PDA

View Full Version : Defense so far


TheReverend
09-15-2009, 03:56 PM
Put this together elsewhere real quick. Thought I'd share here in case someone cares. Really just some quick snap-shot things, nothing too in-depth or meaningful... not that in depth or meaningful exist after 1 game.

The defense was definitely able to take advantage of Cinci's line. Not sure if that's an impressive thing or not yet considering the turmoil on their OL... Cleveland's got a decent OL so I'll be curious to see how Denver's DL and blitzing works against that match-up.

However, when Carson had a sufficient amount of time to throw, it was still pretty damn effective outside of a nice tip by Champ and a good play on the ball deflection by Goodman (which is a play I'd never think he was capable of).

Also, here's some fun facts for those being overly optimistic about the defense right now:

307 yards allowed.
16 first downs allowed.
4.9 yards per play.
5/15 on third down
13 pts (if their special teams weren't having an especially retarded day)

vs.

307 yards allowed
15 first downs allowed.
5.2 yards per play
2/12 on third down
14 pts allowed

----------------

That's this years week 1 defense vs last years week 1 defense, fyi.

Mr.Meanie
09-15-2009, 03:59 PM
13 points?

as long as we're counting imaginary what-if stats, can we also count 3 dropped picks possibly returned for touchdowns? Just sayin...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-15-2009, 04:05 PM
Yeah, wouldn't want anyone being overly-optimistic. Those people make me angry.

/rolleyes

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:05 PM
13 points?

as long as we're counting imaginary what-if stats, can we also count 3 dropped picks possibly returned for touchdowns? Just sayin...

Would you like to credit the defense with a special teams fumbled snap after letting the opponent drive to the 10 for discussion and comparison purposes?

Glad to see you're retarded.

Mr.Meanie
09-15-2009, 04:08 PM
Would you like to credit the defense with a special teams fumbled snap after letting the opponent drive to the 10 for discussion and comparison purposes?

Glad to see you're retarded.

All I'm saying is if you're counting phantom imaginary almost what if points for comparison purposes, there are a lot of plays to choose from...

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:10 PM
Yeah, wouldn't want anyone being overly-optimistic. Those people make me angry.

/rolleyes

Cute.

But if the comparison is beyond you, then you might want to talk elsewhere. Our defense has historically performed pretty well even when they were subpar units. 2008's opener listed above. 07 against the Bills. 06 (though that was still a very good defense before Al broke).

Still we get comments, "Clearly the defense is much better than it has been".

Hopefully that's the case, we'll find out over the next 3-4 weeks for sure.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:11 PM
All I'm saying is if you're counting phantom imaginary almost what if points for comparison purposes, there are a lot of plays to choose from...

What's imaginary about our defense letting an opposing team drive to our own 10 yard line for the go ahead chip-shot field goal? Gtfo of this thread if you're gonna be an idiot and can't understand a simple concept.

Popps
09-15-2009, 04:11 PM
13 points?

as long as we're counting imaginary what-if stats, can we also count 3 dropped picks possibly returned for touchdowns? Just sayin...

I just added what-if's for Orton and he actually played better than Brees on Sunday!

!Booya!

elsid13
09-15-2009, 04:12 PM
I know that most folks are happy that the defense only gave up 7 points, but I am very concerned with the zone coverage and 3rd down plays. In zone there seemed to be a lot of confusion on AOR and 3rd down coverage was shaky when they went with only 3 down line men and dropped the rest back in zone or combo man/zone defense.

Bronco Rob
09-15-2009, 04:12 PM
NOLAN! NOLAN NOLAN!





:thumbs:

Rohirrim
09-15-2009, 04:14 PM
We're talking about a bottom dwelling defense last season crawling out of a hole. I love the energy and fire they are playing with. It's a great turnaround of spirit. Last year, when San Diego was kicking our asses, there were members of the team (who are now gone) who were yukking it up on the sidelines. We're on the ground floor. I wouldn't be so quick to start smacking them down with stats.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:15 PM
I just added what-if's for Orton and he actually played better than Brees on Sunday!

!Booya!

I remember when you used to talk football.

KevinJames
09-15-2009, 04:16 PM
JaMarcus Russell vs Carson Palmer......... Bengals WRs vs Raiders WRs

TheChamp24
09-15-2009, 04:17 PM
I have a freakin question for you Rev, they botched one field goal attempt snap that if made, would've given them 10 points.
Where are these other 3 points coming from? Are you pulling them out of your ass or something?

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:17 PM
We're talking about a bottom dwelling defense last season crawling out of a hole. I love the energy and fire they are playing with. It's a great turnaround of spirit. Last year, when San Diego was kicking our asses, there were members of the team (who are now gone) who were yukking it up on the sidelines. We're on the ground floor. I wouldn't be so quick to start smacking them down with stats.

Agreed, but we haven't seem them vs adversity yet. The defense played with a lot of fire and intensity while we kicked the **** out of Oakland in the black hole this same time last year as well. The rough patch of our schedule will give us a lot of insight into the character of the team.

I know that most folks are happy that the defense only gave up 7 points, but I am very concerned with the zone coverage and 3rd down plays. In zone there seemed to be a lot of confusion on AOR and 3rd down coverage was shaky when they went with only 3 down line men and dropped the rest back in zone or combo man/zone defense.

This is another good post, however 5/15 on third down is far from poor, it's even a little above average.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:18 PM
I have a freakin question for you Rev, they botched one field goal attempt snap that if made, would've given them 10 points.
Where are these other 3 points coming from? Are you pulling them out of your ass or something?

Very possible. I was pretty drunk. I thought they shanked one also?

I have a freakin question for you, was that adjective really necessary?

listopencil
09-15-2009, 04:19 PM
Would you like to credit the defense with a special teams fumbled snap after letting the opponent drive to the 10 for discussion and comparison purposes?

Glad to see you're retarded.

You're lying to make your point about the D. It's a good lie, don't get me wrong, but it's still a lie.

TheChamp24
09-15-2009, 04:20 PM
Very possible. I was pretty drunk. I thought they shanked one also?

I have a freakin question for you, was that adjective really necessary?

Yes it was to emphasis my point of how retarded it is giving the opposing team points just because you feel like they should have them.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:22 PM
You're lying to make your point about the D. It's a good lie, don't get me wrong, but it's still a lie.

Yes it was to emphasis my point of how retarded it is giving the opposing team points just because you feel like they should have them.

You've got to be kidding me... so we'll credit the defense for the fumbled snap even in discussion about defensive concerns.

Got it.

listopencil
09-15-2009, 04:23 PM
you've got to be kidding me... So we'll credit the defense for the fumbled snap even in discussion about defensive concerns.

Got it.

13>7

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:25 PM
I remember when you used to talk football.

You just added imaginary points to make your retarded point stronger. But I guess that makes you a superior football-talker?

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:27 PM
You've got to be kidding me... so we'll credit the defense for the fumbled snap even in discussion about defensive concerns.

Got it.

It's a lie. It's not real. You cannot dispute that.

listopencil
09-15-2009, 04:27 PM
Back to actual football discussion though, you've got to look at the game situations to really get a good idea and make a valid comparison. As I recall our Offense looked like world beaters the first few weeks of last year. A Defense is going to operate differently in that situation. Still, Defense is usually ahead of Offense at the beginning of the year so I'm going back and forth between "stoked" and "guarded optimism".

2KBack
09-15-2009, 04:28 PM
Way to adjust for your own means. You ignore that in the first game last season Denver gave up 150 rushing yards for 5 yards a carry. This season it was 86 for 3.1 a carry...in a close game. 2 int's off of Palmer and Zero off of Jamarcus Russell...in a blow out.

Denver's defense played overall superior against better offensive talent, and in a close game.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:29 PM
Back to actual football discussion though, you've got to look at the game situations to really get a good idea and make a valid comparison. As I recall our Offense looked like world beaters the first few weeks of last year. A Defense is going to operate differently in that situation. Still, Defense is usually ahead of Offense at the beginning of the year so I'm going back and forth between "stoked" and "guarded optimism".

So you actually understand the discussion but decided to complain anyways? That makes sense.

It's a lie. It's not real. You cannot dispute that.

Oh thank god your dumb ass showed up.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:30 PM
Screw this. I'm retiring from all football talk on this site.

Back to funny jokes about McD and animated gifs full time.

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:30 PM
Oh thank god your dumb ass showed up.

I remember when you actually used to talk football.

DivineLegion
09-15-2009, 04:31 PM
One thing to add here....

Raiders last Season.
QB: Jamarcus Russell
RB: Darrent McFadden in first full start
WR: Javon Walker
WR: Ronald Curry
WR: Johnny Lee Higgans

Bengals this Season.
QB: Carson Palmer
RB: Cedric Benson
WR: Chad Ochocinco
WR: Laveneus Coles
WR: Chris Henry

hmmm.......................................Thanks for that statistical comparison Bob...I mean Rev. Sorry man I could have sworn he hijacked your account.

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:31 PM
Screw this. I'm retiring from all football talk on this site.

Back to funny jokes about McD and animated gifs full time.

When did you start? I'm going to go make a thread about how this year's Week 1 offense compares to last year's because some of our dropped passes could have gone for TDs.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:32 PM
I remember when you actually used to talk football.

You mean before people were so super sensitive about their position whether "optimist" or "detractor" they could talk about what happened without a clear bias based upon their "position" as proved by this very ****ing thread.

You idiots are unbelievable and it's why every goddamn thread turns into a McD/Cutler thing.

Popps
09-15-2009, 04:33 PM
Look Rev, I'm not sure really what the motivation for the thread is... except maybe to counter some of the enthusiasm for the defense this past Sunday?

I think the thing you're missing is... people see signs of improvement. It's not so much a statement that we're head and shoulders better after one game, but the fact is... we looked like a more complete defense.

Statistically, yes.. it was middle of the road. Scoring-wise, it was a VERY solid performance. It was even more impressive that it was done with our offense having an absolutely dreadful time-of-possession.

As someone else pointed out... the FG botch was a result of our defense holding. Last year, it was almost an automatic TD if teams got inside our 20.


Beyond that, Rev... so people are enthused about what they saw on Sunday. It was a DRASTICALLY different situation for a defend than a blow-out in Oakland last year. I think it's legitimate to grade this defense differently than most of the performances last season.

If people are wrong, they're wrong. But, it's a fan-board. Fans are generally an enthusiastic bunch. I haven't seen any Superbowl predictions... just some positive analysis from a game where our point total allowed was the lowest since 2007.

Popps
09-15-2009, 04:33 PM
I remember when you used to talk football.

See last post, goofy.

azbroncfan
09-15-2009, 04:34 PM
Oakland vs Cinncinatti. Plus the offense last year had it's best performance on week 1 and last sundays was the worst I have seen since the New England monday night game last year.

elsid13
09-15-2009, 04:34 PM
This is another good post, however 5/15 on third down is far from poor, it's even a little above average.

There were a number of drops that should have been completion if we didn't get lucky. The zone coverage needs to be tighten up big time or offense coordinators will start targeting that in their game plans. In particular if Denver face a good receiving TE there is seam that easy to exploit in its current zone coverage.

BTW Ayers doing anything other pass rushing is major problem right now.

TotallyScrewed
09-15-2009, 04:34 PM
We're talking about a bottom dwelling defense last season crawling out of a hole. I love the energy and fire they are playing with. It's a great turnaround of spirit. Last year, when San Diego was kicking our asses, there were members of the team (who are now gone) who were yukking it up on the sidelines. We're on the ground floor. I wouldn't be so quick to start smacking them down with stats.

I don't think people are smacking them but just to put a light on the subject...

There were many dropped passes and miscues in the passing game that were related only to the Bungles, not the Broncos. That won't happen frequently. I think everyone's excited by the passion that the defense is bringing. What needs to happen is fewer 3 and outs by the Denver offense...let the defense recharge and have hope that something positive will happen when they give the ball back to their offense.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:35 PM
Look Rev, I'm not sure really what the motivation for the thread is... except maybe to counter some of the enthusiasm for the defense this past Sunday?

I think the thing you're missing is... people see signs of improvement. It's not so much a statement that we're head and shoulders better after one game, but the fact is... we looked like a more complete defense.

Statistically, yes.. it was middle of the road. Scoring-wise, it was a VERY solid performance. It was even more impressive that it was done with our offense having an absolutely dreadful time-of-possession.

As someone else pointed out... the FG botch was a result of our defense holding. Last year, it was almost an automatic TD if teams got inside our 20.


Beyond that, Rev... so people are enthused about what they saw on Sunday. It was a DRASTICALLY different situation for a defend than a blow-out in Oakland last year. I think it's legitimate to grade this defense differently than most of the performances last season.

If people are wrong, they're wrong. But, it's a fan-board. Fans are generally an enthusiastic bunch. I haven't seen any Superbowl predictions... just some positive analysis from a game where our point total allowed was the lowest since 2007.

It was to talk some actual ****ing football now that we've had our first game and what important things to look for moving forward (ie: the statement about how we play against Cleveland's OL).

Sadly, people here are too vested in their position and won't talk about actual football.

I'll stick to talking actual football off-site with people who know what they're talking about that have left/stopped talking football here for the exact same reason. **** you all. :thumbsup:

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:35 PM
You mean before people were so super sensitive about their position whether "optimist" or "detractor" they could talk about what happened without a clear bias based upon their "position" as proved by this very ****ing thread.

You idiots are unbelievable and it's why every goddamn thread turns into a McD/Cutler thing.

Please, show me where I said anything about McD or Cutler.

YOU brought them into this. I just stated that counting imaginary points is a ****ing retarded thing to do. At least most stat skewing uses, you know, actually stats?

SonOfLe-loLang
09-15-2009, 04:36 PM
i also love how you convienently left out that we played the ****ing RAIDERS last year during week 1

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:37 PM
Had you just kept it at 7 points, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Bronx33
09-15-2009, 04:37 PM
Iam scared to even post for fear of being beatin down and left for dead....

listopencil
09-15-2009, 04:37 PM
So you actually understand the discussion but decided to complain anyways? That makes sense.


Well, yeah. I'm here to have fun just like you are. Where are those gifs?

Mr.Meanie
09-15-2009, 04:38 PM
Screw this. I'm retiring from all football talk on this site.

Back to funny jokes about McD and animated gifs full time.

:rofl:

You can't expect to post made up stats to try to bolster your argument and not get called on it.

In this thread, you're the one who is telling people to GTFO, calling people stupid and retarded. Then you get butthurt and say you're going to quit talking football when someone calls actually b.s. on your ACTUAL b.s.?

Lame.

TotallyScrewed
09-15-2009, 04:39 PM
Look Rev, I'm not sure really what the motivation for the thread is... except maybe to counter some of the enthusiasm for the defense this past Sunday?

I think the thing you're missing is... people see signs of improvement. It's not so much a statement that we're head and shoulders better after one game, but the fact is... we looked like a more complete defense.

Statistically, yes.. it was middle of the road. Scoring-wise, it was a VERY solid performance. It was even more impressive that it was done with our offense having an absolutely dreadful time-of-possession.

As someone else pointed out... the FG botch was a result of our defense holding. Last year, it was almost an automatic TD if teams got inside our 20.


Beyond that, Rev... so people are enthused about what they saw on Sunday. It was a DRASTICALLY different situation for a defend than a blow-out in Oakland last year. I think it's legitimate to grade this defense differently than most of the performances last season.

If people are wrong, they're wrong. But, it's a fan-board. Fans are generally an enthusiastic bunch. I haven't seen any Superbowl predictions... just some positive analysis from a game where our point total allowed was the lowest since 2007.

And what about the offense production prior to a miracle? I'm way more concerned about the lack of offense.

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:40 PM
Had you just kept it at 7 points, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Do you think I give a flying **** whether or not you have a problem with it?

Your dumb ass couldn't understand the simple concept that whether or not the points were score, the opportunity for a chip-shot easy score was surrendered so that must be held against the defense for analysis.

However, you've clearly never played a ****ing competitive sport and had a coach analyze your play or your units play on film before. Now, as I'm aware that you're one of the dumbest humans on the planet, that goes without saying. However, judging from the responses in general, that pretty much goes for everyone here making these idiotic statements without a shred of understanding.

So peace out.

Gcver2ver3
09-15-2009, 04:40 PM
Put this together elsewhere real quick. Thought I'd share here in case someone cares. Really just some quick snap-shot things, nothing too in-depth or meaningful... not that in depth or meaningful exist after 1 game.

The defense was definitely able to take advantage of Cinci's line. Not sure if that's an impressive thing or not yet considering the turmoil on their OL... Cleveland's got a decent OL so I'll be curious to see how Denver's DL and blitzing works against that match-up.

However, when Carson had a sufficient amount of time to throw, it was still pretty damn effective outside of a nice tip by Champ and a good play on the ball deflection by Goodman (which is a play I'd never think he was capable of).

Also, here's some fun facts for those being overly optimistic about the defense right now:

307 yards allowed.
16 first downs allowed.
4.9 yards per play.
5/15 on third down
13 pts (if their special teams weren't having an especially retarded day)

vs.

307 yards allowed
15 first downs allowed.
5.2 yards per play
2/12 on third down
14 pts allowed

----------------

That's this years week 1 defense vs last years week 1 defense, fyi.



well for starters, you're really reaching by adding the imaginary points...no need in playing what if scenarios...

but as far as the rest, some differences i would like to highlight between those two games:

1. Our biggest weakness according to many is our run D...we held Cincy to 86yds rushing...3.2ypc...the Raiders ran for 150yds 5ypc...

2. Time of possesion while not overwelming, is still advanatage Cincy...Denver's D was on the field 3 game minutes longer this yr, but more importantly is Sunday's Defense didn't have an offense put up 40pts...the game was close all game and Denver kept the heat on anyway...

3. Cincy has weapons all over the place...Jamarcus Russell is terrible and we still allowed him to play well against us...2 TD passess and no picks?...

4. Oh yeah, and Denver only allowed 7pts...

TheReverend
09-15-2009, 04:40 PM
Well, yeah. I'm here to have fun just like you are. Where are those gifs?

http://i28.tinypic.com/hx0pxc.gif

eh?

Inkana7
09-15-2009, 04:45 PM
Do you think I give a flying **** whether or not you have a problem with it?

Your dumb ass couldn't understand the simple concept that whether or not the points were score, the opportunity for a chip-shot easy score was surrendered so that must be held against the defense for analysis.

However, you've clearly never played a ****ing competitive sport and had a coach analyze your play or your units play on film before. Now, as I'm aware that you're one of the dumbest humans on the planet, that goes without saying. However, judging from the responses in general, that pretty much goes for everyone here making these idiotic statements without a shred of understanding.

So peace out.

YOU'VE never clearly never played a ****ing competitive sport before, obviously. Guess what? Missed field goals happen! Bad snaps happen! That's football. The Defense gave up 7 points. If you're going to include "almost points" you might want to include the touchdown that was prevented in Week 1 last year by a bad call that ruled a Dumervil pass breakup a fumble and recovery.

You do care if I have a problem with it, because you've been whining like a bitch about the reaction about it.

Stupid, stupid, retarded, dumbest person ever, etc, etc.

Sorry, just had to match you intelligent point to intelligent point. Since, you know, you're the only smart person in this thread. I hope I didn't try to go too far above my intelligence level here.

listopencil
09-15-2009, 04:46 PM
http://i28.tinypic.com/hx0pxc.gif

eh?

:thumbsup:

Br0nc0Buster
09-15-2009, 04:47 PM
And what about the offense production prior to a miracle? I'm way more concerned about the lack of offense.

Had Marshall not dropped that bomb it would of been a touchdown
Had he not dropped that screen, it would of been a touchdown
Had Stokely not dropped that third down catch, it would of been a touchdown

So really Orton had 4 touchdowns on Sunday
So you see, our offense is just fine

I am speaking in terms of imaginary stats though since that is what this thread is about

But if we are talking about real stats, then the offense is a concern...
But we have a lot of talent on that side of the ball
Players are still getting used to the new scheme
McDaniels was an offensive coordinator

So I am gonna give it a little time before I get too worked up, there is reason to think things will get better on that side of the ball

Popps
09-15-2009, 04:51 PM
Sadly, people here are too vested in their position and won't talk about actual football.
:

I think you're wrong. There has been a lot of quality discussion about this game. We've even begun breaking down our next opponent.

Certainly, people are vested in their positions... fans will be fans. Most are passionate about their teams.

That said, there has been a lot of quality discussion about the specific reasons people were enthused about our D.

Hell, even LEX posted a thread about Nolan's scheme, and how our sacks came from various players. A lot of good discussion in there.


The problem generally arises when people are trying to break down a game... and the widows take over the thread with "we're going to suck, just you wait" talk.

Mr. Elway
09-15-2009, 04:54 PM
I think the comparison is valid and somewhat disturbing, but I think week one is also not a good measure of prediction. Now here comes the inevitable 2005 week one defensive stats!

426 yards allowed
21 first downs allowed.
6.2 yards per play
8/15 on third down
34 pts allowed

Ironlung
09-15-2009, 04:59 PM
Yea guys...don't be optomistic about the D...I mean, why would ya? We only fielded the worst excuse of a D i've EVER seen last year. Rev is a f-a-g.

outdoor_miner
09-15-2009, 05:09 PM
I think the premise of this thread is pretty good, and even agree that the botched hold on a gimmee field goal was a total fluke (although, you made up the other missed field goal).

I see two differences from last year: One is that the offense relied on the defense, not vice-versa. Oakland were on their heals from the start last year, so the defense could breath a little easier (playing with a lead is always nice and allows a defense to be more aggressive). This year, our offense was pathetic (although, at least they didn't turn the ball over), and the D was on the field a lot, especially in the first half. I think they showed some balls in the first half fighting to keep the Bengals out of the endzone, although the Bengals did rack up a bunch of yardage. If the Broncos D had played like they did in the first half in the second, I would be much less excited. However, in the second half the D actually looked somewhat dominant (until the last drive).

The second difference is the level of competition. Obviously, we can't be sure how good the Bengals are going to be this year, but they presumably have a lot more talent than last year's Oakland offense. I guess we'll have to wait and see if that is really true.

Lastly - I think one of the biggest reasons for my optimism is the veteran leadership on the team. I just think that the other players have some guys to truly lead the defense (Dawkins first and foremost - holy ****, his pre-game speech gave me chills - but also guys like Davis and Holliday). There was an absolute void last year, and I truly believe that is one of the biggest issues that caused things to snowball.

You are right that only time will tell if they are improved. However, I do believe that there is reason for optimism.

Mr. Elway
09-15-2009, 05:16 PM
Good points miner, and I'll add that we also have better coaching this year.

Unless anyone thinks Slowick > Nolan?

Eldorado
09-15-2009, 05:23 PM
Yea guys...don't be optomistic about the D...I mean, why would ya? We only fielded the worst excuse of a D i've EVER seen last year. Rev is a f-a-g.

Solid contribution.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-15-2009, 05:30 PM
Not to mention...the defense HELD this lead for 58 minutes. The offense constantly gave the ball back and they held down the fort. That oakland game was a blow out from the first quarter. Its a alot easier to play D when the opponent is 1) disinterested and 2) passing all the time because they are down.

its not a comparison. He's just looking to be negative

Dedhed
09-15-2009, 05:39 PM
13 points?

as long as we're counting imaginary what-if stats, can we also count 3 dropped picks possibly returned for touchdowns? Just sayin...

And Orton threw for 300+ yards because of the dropped pass by Marshall. Hey, if Orton didn't have any incompletions and a couple of TDs he'd have a perfect passer rating so we might as well consider him perfect.

Morons put forth IF scenarios. 1-0

loborugger
09-15-2009, 05:46 PM
The corners are still playing 7 to 10 yds off.

Br0nc0Buster
09-15-2009, 05:48 PM
The corners are still playing 7 to 10 yds off.

not on third and short they arent

Plus we are running an aggressive scheme, it isnt retarded to play off when you blitz

TonyR
09-15-2009, 05:48 PM
I think the premise of this thread is pretty good, and even agree that the botched hold on a gimmee field goal was a total fluke (although, you made up the other missed field goal).

I see two differences from last year...

Great post, miner. And I also agree the premise is worth discussing.

I'll add another factor I haven't seen mentioned yet: this is a totally rebuilt defense, with 8 (do I have that right?) new starters, playing a real and full game together for the first time. Last year's defense had signifcantly more carryover from the prior year and was playing at least generally the same scheme.

Ironlung
09-15-2009, 05:50 PM
Solid contribution.

You too, bud.

loborugger
09-15-2009, 05:52 PM
not on third and short they arent

Plus we are running an aggressive scheme, it isnt retarded to play off when you blitz

Probably right. I dont pretend to be an OM coaching genius. I just know that torqued off many a poster on here last season.

Overall, I am pleased that our 'D' gave up a mere 7 points on the road and pitched a shut out for 58/59 minutes. I dont care that its the Bengals. I still looks like a step - maybe small - but still a step forward.

TheDave
09-15-2009, 06:05 PM
It was a hugely sloppy game from both offenses... Our D was bailed out by dropped passes on several drives. This is going to be a work in progress all season.

cutthemdown
09-15-2009, 06:18 PM
This is how I see it.

The defense still lacks a real dominant force at inside linebacker. Although Davis is bigger and plays hard. So from Webster last yr, to Williams and Davis this yr, a slight improvement inside for the backer.

OLB I think looks pretty good although I wonder how Haggan and Doom hold as we hit the meat of our tough schedule. Lot's of Rbs and Te's to cover we ain't seen nothing like at cincy. So my guess is that Doom and Haggan will make some plays, but not as much as the elite OLB's that are in the 3-4. Until Ayers shows something I'd say that spot gets looked at again next yr.

I don't think the Dline is talented. But they are bigger and way more physical than last yr, so without spending much the Broncos seem to have at least improved the dline. Fields and Peterson both playing pretty solid. Forgot to watch Mcbean much but the line seemed to hold its own and often win the trench battle. I saw that a little in preseason as well.

Clearly this defense would not be much different if not for better safety play. Dawkins can still play and it looks like he could be another old safety steal for the Broncos just like Lynch. It was nice to see the safety's actually hit someone. So that is a big improvement. How long it lasts however is another story so Broncos could be looking to add talent there in the off season.

Rev IMO is saying don't go thinking this defense top 10. IMO he is right. It lacks the overall talent in the front seven.

I do think though that 15-16 is doable. Also throw in the fact I think they get a lot more turnovers this yr and you can win some games. Obviously even with a strong team this is a brutal schedule. IMO any team in the NFL that could play this schedule and go 11-5 or better is a really good team.

For Broncos I think they just need to see what they have that can play the 3-4. Install a system that will work. And then build the team. Hopefully at some point Ayers steps up and starts to do something. IMO he may just need to go up 15 pounds in offseason and play dend. I don't know if thats the teams plan B but he's alreadys what 285, seems doable.

cutthemdown
09-15-2009, 06:20 PM
It was a hugely sloppy game from both offenses... Our D was bailed out by dropped passes on several drives. This is going to be a work in progress all season.

new coaches, new defensive alignment, new QB, new RB, I think it's logical to assume it will have some rough spots ahead.

I like playing the brutal schedule though. It gives the coaches a chance to see the players vs the very best. IMO that makes decisions easier because you will really know what guys can win battles with the very best.

fdf
09-15-2009, 07:22 PM
. . . However, when Carson had a sufficient amount of time to throw, it was still pretty damn effective . . .

I don't find that much of a downer. Palmer ought to be effective in that situation. He's a darn good QB and he has three really good receivers. We are in the don't touch the recivers era so there's not much you can do if the QB doesn't get pressured.

So this week, the D exploited the weakness of Cinn's O successfully. That's a plus. Is it reason for a big celebration? Probably not. Will it happen forever? Don't know. But it beats the heck out of a bunch of games last year, and the year before, and the year before.

It's nice having a team that is actually trying on D. If they are still trying in December, we'll probably have a middle-of-the-road D, overall. That's a huge improvement in just one offseason.

Eldorado
09-15-2009, 07:40 PM
It was a hugely sloppy game from both offenses... Our D was bailed out by dropped passes on several drives. This is going to be a work in progress all season.

yup.

Eldorado
09-15-2009, 07:41 PM
You too, bud.

Mine's comin, tuff nuts. Stick around.

Rock Chalk
09-15-2009, 07:47 PM
Back to actual football discussion though, you've got to look at the game situations to really get a good idea and make a valid comparison. As I recall our Offense looked like world beaters the first few weeks of last year. A Defense is going to operate differently in that situation. Still, Defense is usually ahead of Offense at the beginning of the year so I'm going back and forth between "stoked" and "guarded optimism".

Such as:

The drive where they fumbled the FG snap was a 41 yard drive, that the Bengals started with good field position. It was not a full lenght of the field drive or anything.

They (the Bengals) had a good first quarter but were shut down until the last drive of the game. Our defense gave up a 41 yard drive and a 40 yard drive in the first quarter. Their longest drive until the last drive after that was 30 yards and not another drive was over twenty yards.

The Bengals of 2009 are certainly better than opening day Oakland Raiders of 2008.

Broncos4tw
09-15-2009, 07:48 PM
I think it will get even better. We'll not be in the top 5, but we'll certainly be better than last year. Our run D is quite a bit more stout. We are more aggressive, which is making a world of difference. We are however, giving way too much cushion on receivers though. We have the personnel, punch them in the face on the line. We looked particularly sieve-like several times in that game.

Rock Chalk
09-15-2009, 07:54 PM
Further you want to break it down even more we can Rev.

1) Your imaginary points, you added 3 too many. They only screwed up on one field goal. They never even attempted another.

2) 91 of their 307 yards came on the last drive when Denver decided to play soft zone prevent hoping to outlast them. Since we are throwing in the imaginary, let's go ahead and throw in the imaginary scenario that Denver continues to play the same defense they had played from the 2nd quarter through 2/3rds of the way through the 4th quarter. Net Result: Cincy gets probably 18 yards. So, 307-91 is 216 yards + the 18 yards for what they were averaging once we adjusted to them is 234 yards and 0 points.

**** you. Our defense IS better.

Wes Mantooth
09-15-2009, 08:05 PM
I agree with the third down issues. Needs immediate improvement.

ScottXray
09-15-2009, 08:32 PM
We are not going to be top ten in defense...But we aren't going to be bottom feeders again, either. That IS improvement. And the Raiduhs vs Cinn argument will start to show in 3-4 more weeks.

Hopefully, our luck holds and, we don't get any significant injuries that take any of the better performers out (Champ, Dawkins , Haggan etc) and leave us with a significant hole to fill.

Ironlung
09-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Mine's comin, tuff nuts. Stick around.

uh oh...go easy.

Rock Chalk
09-15-2009, 08:51 PM
Not to mention...the defense HELD this lead for 58 minutes. The offense constantly gave the ball back and they held down the fort. That oakland game was a blow out from the first quarter. Its a alot easier to play D when the opponent is 1) disinterested and 2) passing all the time because they are down.

its not a comparison. He's just looking to be negative

Excellent point.

Natedogg
09-15-2009, 10:05 PM
What if the Special teams noticed there was no punter on the field? No botched field goal.

This counter-factual **** is more illogical than the Terminator series.

kent156
09-16-2009, 05:37 AM
In that okaland game you can see with a more accurate qb the d was suspect. Then in week 2 rivers lit the broncos up. Compared to this year you can kinda see the same problem, but the underneath stuff will give this d problems. So any team with a good catching back or TE the broncos are in trouble.

Beantown Bronco
09-16-2009, 06:28 AM
Further you want to break it down even more we can Rev.

2) 91 of their 307 yards came on the last drive when Denver decided to play soft zone prevent hoping to outlast them. Since we are throwing in the imaginary, let's go ahead and throw in the imaginary scenario that Denver continues to play the same defense they had played from the 2nd quarter through 2/3rds of the way through the 4th quarter. Net Result: Cincy gets probably 18 yards. So, 307-91 is 216 yards + the 18 yards for what they were averaging once we adjusted to them is 234 yards and 0 points.



In that same vein, all of the Oakland points and half of their yards came in the 4th quarter after the Broncos went into prevent defense up by 35 or so points.

TailgateNut
09-16-2009, 06:58 AM
rev is a f-a-g.

^this

BroncoInferno
09-16-2009, 07:06 AM
I am cautiously optimistic, but as you pointed out we started off pretty well in openers the last two seasons as welll. My biggest concern is that Cincy had a LOT of dropped passes, particularly on key 3rd down plays. The D gave them several opportunities that they failed to capitalize where better teams likely would not have failed. That said, they played with a lot of fire and it's hard to argue with the bottom line results at this point.

SoDak Bronco
09-16-2009, 07:07 AM
we should turn this thread into an imaginary boob thread

Cito Pelon
09-16-2009, 07:10 AM
Actually, the D does look better in most areas. They're not super-duper, bend over biotch great but seem to be stouter against the run, are quicker to the ball-carrier in the open field, are more fundamentally sound taking angles to the ball-carrier and tackling him.

BroncoInferno
09-16-2009, 07:15 AM
Bottom line for me is that this will likely be a work in progress, but I suspect we will be a much better D than last season or what we would have had this season if Bowlen had let Shanny keep Slowik for another year. That is not going out on a limb since last seasons D was all-time bad.

Popps
09-16-2009, 08:15 AM
Definitely a work in progress, but hopefully... we all knew that.

But, the plain fact is that we have better talent out there this year, and likely a better coordinator.

In week one, we looked like a more stout and cohesive than we did in week 16 of last season. So, using the evidence we have at hand (better personnel, decent opening day performance)... one would logically assume that the work in progress is off to a good start.

Again, we caught a break or two. I also think an elite offense would have put more points up. But our D WAS on the field the whole bloody afternoon. Personally, I'm surprised we weren't down by more.

The offense sputtered, but other than that... it was an encouraging start for a team that's undergone massive changes.

SonOfLe-loLang
09-16-2009, 08:23 AM
I'm not saying this D is top 5, but if you honestly don't see vast improvement over last years (judging by both the first game and their performance in the preseason) you are ****ing BLIND. In every facet of the game there's improvement. We haven't given up really any big plays (the catch against goodman in the seattle game aside), the d-line has more than held its own on the run, we actually HAVE a pass rush, we are getting 3 and outs, we've generally just been more aggressive.

Yes, there will be bad days, its of course a work in progress, but my god....did you watch that defense last year? And ye of short memory, our d sucked in the preseason last year too.

Beantown Bronco
09-16-2009, 08:34 AM
And ye of short memory, our d sucked in the preseason last year too.

We actually disproved this myth about 2 weeks ago. The 2008 pre-season unit 1 defense, through the first week of the regular season was actually pretty stellar.

Eldorado
09-16-2009, 08:52 AM
Put this together elsewhere real quick. Thought I'd share here in case someone cares. Really just some quick snap-shot things, nothing too in-depth or meaningful... not that in depth or meaningful exist after 1 game.

The defense was definitely able to take advantage of Cinci's line. Not sure if that's an impressive thing or not yet considering the turmoil on their OL... Cleveland's got a decent OL so I'll be curious to see how Denver's DL and blitzing works against that match-up.

However, when Carson had a sufficient amount of time to throw, it was still pretty damn effective outside of a nice tip by Champ and a good play on the ball deflection by Goodman (which is a play I'd never think he was capable of).

Also, here's some fun facts for those being overly optimistic about the defense right now:

307 yards allowed.
16 first downs allowed.
4.9 yards per play.
5/15 on third down
13 pts (if their special teams weren't having an especially retarded day)

vs.

307 yards allowed
15 first downs allowed.
5.2 yards per play
2/12 on third down
14 pts allowed

----------------

That's this years week 1 defense vs last years week 1 defense, fyi.

Re watched the first half only watching the D.

A few notes:

#56 is better than I thought. At the point of attach he is our best runD OLB. He holds his point, cuts off the edge and funnels the RB inside into the waiting arms of adre or DJ. His pass rush is very, very good. Powerful bullrush and nice quick first step. 2 of cinci's first half long third down conversions were a direct result of Ayers not having the vaguest ****ing clue what he is doing in pass coverage. The first one he tracked a guy too far into champs zone and left his open. On the second one, he had the full back in man and the FB gave a show of hanging in the pocket for protection and thatís when Ayers engaged someone else and let him slip out uncovered. Iíll monitor his progress next week and for the rest of the season, but I really think he has a shot at developing into a complete beast.

The Dline against the run: When they man up against the front three we can hold the point and let out LBís tackle. When they double the NT he can get turned and walled off from the play. That said, they did a solid job. Marcus Thomas looked very strong.

The Dline against the pass: When we rush 4, no pressure. When we rush 5, decent pressure. The nice thing about this D, compared to the 08 version, is we can dial up pressure. DJ and Davis both are proving serviceable at blitzing up the middle and combined with good stunting and with 2 good edge rushers in Doom and Ayers, we can get pressure with 5 without being terribly predictable. Once Ayers figures out his pass coverage, Nolan will be free to bring pressure from any 2 of the 4 backers.

The backers: Haggen and doom are both liabilities against the run but Doom occasionally looked good using his arm length to create space and let him funnel the RB back into the inside and his backside pursuit is very good. Davis looked solid and smart. DJ is still gambling and occasionally takes himself out of plays as a result. It did pay off once, though, on a third and long that cinci had blocked perfectly except for DJ.

Overall they got a little lucky with dropped balls and a few questionable calls against cinci, but it was still a very exciting performance. We need Ayers to figure it out in coverage. We need a nose tackle that can hold point against a double team. The first might happen this year, the second will not.

Interesting stat comparison for 08 & 09 Dís in week 1:

08 ypc 5.0

09 ypc 3.2

Mr. Elway
09-16-2009, 09:30 AM
Re watched the first half only watching the D.

A few notes:

#56 is better than I thought. At the point of attach he is our best runD OLB. He holds his point, cuts off the edge and funnels the RB inside into the waiting arms of adre or DJ. His pass rush is very, very good. Powerful bullrush and nice quick first step. 2 of cinci's first half long third down conversions were a direct result of Ayers not having the vaguest ****ing clue what he is doing in pass coverage. The first one he tracked a guy too far into champs zone and left his open. On the second one, he had the full back in man and the FB gave a show of hanging in the pocket for protection and thatís when Ayers engaged someone else and let him slip out uncovered. Iíll monitor his progress next week and for the rest of the season, but I really think he has a shot at developing into a complete beast.

The Dline against the run: When they man up against the front three we can hold the point and let out LBís tackle. When they double the NT he can get turned and walled off from the play. That said, they did a solid job. Marcus Thomas looked very strong.

The Dline against the pass: When we rush 4, no pressure. When we rush 5, decent pressure. The nice thing about this D, compared to the 08 version, is we can dial up pressure. DJ and Davis both are proving serviceable at blitzing up the middle and combined with good stunting and with 2 good edge rushers in Doom and Ayers, we can get pressure with 5 without being terribly predictable. Once Ayers figures out his pass coverage, Nolan will be free to bring pressure from any 2 of the 4 backers.

The backers: Haggen and doom are both liabilities against the run but Doom occasionally looked good using his arm length to create space and let him funnel the RB back into the inside and his backside pursuit is very good. Davis looked solid and smart. DJ is still gambling and occasionally takes himself out of plays as a result. It did pay off once, though, on a third and long that cinci had blocked perfectly except for DJ.

Overall they got a little lucky with dropped balls and a few questionable calls against cinci, but it was still a very exciting performance. We need Ayers to figure it out in coverage. We need a nose tackle that can hold point against a double team. The first might happen this year, the second will not.

Interesting stat comparison for 08 & 09 Dís in week 1:

08 ypc 5.0

09 ypc 3.2

Nice. Great to hear a positive review on Ayers. We have a lot riding on the success of our first and second round draft this year.

Cool Breeze
09-16-2009, 10:39 AM
I liked how the D could bring pressure when it wanted.
In years past I remember bringing the house and still no pressure.
I realize the Bengal O. line is not the best we'll see - but I'm excited and hope they improve.

gyldenlove
09-16-2009, 10:43 AM
Definitely a work in progress, but hopefully... we all knew that.

But, the plain fact is that we a better coordinator have out there this year, and likely better talent.

In week one, we looked like a more stout and cohesive than we did in week 16 of last season. So, using the evidence we have at hand (better personnel, decent opening day performance)... one would logically assume that the work in progress is off to a good start.

Again, we caught a break or two. I also think an elite offense would have put more points up. But our D WAS on the field the whole bloody afternoon. Personally, I'm surprised we weren't down by more.

The offense sputtered, but other than that... it was an encouraging start for a team that's undergone massive changes.

Fixed that sucker for you

mr007
09-16-2009, 10:50 AM
Just based on game 1, I see a vastly improved defense (even if that's not saying a lot).

One of the biggest things I noticed on Sunday and that had me irate most weekends last year was our tackling. Last year a guy would end up easily breaking 2-3 tackles and get 20-30 yards out of nowhere. This game there were many 1on1 and open field tackles that were consistently broken last year for big gains. It was nice to see that happening. The other thing that was nice is to actually have pressure on the QB and some sacks!!

The other thing is that our offense was putrid. Our D was out on the field a lot longer than it needed to be and it's not because we were giving up big drives.

I don't know if Cinci is really that bad, I honestly thought they would do a lot more on O. Like you said, we'll see at Cleveland if it continues, but I definitely see improvement.

Dagmar
09-16-2009, 10:52 AM
we should turn this thread into an imaginary boob thread

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/219490994_ef29067b90.jpg

Cito Pelon
09-16-2009, 12:28 PM
We actually disproved this myth about 2 weeks ago. The 2008 pre-season unit 1 defense, through the first week of the regular season was actually pretty stellar.

What? Please. What? You're being sarcastic, eh? You can't be serious.

Cito Pelon
09-16-2009, 12:43 PM
Re watched the first half only watching the D.

A few notes:

#56 is better than I thought. At the point of attach he is our best runD OLB. He holds his point, cuts off the edge and funnels the RB inside into the waiting arms of adre or DJ. His pass rush is very, very good. Powerful bullrush and nice quick first step. 2 of cinci's first half long third down conversions were a direct result of Ayers not having the vaguest ****ing clue what he is doing in pass coverage. The first one he tracked a guy too far into champs zone and left his open. On the second one, he had the full back in man and the FB gave a show of hanging in the pocket for protection and thatís when Ayers engaged someone else and let him slip out uncovered. Iíll monitor his progress next week and for the rest of the season, but I really think he has a shot at developing into a complete beast.

The Dline against the run: When they man up against the front three we can hold the point and let out LBís tackle. When they double the NT he can get turned and walled off from the play. That said, they did a solid job. Marcus Thomas looked very strong.

The Dline against the pass: When we rush 4, no pressure. When we rush 5, decent pressure. The nice thing about this D, compared to the 08 version, is we can dial up pressure. DJ and Davis both are proving serviceable at blitzing up the middle and combined with good stunting and with 2 good edge rushers in Doom and Ayers, we can get pressure with 5 without being terribly predictable. Once Ayers figures out his pass coverage, Nolan will be free to bring pressure from any 2 of the 4 backers.

The backers: Haggen and doom are both liabilities against the run but Doom occasionally looked good using his arm length to create space and let him funnel the RB back into the inside and his backside pursuit is very good. Davis looked solid and smart. DJ is still gambling and occasionally takes himself out of plays as a result. It did pay off once, though, on a third and long that cinci had blocked perfectly except for DJ.

Overall they got a little lucky with dropped balls and a few questionable calls against cinci, but it was still a very exciting performance. We need Ayers to figure it out in coverage. We need a nose tackle that can hold point against a double team. The first might happen this year, the second will not.

Interesting stat comparison for 08 & 09 Dís in week 1:

08 ypc 5.0

09 ypc 3.2

That was pretty good assessment.

Beantown Bronco
09-16-2009, 12:51 PM
What? Please. What? You're being sarcastic, eh? You can't be serious.

2008 preseason:

game one - 9 pts given up through 3 quarters, 4 sacks, 278 total net yards allowed

superior in every way to 2009

game two - 7 pts allowed by starters, 2 sacks

superior to 2009

game three - 13 pts allowed in first half, 20 pts through 3 to Green Bay....great offense obviously

game four - starters didn't really play here....but backups looked good only giving up 14 pts to Arizona (both scores came from AZ starters - Pope and Arrington - against our backups)

And game one of the regular season last year - pitched shutout into the 4th quarter, had a bunch of 3 and outs, a fourth down stop, a turnover and the exact same net yards given up as this past Sunday.

So, how am I joking again? They looked VERY good on defense at this time last year and not one person said otherwise.

BroncoMan4ever
09-16-2009, 12:54 PM
13 points?

as long as we're counting imaginary what-if stats, can we also count 3 dropped picks possibly returned for touchdowns? Just sayin...

damn that dropped pick 6 by DJ. it seems like very week he comes so close to having a big play like that but never finishes.

snowspot66
09-16-2009, 01:02 PM
It's only a matter of time until it happens. Keep in mind we got what? Twelve turnovers last year? Most of our guys probably **** their pants out of over excitement when they get an opportunity and then they screw it up. I'm just glad to see we are actually getting opportunities this year. Last year we never even had shots at picks or fumbles.

BigPlayShay
09-16-2009, 01:08 PM
I remember Jamarcus overthrowing a receiver on a long pass. Probably would have been a TD. By Rev's logic we need to add 7 points to the 08 stats.

Tombstone RJ
09-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Put this together elsewhere real quick. Thought I'd share here in case someone cares. Really just some quick snap-shot things, nothing too in-depth or meaningful... not that in depth or meaningful exist after 1 game.

The defense was definitely able to take advantage of Cinci's line. Not sure if that's an impressive thing or not yet considering the turmoil on their OL... Cleveland's got a decent OL so I'll be curious to see how Denver's DL and blitzing works against that match-up.

However, when Carson had a sufficient amount of time to throw, it was still pretty damn effective outside of a nice tip by Champ and a good play on the ball deflection by Goodman (which is a play I'd never think he was capable of).

Also, here's some fun facts for those being overly optimistic about the defense right now:

307 yards allowed.
16 first downs allowed.
4.9 yards per play.
5/15 on third down
13 pts (if their special teams weren't having an especially retarded day)

vs.

307 yards allowed
15 first downs allowed.
5.2 yards per play
2/12 on third down
14 pts allowed

----------------

That's this years week 1 defense vs last years week 1 defense, fyi.


Wow, very interesting...

TonyR
09-16-2009, 01:41 PM
I remember Jamarcus overthrowing a receiver on a long pass. Probably would have been a TD.

I remember that to for some reason. Wide open across the middle and he just missed him.

chrisp
09-16-2009, 02:36 PM
I think that the biggest difference between this year's defense and last year's was that this year's seemed able to cope with the offense misfiring frequently and still keep us in the game. Last year's defense NEVER did that.

If you want to compare games, find one last year where the offense did something like this:

Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Touchdown

....and see how last year's defense coped with that.

bronco0608
09-16-2009, 02:57 PM
I just nutted all over this thread. Rev, get a life, kid.

Your dumbass is trying to find what we did wrong when we gave up 7 points.

You live a pathetic life. Seriously. Go out, pick up some women, **** em, have a good time. Why waste your idiotic brain on some stupid **** like this?

And remember, in your world, the 30th ranked defense is "solid"

colonelbeef
09-16-2009, 02:58 PM
I just nutted all over this thread. Rev, get a life, kid.

Your dumbass is trying to find what we did wrong when we gave up 7 points.

You live a pathetic life. Seriously. Go out, pick up some women, **** em, have a good time. Why waste your idiotic brain on some stupid **** like this?

And remember, in your world, the 30th ranked defense is "solid"

And in your world, making concrete proclamations after 1 game is a valid way to make determinations.

bronco0608
09-16-2009, 03:01 PM
And in your world, making concrete proclamations after 1 game is a valid way to make determinations.

Do you ever get tired of blowing Rev? Just asking. Grow some.

errand
09-16-2009, 03:17 PM
I remember when you used to talk football.

Look don't come in here with your woulda, shoulda, coulda stuff and not expect people to tear it down. Everyone plays better or worse when you add-on or take away from what actually happened.

Reminds me of TJ's Colts playoff game scenario where we scored on practically every possesion in his bizarro world and outscored the Colts. Or Freak6 and his adding and taking away from Cutler's stats to make him look like he's the next Dan Marino.

errand
09-16-2009, 03:19 PM
Very possible. I was pretty drunk. I thought they shanked one also?

I have a freakin question for you, was that adjective really necessary?

you call someone retarded, and yet you're bitching about someone using the word freaking?

Popps
09-16-2009, 03:19 PM
And in your world, making concrete proclamations after 1 game is a valid way to make determinations.

Yea, remember, folks... the new Orange Mane Widow's Oath...

It IS O.K. to bash this year's team without seeing them perform for any reasonable length of time.

It is NOT O.K. to have expected more than 1 playoff win in ten years, nor to complain about 3 years of god-awful defense and marginal offensive output.


Got it. :thumbsup:




You have to love these sad-sack widows now coming in here saying it's too early to make any judgments, when they spent the entire off-season telling us the Broncos were ****, and the club was set back 50 years.

Fuggin' hysterical. They're all clear to make definitive statements with NO evidence, yet there's no optimism allowed, even with SOME evidence.

Calling us sh#t with no evidence: Good.

Saying we may have improved WITH some evidence: Bad.


Everyone got it?

tsiguy96
09-16-2009, 03:23 PM
damn that dropped pick 6 by DJ. it seems like very week he comes so close to having a big play like that but never finishes.

for sure, and often times its more than one time per game. hell meet a guy 5 yards in teh backfield and miss the tackle.

Ironlung
09-16-2009, 03:56 PM
Yea, remember, folks... the new Orange Mane Widow's Oath...

It IS O.K. to bash this year's team without seeing them perform for any reasonable length of time.

It is NOT O.K. to have expected more than 1 playoff win in ten years, nor to complain about 3 years of god-awful defense and marginal offensive output.


Got it. :thumbsup:




You have to love these sad-sack widows now coming in here saying it's too early to make any judgments, when they spent the entire off-season telling us the Broncos were ****, and the club was set back 50 years.

Fuggin' hysterical. They're all clear to make definitive statements with NO evidence, yet there's no optimism allowed, even with SOME evidence.

Calling us sh#t with no evidence: Good.

Saying we may have improved WITH some evidence: Bad.


Everyone got it?

Ha!:notworthy

BroncoBuff
09-16-2009, 10:13 PM
Yea, remember, folks... the new Orange Mane Widow's Oath...

It IS O.K. to bash this year's team without seeing them perform for any reasonable length of time.

It is NOT O.K. to have expected more than 1 playoff win in ten years, nor to complain about 3 years of god-awful defense and marginal offensive output.


Got it. :thumbsup:




You have to love these sad-sack widows now coming in here saying it's too early to make any judgments, when they spent the entire off-season telling us the Broncos were ****, and the club was set back 50 years.

Fuggin' hysterical. They're all clear to make definitive statements with NO evidence, yet there's no optimism allowed, even with SOME evidence.

Calling us sh#t with no evidence: Good.

Saying we may have improved WITH some evidence: Bad.


Everyone got it?

You are so obsessed with what others think, why? Why so insecure you have to attack other's views? Constantly?

Defense looked great for a good part of the game, but ever hear the saying, "the defense played just good enough to get you beat"? That's what happened.

BroncoBuff
09-16-2009, 10:20 PM
Perfect baseball analogy: Let's say the starting pitcher goes 8 scoreless innings ... but the closer gives up three runs to lose the game in the ninth.

Would you say your teams' "pitching was great"? Or would you say, the starter was great, but the closer ruined the game?

I realize we're all excited the defense is so much better than it was the last couple years, but when you're up 6-0 on the road, 5 minutes to play, and their offense is buried inside its own 10 yard line? You gotta close the deal, you gotta put your boot on their throat. THAT'S when we needed a sack. So scream at me if you must, again, but you gotta play all four quarters.

R8R H8R
09-16-2009, 11:20 PM
Perfect baseball analogy: Let's say the starting pitcher goes 8 scoreless innings ... but the closer gives up three runs to lose the game in the ninth.

Would you say your teams' "pitching was great"? Or would you say, the starter was great, but the closer ruined the game?

I realize we're all excited the defense is so much better than it was the last couple years, but when you're up 6-0 on the road, 5 minutes to play, and their offense is buried inside its own 10 yard line? You gotta close the deal, you gotta put your boot on their throat. THAT'S when we needed a sack. So scream at me if you must, again, but you gotta play all four quarters.

I don't disagree with a word of that. I hate to speak for others, but I suspect most of us don't either.

But just the fact that we held them to 6 pts. for 58 mins. in their backyard with an inept offensive showing, that I think we are all having high hopes for what this defense could possibly be.

And just maybe, later down the road against a better team, just maybe-we do get that killer instinct.

Popps
09-17-2009, 12:44 AM
And just maybe, later down the road against a better team, just maybe-we do get that killer instinct.

Well, the reality is... 7 points is 7 points. If they came in the first minute or the game or the last... if you lose when you only allowed 7 points, it's the offense's fault, plain and simple. No if's ands or buts.

You can't repeatedly give an NFL team chance after chance to score, and expect to be able to blank them every single time for an entire game. There's a reason shutouts are almost nonexistent these days. (Yes, there was one in week 1.)

Our defense had a nice start, the offense didn't. People shouldn't be looking to complicate this.

Defense: Encouraging

Offense: Certainly caught some bad breaks, but definitely needs to gel and move the ball more regularly.

Broncos4Life
09-17-2009, 01:07 AM
Well, the reality is... 7 points is 7 points. If they came in the first minute or the game or the last... if you lose when you only allowed 7 points, it's the offense's fault, plain and simple. No if's ands or buts.

You can't repeatedly give an NFL team chance after chance to score, and expect to be able to blank them every single time for an entire game. There's a reason shutouts are almost nonexistent these days. (Yes, there was one in week 1.)

Our defense had a nice start, the offense didn't. People shouldn't be looking to complicate this.

Defense: Encouraging

Offense: Certainly caught some bad breaks, but definitely needs to gel and move the ball more regularly.

Yeah.:strong:

Cito Pelon
09-17-2009, 02:47 AM
I think that the biggest difference between this year's defense and last year's was that this year's seemed able to cope with the offense misfiring frequently and still keep us in the game. Last year's defense NEVER did that.

If you want to compare games, find one last year where the offense did something like this:

Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Touchdown

....and see how last year's defense coped with that.

That's a very good point.

Cito Pelon
09-17-2009, 03:38 AM
Perfect baseball analogy: Let's say the starting pitcher goes 8 scoreless innings ... but the closer gives up three runs to lose the game in the ninth.

Would you say your teams' "pitching was great"? Or would you say, the starter was great, but the closer ruined the game?

I realize we're all excited the defense is so much better than it was the last couple years, but when you're up 6-0 on the road, 5 minutes to play, and their offense is buried inside its own 10 yard line? You gotta close the deal, you gotta put your boot on their throat. THAT'S when we needed a sack. So scream at me if you must, again, but you gotta play all four quarters.

90% of the time a D will go soft in that situation. Let the O make a mistake, don't get too aggressive and make a mistake yourself.

For instance, look what happened to Cincy when the defender peeled off of Stokley on the 87-ydr. The guy got too aggressive, went for the INT and left Stokley all alone behind every player on the D.

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2009, 06:29 AM
I think that the biggest difference between this year's defense and last year's was that this year's seemed able to cope with the offense misfiring frequently and still keep us in the game. Last year's defense NEVER did that.

If you want to compare games, find one last year where the offense did something like this:

Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Punt
Field Goal
Punt
Touchdown

....and see how last year's defense coped with that.

Tampa Bay game was close. Only 4 scoring drives for the offense (one extra field goal over this past game).

oubronco
09-17-2009, 07:13 AM
Yea, remember, folks... the new Orange Mane Widow's Oath...

It IS O.K. to bash this year's team without seeing them perform for any reasonable length of time.

It is NOT O.K. to have expected more than 1 playoff win in ten years, nor to complain about 3 years of god-awful defense and marginal offensive output.


Got it. :thumbsup:




You have to love these sad-sack widows now coming in here saying it's too early to make any judgments, when they spent the entire off-season telling us the Broncos were ****, and the club was set back 50 years.

Fuggin' hysterical. They're all clear to make definitive statements with NO evidence, yet there's no optimism allowed, even with SOME evidence.

Calling us sh#t with no evidence: Good.

Saying we may have improved WITH some evidence: Bad.


Everyone got it?

Child Please :~ohyah!:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
09-17-2009, 07:47 AM
Tampa Bay game was close. Only 4 scoring drives for the offense (one extra field goal over this past game).

That's because Tampa's offense stunk. You can't say that about the Bengals.

This may be the first time since the beginning of 06' that we held an opponent under 10 points. Does anyone know?

Beantown Bronco
09-17-2009, 07:52 AM
That's because Tampa's offense stunk. You can't say that about the Bengals.


I already disproved this myth. Tampa's offense was ranked 14th in the league last year. Are the Bengals REALLY going to be ranked much (or any) higher than that this year? I would bet against it.

chrisp
09-18-2009, 09:36 AM
I already disproved this myth. Tampa's offense was ranked 14th in the league last year. Are the Bengals REALLY going to be ranked much (or any) higher than that this year? I would bet against it.

You make a good point - cincy have a Qb and a reciever that the Bucs would kill for, but not much more than that, so I don't buy the fact that the Buc offense was way worse than the cincy O, but the Broncos offensive performance in both games was night and day.

against the bucs we had 17 first downs and a 3rd-down percentage of 40%. were were almost level with the BUCs in time of posession. We only had 3 three-and-outs and NONE of them were consecutive. THIS defense stood up to FOUR consecutive three-and outs by the offense and still didn't concede a point.

But it is still true that this is only ONE good defensive performance - they will need to string a few together before we can start to rest assured that the last two years' defensive nightmare is in any way beginning to be behind us