PDA

View Full Version : Why are the Broncos plunging?


bloodsunday
01-02-2010, 05:24 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_14081886

Ordinarily, such precipitous declines are the result of injuries. But aside from right tackle Ryan Harris, the Broncos remained relatively healthy. The ankle injury to quarterback Kyle Orton perhaps cost the Broncos the Washington game.

But other playoff teams have overcome their share of injuries. Which leaves three other explanations for the second-half swoon: One, as everyone suggested, the schedule was too rugged to expect the Broncos to hold up over 16 games. They held up for a while, but the schedule was merciless.

Two, the Broncos greatly overachieved during their 6-0 start, which in turn built false expectations.

Three, there's something in the Mile High air that caused the Broncos to gag three of the past four seasons.

Poll to come.

frerottenextelway
01-02-2010, 05:26 PM
The John Elway Curse.

bloodsunday
01-02-2010, 05:31 PM
It's interesting and tough to know whether this season is in fact different than the Mike Shanahan era.

I would have to vote option 1 & 2. The schedule was merciless this year. The NFL is that way every year, but the NFC East and NFC North are two the best top-to-bottom divisions in the NFL. It also seems apparent to me that once teams figure us out, we cannot line up and out-play them.

A four year run of losing late in the season suggests to me that we that we have an inferior roster. We have a roster of players that cannot line up and out-execute the opponent. We are lacking true difference makers at several key positions. At some point the NFL comes down to converting a 3 and 2 with a dive play EVEN WHEN your opponent knows its coming. It will take a couple of years before this roster comes around.

Hogan11
01-02-2010, 05:32 PM
Both one and two. The schedule was brutal and they overachieved early.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, you have to be pleased by the fact they didn't end up 6-10 or 3-13 as many predicted.

gyldenlove
01-02-2010, 05:32 PM
We overachieved in going 6-0, we got all the margins, all the tip balls and we were not being penalized.

Also, during that time nobody knew what we were doing, our defense was brand new and our offense was brand new. No team could prepare a good game plan against us since they didn't know what to expect, since the bye week when Baltimore was the first team to come up with a good plan to stop us, we have faced teams who have seen how to expose our weaknesses and isolate our strengths and we haven't gotten the 50/50 shots as much as we did early, we are taking more penalties, making more mistakes and it is showing.

Against both the Cowboys, Patriots and Bengals we won at the last second, but against the Raiders we came up just short, against the Eagles we came up short, against the Redskins we came up short. Those were alle winnable games and games we were in, but failed to win, even the Colts game was close enough that we could have taken it if we were a bit better and a bit luckier.

Archer81
01-02-2010, 05:33 PM
I dont think it helped that in the middle of the season we played 3 teams in a row coming off a bye week, giving them an extra week to work on what this team does.

:Broncos:

Mr.Meanie
01-02-2010, 05:43 PM
We overachieved in going 6-0, we got all the margins, all the tip balls and we were not being penalized.

Also, during that time nobody knew what we were doing, our defense was brand new and our offense was brand new. No team could prepare a good game plan against us since they didn't know what to expect, since the bye week when Baltimore was the first team to come up with a good plan to stop us, we have faced teams who have seen how to expose our weaknesses and isolate our strengths and we haven't gotten the 50/50 shots as much as we did early, we are taking more penalties, making more mistakes and it is showing.

Against both the Cowboys, Patriots and Bengals we won at the last second, but against the Raiders we came up just short, against the Eagles we came up short, against the Redskins we came up short. Those were alle winnable games and games we were in, but failed to win, even the Colts game was close enough that we could have taken it if we were a bit better and a bit luckier.

This pretty much nails it.

Popps
01-02-2010, 05:54 PM
Both one and two. The schedule was brutal and they overachieved early.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, you have to be pleased by the fact they didn't end up 6-10 or 3-13 as many predicted.

Add two games without our starting QB... and a rough patch in the schedule.

This year's troubles are much different than last year's.

We had a chance to beat Philly in the final minutes.

Last year against a playoff caliber team, we lost 52-21.

But, expectations got silly after a borderline miracle start.

Popps
01-02-2010, 05:56 PM
I dont think it helped that in the middle of the season we played 3 teams in a row coming off a bye week, giving them an extra week to work on what this team does.

:Broncos:

We caught Baltimore and Pittsburgh at the worst possible times, imo.

The one game you can point to and say that was a disaster was the Oakland game, and people should know by now that weird **** happens against AFC West teams. Even during the SB runs.... it was never a given.

We're playing hard-fought, tight games and showing improvement.

It sucks, but honestly... this is better than I could have hoped for to start the season. Extremely optimistic about things going forward.

Borks147
01-02-2010, 05:57 PM
But, expectations got silly after a borderline miracle start.

I was expecting 11-5 during the bye - too bad Orton got hurt against the skins and we choked against the Raiders, otherwise we'd be there most likely.

DenverBrit
01-02-2010, 05:57 PM
They have been 'plunging' each year....especially last year and this.

It will take time to re-tool the roster.....one off-season isn't enough to change the character of the team.

As to why? Who knows.....not enough 'play-makers'?

TheDave
01-02-2010, 06:01 PM
We got every lucky bounce possible during the first 6 games... Unfortunately, the 6-0 start built rediculous expectations. This team was a sub .500 club that caught fire early and then proceeded to fall back to earth during the most brutal schedule I've ever seen.

bloodsunday
01-02-2010, 06:43 PM
It would be ideal if those voting "other" would care to explain.

frerottenextelway
01-02-2010, 06:49 PM
It would be ideal if those voting "other" would care to explain.

See post #2. :clown:

HEAV
01-02-2010, 07:12 PM
Both one and two. The schedule was brutal and they overachieved early.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, you have to be pleased by the fact they didn't end up 6-10 or 3-13 as many predicted.

:strong:

broncosteven
01-02-2010, 07:18 PM
I dont think it helped that in the middle of the season we played 3 teams in a row coming off a bye week, giving them an extra week to work on what this team does.

:Broncos:

We started the 1st losing streak after our Bye, why didn't we have the same advantage as the teams that were sucessful after their byes?

McDaniels had an extra week to prep for Baltimore and they had the worst performance of their early season. Following that up with getting ass kicked at home (or was it, too many Steeler fans at the game to be sure) by a weak Steeler team, then an injury excuse game we were winning at Washington followed by a true blowout at home by SD.

Beating 2 week teams who backed up the Uhaul by the time we played them then going down 21 points before our 1st first down (maybe it was only 14 but we were down 21-0 early) in Indy losing by 12, then a choke of Epic porportions losing at Home to Oakland and then the 2nd close loss of the season to Philly doesn't show me that this team is getting better. They might not be losing as bad as they did during the 1st losing streak but that does not mean they are better.

Taco John
01-02-2010, 07:22 PM
I think coaching really fell off after the other teams started to get film on us. During that 6-0 run, I was very impressed with the way the games were being called. It looked creative and masterful. After the bye week, I can't remember a single game where I thought the playcalling was great. We had good moments, to be sure. But we seemed to dig ourselves into holes with some puzzing, and sometimes very unimaginative play calling.

broncosteven
01-02-2010, 07:24 PM
I think coaching really fell off after the other teams started to get film on us. During that 6-0 run, I was very impressed with the way the games were being called. It looked creative and masterful. After the bye week, I can't remember a single game where I thought the playcalling was great. We had good moments, to be sure. But we seemed to dig ourselves into holes with some puzzing, and sometimes very unimaginative play calling.

I still think McDaniels won his SB after the NE game and the SD win was his high point. It sure seemed to me that someone turned off the lights at Dove Valley for a week during the Bye and they couldn't get them back on for 4 more weeks.

Cito Pelon
01-02-2010, 08:22 PM
Played too many good teams and couldn't "plunge" it into the endzone for 6.

Hulamau
01-02-2010, 11:21 PM
We overachieved in going 6-0, we got all the margins, all the tip balls and we were not being penalized.

Also, during that time nobody knew what we were doing, our defense was brand new and our offense was brand new. No team could prepare a good game plan against us since they didn't know what to expect, since the bye week when Baltimore was the first team to come up with a good plan to stop us, we have faced teams who have seen how to expose our weaknesses and isolate our strengths and we haven't gotten the 50/50 shots as much as we did early, we are taking more penalties, making more mistakes and it is showing.

Against both the Cowboys, Patriots and Bengals we won at the last second, but against the Raiders we came up just short, against the Eagles we came up short, against the Redskins we came up short. Those were alle winnable games and games we were in, but failed to win, even the Colts game was close enough that we could have taken it if we were a bit better and a bit luckier.

True enough Gylden, and that's a far cry from getting shellacked by 52 points at the end like last year! We are still a number of players short of a dozen and dont have much quality depth on either line yet.

Josh /Nolan made the most orange juice out of some turnips they could, particularly early on before opposing teams had time to digest the ins and outs of what we could and couldn't do well.

Plus, the brutal schedule DEFINITELY took a physical toll on the team. Having to get it up for top rugged contenders week after week after week after week without a few gimmes thrown in for good measure is tough on any team. Still, with a couple of exceptions they played most every game close.

The last 9 weeks or so was very frustrating for the most part, not being able to convert some key third downs and not being able to stop a few even more key third downs on defense at the end of games. That's a reflection of not enough solid players and not enough time together as a team/system. Plus, far too many very untimely penalties that really killed us the last few weeks, particularly on the offense line..

That's what having a few too many journeymen on the o-line and defense will do for you. A few questionable coaching decisions as well and some piss poor punting at the worst time.

But looking beyond just the surface record of 9-7 or 8-8, this team is better overall in their effort and moxie than the team of the last couple years. And considering the level of the opponents we played, if last years team have played this same schedule this year we would have had half a dozen or more 45 point laugher losses on our hands and been VERY lucky to have eked out a 6-10 record!

Taking into account all the huge changes in the offseason on top of that and its a real accomplishment that we have a chance to play for a winning record and an outside shot at the playoffs on the last game.

Nevertheless the incredible Cinderella start and the very close road games against teams like the Colts and Eagles as well as the real heart breaker against the Raiders at home, made it all feel a lot more frustrating than it should with a little distance and a more balanced view of how this all played out in detail.

A foundation has been set for better things to come and that is real progress anyway you slice it.

Even Shanny is likely going to come out ahead. Even by his own admission after the fact that he had gotten a bit stale and out of touch. He needed a break to recharge as well. Smartest decision SHanny made was not jumping right back into coaching this year... even though having Bowlen still paying him 7 Mil to play golf made that a no-brainer.

Hulamau
01-02-2010, 11:39 PM
I still think McDaniels won his SB after the NE game and the SD win was his high point. It sure seemed to me that someone turned off the lights at Dove Valley for a week during the Bye and they couldn't get them back on for 4 more weeks.

That's true too BSteven, I think that is a learning curve deal for Josh as well. Letting the whole team off for 6 days where a lot of these guys were not use to what it takes to win consistently and they flew home to home cookin' and hearing all the accolades and taking to heart a bit too much all the miracle stories on ESPN etc, they lost some focus for sure.

But it was also bad timing for us to have to play a desperate Ravens team who had lost three close games in a row, and had to play at their house , They too were coming out of a bye and had two weeks and six games of tape on us at that point to figure out our weaknesses.

The Steelers were on a role then and had all their weapons (Polumolu) to copy the Ravens success and the next two games we got to see just how valuable Orton was ... and how atrocious Simms is ....

Since then, though, we played better again, sans the Raider game, but the season took its toll and the magic dust was in short supply.

TomServo
01-03-2010, 01:32 AM
lesse, during our 6-0 run. First game Fluke. tom brady missed 3 easy td's, cowboy game Marshall beat the entire Dallas D on one play and Romo F'D it up in the redzone. this team got lucky the first 6 games and fell back HARD.
lets say we went 2-7 the first nine games and went 6-0 the last.
THATS Progress? we went backwards.
we got worse. just like our #1 pick.
O yay we went 8- 8 or 9 -7 winning one or two of our last 10 games yay

DBroncos4life
01-03-2010, 02:54 AM
I think losing in football is like alcohol in the real world. It makes you say things you want to say without thinking about the repercussions. Anyone that thinks the locker room doesn't have people picking sides doesn't understand human nature.

watermock
01-03-2010, 05:27 AM
Our coach is a moron.

Got that on your list?

Steve Prefontaine
01-03-2010, 06:25 AM
Great question. They probably should check into a clog farther down the line. Snaking it would have worked out better.

rastaman
01-03-2010, 07:02 AM
We overachieved in going 6-0, we got all the margins, all the tip balls and we were not being penalized.

Also, during that time nobody knew what we were doing, our defense was brand new and our offense was brand new. No team could prepare a good game plan against us since they didn't know what to expect, since the bye week when Baltimore was the first team to come up with a good plan to stop us, we have faced teams who have seen how to expose our weaknesses and isolate our strengths and we haven't gotten the 50/50 shots as much as we did early, we are taking more penalties, making more mistakes and it is showing.

Against both the Cowboys, Patriots and Bengals we won at the last second, but against the Raiders we came up just short, against the Eagles we came up short, against the Redskins we came up short. Those were alle winnable games and games we were in, but failed to win, even the Colts game was close enough that we could have taken it if we were a bit better and a bit luckier.

Thats it in a nut shell.

Bronco Warrior
01-03-2010, 11:22 AM
Predictable Conservative offensive playcalling and a Mediocer skillset at QB. There should be an option for thios one!

bombay
01-03-2010, 11:25 AM
Because they're a pretty average team that got on a roll early?

Bronco Bob
01-03-2010, 11:28 AM
They might not be losing as bad as they did during the 1st losing streak but that does not mean they are better.

Actually it does mean that.

bloodsunday
01-03-2010, 12:42 PM
I think coaching really fell off after the other teams started to get film on us. During that 6-0 run, I was very impressed with the way the games were being called. It looked creative and masterful. After the bye week, I can't remember a single game where I thought the playcalling was great. We had good moments, to be sure. But we seemed to dig ourselves into holes with some puzzing, and sometimes very unimaginative play calling.

I just don't buy this argument. Game planning is a pivotal part of the NFL to a point. That said, eventually you just have to "do what you do" and do it better than the opponent. In fact, I think this is exactly the problem this organization (not coach Shanahan or coach McDaniels individually) faces. It is easier to out-scheme your opponents early in the season, particularly when you are facing a division opponent for the first time and when you have new schemes. At some point teams identify your weaknesses and you have to be able to overcome them. In fact, I think this is team is losing more because it cannot execute the simple plays -- converting 3rd or 4th and short. This was a strength of the team with TD, using basic man-up football.

We had an identity with the ZBS for 13 years. It worked VERY WELL with Terrell Davis and a HoF OL. It worked pretty well thereafter. (It didn't work well enough in the redzone IMO.) More importantly, we never settled on a scheme or and identity on defense under Shanahan.

How many years have the Pittsburgh Steelers been running their scheme under LeBeau? They don't change things dramatically week to week. They just have players that execute that system better than their opponent can stop it. The idea that a brand new game plan is the answer to winning every week in the NFL is very overrated IMO.

bloodsunday
01-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Predictable Conservative offensive playcalling and a Mediocer skillset at QB. There should be an option for thios one!

That is very single-minded thinking. Why is the play calling conservative? What is the REAL evidence that Orton is "mediocre"? They guy wins NFL games. He has a 89.3 QB rating, 2 - 1 TD to INT ratio, and completes 63% of his passes. You can win with that.

Is it possible that B-Marsh running a 4.6 40 yard dash has something to do with our ability to stretch the field?

TDmvp
01-03-2010, 12:49 PM
That is very single-minded thinking. Why is the play calling conservative? What is the REAL evidence that Orton is "mediocre"? They guy wins NFL games. He has a 89.3 QB rating, 2 - 1 TD to INT ratio, and completes 63% of his passes. You can win with that.

Is it possible that B-Marsh running a 4.6 40 yard dash has something to do with our ability to stretch the field?

B Marsh is not our deep threat ... Duh .... Eddie Royal stretches the field ...
Try to keep up ...

Bronco Warrior
01-03-2010, 12:56 PM
That is very single-minded thinking. Why is the play calling conservative? What is the REAL evidence that Orton is "mediocre"? They guy wins NFL games. He has a 89.3 QB rating, 2 - 1 TD to INT ratio, and completes 63% of his passes. You can win with that.

Is it possible that B-Marsh running a 4.6 40 yard dash has something to do with our ability to stretch the field?

Actually Marshall ran a sub 4.55 40 and at 6'4 and 235 that is blazing speed! and the guy can out muscle and out jump any DB in the game. What can't happen is Orton throw a pass longer than 25 yards and hit the broad side of a barn as the saying goes ;)! And my Mom could throw 63% of her 5 yard passes to the best Rec. core in the game; Marshall, Sheffler, Stokelt and Royal! Orton is a Scrub and either McDaniels knows it and sticks with him anyway OR McDaniels is too proud or too stupid to open up the gameplan and make defenders play honest and defend the whole field?! We were 12th in the league in rushing last year with scrubs Rookie FBs, over the hill guys like pittman and a cell phone salesman from Aurora...why? Cause they had to respect the bombs Cutler could throw to Scheffler, Royal and even "The Beast"...watch how many times both Sheff and BMarsh got deep last year then come back and apologize ;)

Bronco Warrior
01-03-2010, 12:59 PM
B Marsh is not our deep threat ... Duh .... Eddie Royal stretches the field ...
Try to keep up ...

He is a deadly deep threat but how many times did we go deep to him this year? Did Royal, Sheff and Marshall all of a sudden get slow and stupid and can't get deep or was it the lack opf the QB's ability to get them the ball! Marshall and Sheff are/were masters of the double move to get open deep especially on a hitch and go or a deep seam route. Sheff runs a sub 4.5 and is 6'5 and 255..what LB or DB can handle than guy?

bloodsunday
01-03-2010, 01:01 PM
Actually Marshall ran a sub 4.55 40 and at 6'4 and 235 that is blazing speed! and the guy can out muscle and out jump any DB in the game. What can't happen is Orton throw a pass longer than 25 yards and hit the broad side of a barn as the saying goes ;)! And my Mom could throw 63% of her 5 yard passes to the best Rec. core in the game; Marshall, Sheffler, Stokelt and Royal! Orton is a Scrub and either McDaniels knows it and sticks with him anyway OR McDaniels is too proud or too stupid to open up the gameplan and make defenders play honest and defend the whole field?! We were 12th in the league in rushing last year with scrubs Rookie FBs, over the hill guys like pittman and a cell phone salesman from Aurora...why? Cause they had to respect the bombs Cutler could throw to Scheffler, Royal and even "The Beast"...watch how many times both Sheff and BMarsh got deep last year then come back and apologize ;)

Come on man, wake up and smell the what you are shoveling :)

B-marsh has had his YPC drop EVERY year in the NFL and 3 of those 4 years were with wonder boy Cutler at the helm. The only year they were really any where near deep threat status was his rookie year when he only caught 20 balls. And even that season if you take away a busted play against Seattle for 71 yards, his longest catch was only 36 yards. Last year he had only 1 catch over 40 yards all year with Cutler at the helm and team that had to throw a lot.

Yeah he's fast for a man his size. But that doesn't change the fact that he is more like Wes Welker than Randy Moss in our offense. We don't have a Randy Moss.