The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion > OrangeMane.com Podcast
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-01-2011, 09:32 PM   #1
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
All Hail King Midas

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,535

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default OrangeMane Podcast - Episode 11 - vs. Detroit

Download Episode 11 - Week 8 vs. Detroit
(right click - save as)



http://k003.kiwi6.com/hotlink/id807e...podcast_11.mp3
Taco John is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 11-01-2011, 09:34 PM   #2
Dagmar
...there ain't no devil
 
Dagmar's Avatar
 
..there's just God when he's drunk.

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Morrison
Posts: 16,755

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

Dagmar is offline  
Old 11-01-2011, 09:45 PM   #3
TDmvp
Ring of Famer
 
TDmvp's Avatar
 
This ones for Pat...

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,417
Default

TDmvp is offline  
Old 11-01-2011, 10:15 PM   #4
TDmvp
Ring of Famer
 
TDmvp's Avatar
 
This ones for Pat...

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,417
Default

15:00 mark ...

Yea I totally couldn't understand the lack of screens. I won't bash the overall play calling because who knows why they call what they call at this point and I'm sure others will...

But the screens... I always thought you almost would start running them out of necessity at some point in games where your line/protections are getting killed. I mean sure you call them at your own leisure as well but all my life when teams are getting smoked up front on O you always hear the guys in the booth talk about the team needing to call some screens to HELP out their line.

It's like whoever calls the plays for us refuses to adapt to what is happening on the field.
A little Mike Martzish in ways. A little to much I'm CALLING THIS !!!! and I don't care what I've seen all game or what has worked and hasn't.

It's like they don't even understand paper, rock, scissors sometimes...
TDmvp is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 03:29 AM   #5
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,042
Default

For sure the protection schemes and match ups on Defense befuddle me. The lack of any max protection on the other side of the ball I bet supervised everyone as well. I know it did me. I expected screen city out there this week.

At this point all I can come up with is we are still in FULL evaluation mode. We're still not really game planning at all IMO at this point in time. It's like back in High School when the coach would call out the plays to the Defense to really see who could beat who one on one match ups.

It's trial by fire, sink or swim for many players right now. Who said we were going to have abbreviated training camps & no OTA's this year? Fox obviously didn't get that memo because we're still in ours! Will the season ever really start for us this year? Who the hell knows.

No help, no masking, no scheming. Just beat your guy one on one or pack your bags in January.

We're stuck in perpetual preseason mode. I just hope that it's all worth it in the end. That we can really nail down what moves are needed in the off season and the FO is willing to do it.

Some may view it as setting players up to fail. And in a real sense... it is. But for evaluation purposes not some twisted machiavellian conspiracy. I get it.... but it's damn frustrating to watch knowing everyone else is playing football while we're still practicing....
Bronco Yoda is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 07:55 AM   #6
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

This was a fun for me due to such a broad range of topics.
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 07:56 AM   #7
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

PS. TJ battled through the flu to bring this to you fruits so you better listen and thank him.
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 08:01 AM   #8
TheDave
Sauced...
 
TheDave's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,000
Default

As always good job folks...

One thing i do not understand... why are people calling for screens?

With man coverage, 8 in the box and a spy on Tebow, i don't see how a screen would have been successful. Unless of course we were looking to set up some 3rd and 12's.
TheDave is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 08:05 AM   #9
jhns
Ring of Famer
 
but you still can't C me!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 12,362

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
As always good job folks...

One thing i do not understand... why are people calling for screens?

With man coverage, 8 in the box and a spy on Tebow, i don't see how a screen would have been successful. Unless of course we were looking to set up some 3rd and 12's.
They brought 6+ guys a lot. That is exactly what a screen is meant to counter. They didn't play a spy alk the time. You are asking a question and acting like they ran the same play all game. That is just not a good argument. In fact, it is an extremely lazy and irrational argument.
jhns is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 08:13 AM   #10
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
As always good job folks...

One thing i do not understand... why are people calling for screens?

With man coverage, 8 in the box and a spy on Tebow, i don't see how a screen would have been successful. Unless of course we were looking to set up some 3rd and 12's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhns View Post
They brought 6+ guys a lot. That is exactly what a screen is meant to counter. They didn't play a spy alk the time. You are asking a question and acting like they ran the same play all game. That is just not a good argument. In fact, it is an extremely lazy and irrational argument.
^ Actually that

To emphasize the point. If you look back on his seven sacks and just stop the frame a second into the play, you're usually counting 7 Lions vs 5 Broncos :/ And TWO of those Broncos are Franklin and Beadles so it's more like 7 v 3. I think there was only one sack play with 5 of less rushers and off-hand I believe it was one of the Avril plays.

The "8 in the box stopping the run" is just a fallacy and our rushing total with Moreno and Lance Ball proves it.
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 08:14 AM   #11
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
As always good job folks...

One thing i do not understand... why are people calling for screens?

With man coverage, 8 in the box and a spy on Tebow, i don't see how a screen would have been successful. Unless of course we were looking to set up some 3rd and 12's.
I remember at least one screen that was called and Detroit sniffed it out. Tebow had to throw it in the dirt. Someone (Beadles, I believe) was flagged for blocking downfield. Just because the opponent is blitzing a lot does not mean a screen is going to work if the blitzers properly diagnose the play.
BroncoInferno is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 08:18 AM   #12
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
I remember at least one screen that was called and Detroit sniffed it out. Tebow had to throw it in the dirt. Someone (Beadles, I believe) was flagged for blocking downfield. Just because the opponent is blitzing a lot does not mean a screen is going to work if the blitzers properly diagnose the play.
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 08:25 AM   #13
TheDave
Sauced...
 
TheDave's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
^ Actually that

To emphasize the point. If you look back on his seven sacks and just stop the frame a second into the play, you're usually counting 7 Lions vs 5 Broncos :/ And TWO of those Broncos are Franklin and Beadles so it's more like 7 v 3. I think there was only one sack play with 5 of less rushers and off-hand I believe it was one of the Avril plays.
The lions absolutely stacked the box and kept people around the LOS watching for the scramble or screen. The game plan was to make him stay in the pocket and make his reads.

Seriously watch a few series and count how many times there are 7+ lions within 3-4 yards of the LOS. This wasn't about the pass rush it was about containing him.
TheDave is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:09 AM   #14
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
The lions absolutely stacked the box and kept people around the LOS watching for the scramble or screen. The game plan was to make him stay in the pocket and make his reads.

Seriously watch a few series and count how many times there are 7+ lions within 3-4 yards of the LOS. This wasn't about the pass rush it was about containing him.
Those are called "blitzers"...

I'm sorry but this isn't an opinion post. Everything I've said is easily checked. In fact, here's some visual proof:



The Decker should've been a TD play. 7 Lions. 6 blitzers, 1 spy turned delay blitz.



Tulloch sack. Which should be a blitz tip off considering he's a LBer. Anyway, this one is only 6 vs 5.



Avril's first sack and FF. 6 on this play.

Then there's the notion of "Stopping the run to force him to beat you with the pass"...

Of course that theory has to completely ignore the 195 yards rushing at 6.5 ypc Denver had (132 for 6.6 ypc if you remove Tebows ground production).
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:11 AM   #15
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,784

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Mike nails this. You can nit-pick playcalling, the defense had some issues, but 75% of this game being so ugly was the offense failing to sustain drives, turnovers and just bad quarterbacking.

TheRev tries to push blame on the line, the system and everyone but Tebow. At the end of the day it was Tebow holding the ball too long, failing to read the defense, his inability to take the ball from center basically telling the Lions defense what we are doing every play, and horrible mechanics affecting his accuracy in the rare case he did make a read and attempt to execute.

Franklin got mauled, Beadles is bad, a lack of screens and draws (do they know what a draw play is?) are factors. But behind that line Orton was never sacked as much as Tebow has been. Nothing has changed but the QB and the league already has the book on how to beat him.

1. When he goes under center, it's a run. If he attempts to throw it won't work so just play run.
2. When he's in the shot gun spy, blitz or both.

We wouldn't have won if someone besides Tebow was the QB outside of Manning or Rogers, but Tebow makes everything ten times worse.
Kaylore is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:14 AM   #16
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
Mike nails this. You can nit-pick playcalling, the defense had some issues, but 75% of this game being so ugly was the offense failing to sustain drives, turnovers and just bad quarterbacking.

TheRev tries to push blame on the line, the system and everyone but Tebow. At the end of the day it was Tebow holding the ball too long, failing to read the defense, his inability to take the ball from center basically telling the Lions defense what we are doing every play, and horrible mechanics affecting his accuracy in the rare case he did make a read and attempt to execute.

Franklin got mauled, Beadles is bad, a lack of screens and draws (do they know what a draw play is?) are factors. But behind that line Orton was never sacked as much as Tebow has been. Nothing has changed but the QB and the league already has the book on how to beat him.

1. When he goes under center, it's a run. If he attempts to throw it won't work so just play run.
2. When he's in the shot gun spy, blitz or both.

We wouldn't have won if someone besides Tebow was the QB outside of Manning or Rogers, but Tebow makes everything ten times worse.
I mention at least a half dozen times that none of that excuses his performance, that he played awful and that the bottom line falls on him, but okay man...
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:41 AM   #17
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,784

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
I mention at least a half dozen times that none of that excuses his performance, that he played awful and that the bottom line falls on him, but okay man...
I didn't mean it sound like you were being MacGruder-like. I apologize if that's how I sounded. As I said, you raise valid points concerning the line, the play calling and the bad defensive play. But you seem to make a heavier case against the other support elements not doing your job. Certainly they didn't help, but the long and short end of this game was how terrible the quarterbacking was and I think you pulled your punches a bit.
Kaylore is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:47 AM   #18
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
I didn't mean it sound like you were being MacGruder-like. I apologize if that's how I sounded. As I said, you raise valid points concerning the line, the play calling and the bad defensive play. But you seem to make a heavier case against the other support elements not doing your job. Certainly they didn't help, but the long and short end of this game was how terrible the quarterbacking was and I think you pulled your punches a bit.
I may very well sound like that. Haven't re-listened so ill identify points when I have time when I get home in a bit.

As for pulling punches and emphasizing the supporting elements. No ****. What's there to say? He played like ****, held the ball too long in cases, had poor footwork, hesitated, etc. Boom, nothing left to talk about with it just a few sentences later and Mike covered it before the question even got to me. Should we just have case closed and stopped the show or discussed the whole team? And what did I say that you disagree with? Really anything?
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:52 AM   #19
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,784

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
I may very well sound like that. Haven't re-listened so ill identify points when I have time when I get home in a bit.

As for pulling punches and emphasizing the supporting elements. No ****. What's there to say? He played like ****, held the ball too long in cases, had poor footwork, hesitated, etc. Boom, nothing left to talk about with it just a few sentences later and Mike covered it before the question even got to me. Should we just have case closed and stopped the show or discussed the whole team? And what did I say that you disagree with? Really anything?
Oh you mad!
Kaylore is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 09:58 AM   #20
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
Oh you mad!
Maybe a little actually lol

I've never understood the "You're wrong, but I have no intention of supporting my argument or providing examples even though you have!"
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 10:09 AM   #21
Kaylore
Because I am better
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
Everything

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 46,784

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
Maybe a little actually lol

I've never understood the "You're wrong, but I have no intention of supporting my argument or providing examples even though you have!"
I think you misunderstood me. I never even said you were wrong or that I disagreed with you. You guys did a pretty good job with a podcast that doesn't have really anything to be happy about. I think Tebow should have been torn to shreds more than he was. I expected you to be more vocally critical than you were.
Kaylore is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 10:40 AM   #22
TheDave
Sauced...
 
TheDave's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheReverend View Post
Those are called "blitzers"...







thanks for the supporting evidence (I think?)... Man coverage with a spy on him, (yes in those 3 shots they rushed 5... not what I would call selling out) Also, it seemed the spy always had the freedom to shoot in when he wanted... Not like he had to worry about the ball going over his head. On top of that they usually had at least one more defender floating in a short zone off the LOS.

IMO that kills the screen game. Now of course there were times they brought the house and if tim could read a defense he might have been able to check to a different play (I've been trying to tell you since August that the kid is not ready). But in the end...more times than not they successfully forced him to try and beat man coverage, without risking much too much.

Now the one thing I do wonder... was anyone open?

I'm wondering if our WR's collective pity party is showing up in the reads/routes? If thats what is going on, again, I feel for the kid.
TheDave is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 10:41 AM   #23
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
I think you misunderstood me. I never even said you were wrong or that I disagreed with you. You guys did a pretty good job with a podcast that doesn't have really anything to be happy about. I think Tebow should have been torn to shreds more than he was. I expected you to be more vocally critical than you were.
Gotcha. Fair. Like I said, I'll relisten and check it out.

That being said, you missed the show so take some time now and throw down your thoughts to some of the questions. I'd like to read your answers to a lot of the show topics.

What would you have said about Tebow?

What about the OL? You've mentioned this week that a lot of it was Tebow's fault, so which sacks specifically do you feel were his fault?

What did you like/dislike about playcalling?

Defensive performances of note?

WR play?

Who's primarily to blame?

Would you give 3 1sts for Luck and what would you do to fix the team moving forward?

And I think that generally covers the topics.
TheReverend is online now  
Old 11-02-2011, 10:45 AM   #24
jhns
Ring of Famer
 
but you still can't C me!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 12,362

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
I think you misunderstood me. I never even said you were wrong or that I disagreed with you. You guys did a pretty good job with a podcast that doesn't have really anything to be happy about. I think Tebow should have been torn to shreds more than he was. I expected you to be more vocally critical than you were.
People like you will be extremely disappointed for many years. We will either go with Tebow, or draft a new QB. The new QBs are going to look just as lost as Tebow. Elway did, just like most...

This from the people that actually got mad about people not giving guys like Orton and McDaniels more respect and time...

People are not living in reality. You are actually getting mad because people bring up valid points while not trashing a QB in his fifth start... Pathetic.

Last edited by jhns; 11-02-2011 at 11:05 AM..
jhns is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 10:45 AM   #25
TheReverend
Permanent Facepalm
 
TheReverend's Avatar
 
Not. Too. Shabby.

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 37,482

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Mike Shanahan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDave View Post
thanks for the supporting evidence (I think?)... Man coverage with a spy on him, (yes in those 3 shots they rushed 5... not what I would call selling out) Also, it seemed the spy always had the freedom to shoot in when he wanted... Not like he had to worry about the ball going over his head. On top of that they usually had at least one more defender floating in a short zone off the LOS.

IMO that kills the screen game. Now of course there were times they brought the house and if tim could read a defense he might have been able to check to a different play (I've been trying to tell you since August that the kid is not ready). But in the end...more times than not they successfully forced him to try and beat man coverage, without risking much too much.

Now the one thing I do wonder... was anyone open?

I'm wondering if our WR's collective pity party is showing up in the reads/routes? If thats what is going on, again, I feel for the kid.
Theres a minimum of 6 rushers in those three shots and not 5. In the first one, seven rushers. Your old eyes are failing you

And if it were a blitz of 5, with a spy AND a guy floating underneath zone... well, you should add up those match ups because it doesnt work

Also screens are more effective vs man than zone, ftr.

And I also do wonder about the WRs getting open.
TheReverend is online now  
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Denver Broncos