go on to have a great season.

I don't really get why people analyze these games. The sky is falling around here because the team didn't look good in preseason. It makes no sense. The play calling is vanilla, starters don't play much, and some starters don't play at all. There are guys who will ride the bench all year who end up in the starting lineup for a preseason game.

I can't wait until the season starts so I'll have some real football to watch. I think I have watched about five minutes of preseason football this year. Three of those minutes was one of the Bronco games. I don't even know what the Broncos schedule is. It doesn't really matter.

[Jason in LA]

Thinking about it some more, if a team wanted to win all of their preseason games, they could easily do it. Do some real play calling, play the starters a little longer. That's all it takes. And that will get the fan base excited. That's what the Cards used to do...if they still don't do it. Go undefeated in the preseason only to suck in the regular season.

[NYBronco]

The preseason games aren't meaningless. If the were then we would not see the starters until the first game of regular season. Each player/coach needs to get comfortable with their position and their team mates around them. They need to know what can be expected from the other in a simulated game situation. Practicing with each other each day is helpful but they need the actual preseason games to build their confidence and expectations against some actual competition.

Besides the NFL and their multimillion dollar franchises need to gouge the fan base for every penny they can squeeze out of them. It's been a long dry run since the SB.

[jonny1]

These games mean nothing. They are not a measuring stick for how good or bad a team is. Jobs are not won and lost during these games.

This is the only part of your post I have to disagree with, mostly because of something Shanahan said after the Dallas game.

"Some guys really stepped up and helped themselves, and some others took quite a step back."

[Jason in LA]

The preseason games aren't meaningless. If the were then we would not see the starters until the first game of regular season. Each player/coach needs to get comfortable with their position and their team mates around them. They need to know what can be expected from the other in a simulated game situation. Practicing with each other each day is helpful but they need the actual preseason games to build their confidence and expectations against some actual competition.

Besides the NFL and their multimillion dollar franchises need to gouge the fan base for every penny they can squeeze out of them. It's been a long dry run since the SB.

The players do not need preseason. They don't have it in college or high school, and it is not an issue. The players aren't using their real game plans, so how much are they really getting out of these games.

The starters have to get some playing time so it appears that these are real games. The NFL charges top dollar to fans and advertisers, so they need the stars to at least show up.

Think about it. How is it helpful for the starters to play a series or two of vanilla football? What timing do that get out of that?

[Jason in LA]

This is the only part of your post I have to disagree with, mostly because of something Shanahan said after the Dallas game.

"Some guys really stepped up and helped themselves, and some others took quite a step back."


Shanahan is supposed to say stuff like that. Make it look real.

If there were two players, and one looked great in training camp, but didn't do much in the games, but the guy he's competing with looked great in games but not in camp, the guy who looked good in camp will get the job. That is when they are running their real plays. That's where the coaches evaluate the players.

[NYBronco]

The players do not need preseason. They don't have it in college or high school, and it is not an issue. The players aren't using their real game plans, so how much are they really getting out of these games.

The starters have to get some playing time so it appears that these are real games. The NFL charges top dollar to fans and advertisers, so they need the stars to at least show up.

Think about it. How is it helpful for the starters to play a series or two of vanilla football? What timing do that get out of that?

Playing vanilla football is a decision made by the coaching staff. It would appear the vanilla displayed by Dallas this past week is of a different coaching philosophy. The team (players and coaches) need to be able to find some way to gauge their ability to adjust to certain situations in a game like atmosphere. They can only learn so much from within their own team training camps. With each preseason game the starters get more game time. How do they not develop timing with a vanilla game?

[Jason in LA]

Most of them, especially the starters, are just going through the motions. Cutler has thrown only 15 passes in two games. What good is that doing? Nothing. The NFL has fooled people into believing that these games mean something so they can rake in the money. A lot of teams will look good in the preseason and then flat out suck in the regular season. I remember the Bills used to lose every preseason game under Marv Levy, and then make the Super Bowl. During that time, the Cards would win all of their games and suck.


If there were no preseason, the regular season would be exactly the same. Teams week 1 would be at the same exact spot in the season. Preseason isn't about tuning up the players, it is about making a boat load of money. Like I said, college and high school don't have preseason, which is not a problem at all.

[Cito Pelon]

By Jeff Legwold, Rocky Mountain News

Teams are reluctant to show too much, but winning still welcome

ENGLEWOOD - Psst, everybody's got a secret.

Tucked away in their training camp playbooks, waiting to come out. Just not before its time.. . . . ..

Jeez, there sure was a lot of Alexander in that article.

[NYBronco]

I agree with you on several points but have a hard time believing the players and coaches don't get anything out of the preseason games.

I know it's about the money. The NCAA bowl games are a good example of how money has taken over the sport. A playoff system would be much better and the typical end of the year crowned Champion would be less controversial. Once they figure out how to get the most buck out of the system and not offend the current corporate sponsers it will quickly become a reality.

College and high schools do play "preseason" games. These are disguised as games played out of the division or conference.

[Cito Pelon]

Perhaps some more knowledgeable maners can put me right on this: Technically, a blitz in when you have linebackers or secondary rushing the passer, non-blitz is when only the D-line rushes?

This would mean that in ANY 3-4 defense, where one of the outside linebackers is essentially a glorified DE rushing the passer on almost every down, technically, the Blitz IS part of the base package, and you're blitzing almost every passing down, unless you only rush three?

I know that in our 4-3 defense we're said to be blitzing when we rush 5 or more......

That would seem to tally with what Alexander was saying and was what i originally thought when i heard people saying the Cowboys were blitzing a lot in that game - inother words a storm in a teacup....

I didn't see the game but I did hear some people moaning afterwards.....

Well, I don't know how to answer your questions. I'll say this - you didn't watch the game, so you didn't get to see that Dallas' D played this like a reg season game. When they saw a formation that they wanted to attack, they did so. And they decimated every O formation Denver offered, which wasn't much, incidentally. Denver never showed a thing, just basic.

As for Denver, I don't know what they were trying to accomplish on O. They got their asses kicked. If they would have game-planned, maybe they would have had more success then 11 first downs for the entire game. Denver's O was just basic crap. I see that has pissed some folks off, since they didn't accompish a dang thing but got Henry, Bell limping in the process.

[Paladin]

College and high schools do play "preseason" games. These are disguised as games played out of the division or conference.

And those games count towards the overall standings. That's why Nebraska schedules the AA schools early. They may have changed that a bit since Callahan took over, but they always scheduled patsies for three games then they played the Conference games. In the Pros, the Exhibition games count for nothing but as a moneymaker for the League and the owners. The Players get a flat rate for the Exhibition games played. That is gravy to the teams and the league.

For the fans, it makes for trolls and smack.....

[Cito Pelon]

The players do not need preseason. They don't have it in college or high school, and it is not an issue. The players aren't using their real game plans, so how much are they really getting out of these games.

The starters have to get some playing time so it appears that these are real games. The NFL charges top dollar to fans and advertisers, so they need the stars to at least show up.

Think about it. How is it helpful for the starters to play a series or two of vanilla football? What timing do that get out of that?

What about crispness, execution from the first-teamers? I don't ask much from the team in preseason, but I do ask that.

[Cito Pelon]

Most of them, especially the starters, are just going through the motions. Cutler has thrown only 15 passes in two games. What good is that doing? Nothing. The NFL has fooled people into believing that these games mean something so they can rake in the money. A lot of teams will look good in the preseason and then flat out suck in the regular season. I remember the Bills used to lose every preseason game under Marv Levy, and then make the Super Bowl. During that time, the Cards would win all of their games and suck.


If there were no preseason, the regular season would be exactly the same. Teams week 1 would be at the same exact spot in the season. Preseason isn't about tuning up the players, it is about making a boat load of money. Like I said, college and high school don't have preseason, which is not a problem at all.

It's fine with me if the NFL starts the reg season in mid-August.