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
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2013, 09:42 AM   #51
Dr. Broncenstein
Nacho Nacho Fan
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,442

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dookie Nacho
Default

Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:57 AM   #52
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Quanterus Smith was MY freakin Pick

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,062

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
He was one of the leading tacklers on one of the best defenses in the NFL. He also had one of the lowest missed tackle ratios. Go ahead and say it, he played well last year.
You know what I am absolutely TIRED of hearing this crap. Moore missed Tackles he never even made it close enough to make, and the tackles he made were late and down the field. He did not miss many by that weak ass PFF criteria, because he took weak angles to the ball and he was late to react to the play. Rarely, did any tackle he made actually stop a play from being executed. Rarely did he make a tackle for loss. Rarely did he make a tackle that stopped a first down. So, the tackles he made were what he was supposed to do, but late. It's like the MLB with 150+ tackles where 80% are after where they should have been made if he executed the play properly.

Playing slow and steady in the NFL is not playing well. Period. He just did his job and not very well. So, his ratio of missed tackles was very good. That is not the question you should be asking, despite PFF's ridiculous stats without analysis emphasis. Did his tackles make a difference or were they simply cleaning up and getting there late? Making a tackle on 3rd and 4, 7 yards down the field is not good. It's a first down. The question is why was he not there earlier?
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:17 AM   #53
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12 View Post
You know what I am absolutely TIRED of hearing this crap. Moore missed Tackles he never even made it close enough to make, and the tackles he made were late and down the field. He did not miss many by that weak ass PFF criteria, because he took weak angles to the ball and he was late to react to the play. Rarely, did any tackle he made actually stop a play from being executed. Rarely did he make a tackle for loss. Rarely did he make a tackle that stopped a first down. So, the tackles he made were what he was supposed to do, but late. It's like the MLB with 150+ tackles where 80% are after where they should have been made if he executed the play properly.

Playing slow and steady in the NFL is not playing well. Period. He just did his job and not very well. So, his ratio of missed tackles was very good. That is not the question you should be asking, despite PFF's ridiculous stats without analysis emphasis. Did his tackles make a difference or were they simply cleaning up and getting there late? Making a tackle on 3rd and 4, 7 yards down the field is not good. It's a first down. The question is why was he not there earlier?
Oh so he did not miss tackles and he was third on the team in tackles but you say he is slow and took weak angles. That is bull****. During the mid part of the season there were a whole bunch of stories about how well he was playing. He plays safety, how many tackles for a loss are you supposed to have? He is not a big physical guy and Denver rarely played him close to the LOS.

He was one of the leading tacklers on a top 3 defense but you say he took poor angels and was slow. ok
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:34 AM   #54
Rabb
No Luca, No!
 
Rabb's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,072

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Dynamite Monkey
Default

Are you really basing your argument off of stories?

This should be good.
Rabb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:37 AM   #55
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,627
Default

I certainly understand the animosity towards Moore. He blew it in a big way on a very visible and memorable play that unfortunately we're never going to forget. But lots of guys blew it on lots of plays in that game. And that includes Champ Bailey, Peyton Manning, John Fox, Jack Del Rio, Chris Kuper, Matt Prater, and so on. Lots of blame to go around. Putting it all on one guy on one play is a bit silly.

If you haven't already done so, read this in its entirety. Even that one play can't be pinned entirely on Rahim Moore.

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/bron...-game-tying-td
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:59 AM   #56
CEH
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,916
Default

Let's just wait and see what happens. I thought at one time Elway said Timmy Try Hard would be the Broncos starting QB. take what Elway says at this time of year with a grain of salt. He just pumped up Omar Bolden at the combine so that tells me they are looking for a CB. Wonder why Lynch would be at the combine with Elway?
CEH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:07 AM   #57
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheElusiveKyleOrton View Post
I have a lot of respect for Moore. He could have gotten out of that locker room without talking to the media, but he stood up like a man and took what was coming to him. He knows he ****ed up, and he manned up about it.

He's not a perfect player; in fact he's far from it. I'd love to have a shot at Reed or Woodson.

Old Dude would like you all to know he's never ever made a mistake.
It would be great to have an established safety to help Moore learn some sneaky tricks. Ed Reed would be fantastic. IMO Moore has not reached his ceiling. He came from UCLA whose program on defense not exactly churning out pros right now. I think he had a whole lot to learn these last couple years. Some guys ready to play, for others like Moore they get a bunch of welcome to the NFL moments.

Moore going into his 3rd yr which IMO for dbacks and WR is the yr to show that i have learned my lessons, I understand offenses and what qbs are trying to get me to do, and I am on the same page as them.

I bet Moore works his ass off, gets better, and comes back next yr getting more interceptions and making bigger plays.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 09:10 AM   #58
DarkHorse30
Smith Rules
 
DarkHorse30's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,231

Adopt-a-Bronco:
wolf pot roast
Default

Name:  admin ignore needed ha ha ha.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  32.3 KB

crap
DarkHorse30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 09:11 AM   #59
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Quanterus Smith was MY freakin Pick

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,062

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
Oh so he did not miss tackles and he was third on the team in tackles but you say he is slow and took weak angles. That is bull****. During the mid part of the season there were a whole bunch of stories about how well he was playing. He plays safety, how many tackles for a loss are you supposed to have? He is not a big physical guy and Denver rarely played him close to the LOS.

He was one of the leading tacklers on a top 3 defense but you say he took poor angels and was slow. ok
You know why, because I have the ability to grade film, which I have done, and done with another friend who is also a coach. Not some internet hack who is trying to make a market for services with pop stats. I do not have a website to sell you anything, but I know how to grade film.

The problem here, is it takes a dirtload of time to do this without the playcalls, I am talking upwards of 40 hours to do the season on just one guy. I did not have the time during the season, but have really used a lot of free time the last month to get an accurate view. I have not reviewed every play, but the ones I did were simply unimpressive for the reasons I stated above.

Mentally, he is slow to react and execute. Period. Whether its in coverage or run support. He has cleaned up his poor tackling however from his first year. The problem is he is not always in the right position to make tackles where they should be made. In cleaning up his poor tackling he is playing soft and not attacking the Runner. He is making sure he does not miss, versus doing his job in force or attacking downhill.

That is the difference.
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 09:46 AM   #60
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Quanterus Smith was MY freakin Pick

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,062

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I certainly understand the animosity towards Moore. He blew it in a big way on a very visible and memorable play that unfortunately we're never going to forget. But lots of guys blew it on lots of plays in that game. And that includes Champ Bailey, Peyton Manning, John Fox, Jack Del Rio, Chris Kuper, Matt Prater, and so on. Lots of blame to go around. Putting it all on one guy on one play is a bit silly.

If you haven't already done so, read this in its entirety. Even that one play can't be pinned entirely on Rahim Moore.

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/bron...-game-tying-td
I am not sure where that article actually says anybody else screwed up either. It talks about WHY Moore screwed up, but never mentions anyone else?

Also, the author is absolutely wrong about the playcall in hindsight. The Ravens ran a four vertical clear out route to get extra space underneath for the Lone underneath receiver to get a first down. When you protect the deep part of the field with 3 versus four verticals you are simply screwed. Look at the middle frame and Leonard and Bruton are already leveraged against 2 deep routes and have to split them. Leonard is also screwed because he is Supposed to take the breakoff route inside or out in that play.

What happens is one on one deep and a jump ball wins. That with 2 safety's in a tough situation. Thank God Champ realized he need to be in close trail when he realized they were all going vertical. Otherwise Bruton was going to be severely stressed covering the deep seam and the outside.

I am truly amazed they played a 3 deep concept with the 3 rushers on that play. A simple cover 4 with the 2 CB's keeping the deep play outside off the safeties and them being able to focus on the inside quarters ensures that play is not as successful.

Not giving some blame to the playcall is a copout. Not giving Moore a hard time for NOT playing situational football is a copout. Being a good football player means understanding the situation and the route concepts. His sole Job there is to play deep to short in that situation, despite what IAOFM wants to say here. In fact, very rarely is the safety in that particualar Playcall supposed to play the underneath, and that is when the CB replaces him deep over the top after hinting he was going to underneath. That did not happen here, and its a copout to say otherwise.

I like IAOFM, they do a good job keeping people informed and trying to keep people from flying off the deep end emotionally. However, they occasionally forget to call it like it is to do just that. This explanation from Matt Bowen at NFP is actually more accurate and the guy actually ran this coverage as a safety in the NFL:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...s-Broncos.html
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 10:00 AM   #61
Crushaholic
Armchair Poster
 
Crushaholic's Avatar
 
Get off my lawn, you kids!

Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Topeka, KS
Posts: 22,469

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Isaiah Burse
Default

As poorly as the Broncos played, as a whole, I'm not so sure that we would have been able to beat the Patriots. It would have been fun to try, though...
Crushaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 10:40 AM   #62
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Quanterus Smith was MY freakin Pick

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,062

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crushaholic View Post
As poorly as the Broncos played, as a whole, I'm not so sure that we would have been able to beat the Patriots. It would have been fun to try, though...
Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes! The last 2 home playoff losses were all about mistakes and giving things away, versus not being able to win.

A very discipined and strong team, failed to play well at home for some reason. They were killing that team at one point just like the first time, but for some damn reason we gave up huge plays on defense and a Pick 6 as well. 21 of their 38 points were because of Mistakes.

More than anything, I hope this wakes their asses up and makes them hungry this offseason. They can be a lot better with another whole offseason in the weight room, film room, and practice field.

No way to lose, in fact the worst way to lose IMHO. Knowing you had them beat, despite playing poorly, and then acting like you got paid to throw the game at the end. Still hurts for me and I did not even play
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 10:52 AM   #63
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12 View Post
I am not sure where that article...
I read at least 3-4 articles that disected the play, including the one you linked. I probably didn't pick the best one to make the point. But I'll stand by the point that while Moore deserves most of the blame for that play, he doesn't deserve all of it. And he certainly doesn't deserve all of the blame for the loss, which was my larger point.

I think the most interesting takeaway from the article I linked is that the Broncos weren't expecting a downfield play of that nature, and that there's good reason they weren't expecting it. But, as it turns out, their expecations didn't match what happened.

Last edited by TonyR; 03-04-2013 at 11:25 AM..
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:04 AM   #64
crush17
orange & blue
 
crush17's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 5,082

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Thanks Champ!
Default

You all do realize Moore was only in his 2nd season, right?

As if there is no way he could possibly improve... what the crap.
crush17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:35 AM   #65
Mediator12
OM analyst
 
Mediator12's Avatar
 
Quanterus Smith was MY freakin Pick

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: INDY
Posts: 10,062

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
I read at least 3-4 articles that disected the play, including the one you linked. I probably didn't pick the best one to make the point. But I'll stand by the point that while Moore deserves most of the blame for that play, he doesn't deserve all of it. And he certainly doesn't deserve all of the blame for the loss, which was my larger point.

I think the most interesting takeaway from the article I linked is that the Broncos weren't expected a downfield play of that nature, and that there's good reason they weren't expecting it. But, as it turns out, their expecations didn't match what happened.
I choose to differ greatly on that. As a playcaller in that situation, you have to protect from deep to short. That call, with eight in coverage is simply not wise. Especially since they were playing in a personnel package and formation designed to execute four verticals. I have been on record saying how well this defense played this year, but they made tremendous mistakes in every single aspect of that game including that playcall.

People love to criticize what they see, but they do not always understand why it really occurred. When you look at that play, it assumes with no timeouts BAL is going to simply be happy with a first down and then a spike. However, they had already demonstrated they were going to get vertical on this back end repeatedly during the game. They threw deep in that situation twice before for Long TD passes, because DEN playcalled underneath coverage and dared them to throw deep. Heck, they missed another sure TD because Flacco airmailed it in the Den Altitude missing a wide open Smith. As a playcaller, you need to be aware of that.

Instead, they dialed up a 5 under 3 deep look that if BAL called 4 verticals would stretch the safeties on the outide to make a play on a jump ball at best with one on one coverage. Ridiculous in that situation. Maybe if they had a time out and could afford to play it closer to the vest, but they had already PROVEN they would go deep if DEN played underneath.

My contention is why take the risk? That is what every playcaller has to determine on every play. Every playcall has risk, and why take the risk of getting stressed deep in that situation. Make a call where 4 verticals is not going to stress you deep and give 2 guys a chance to make a play by playing quarters coverage and take the risk underneath where they will waste time. It also helps you keep any catch in bounds by playing outside leverage and not inside like Moore mistakenly forgot to do in that coverage.

To me, the playcall seriously contributed to the mental errors by Moore. However, he should be playing the ball deep to short, and nowhere near what he did on that play.

Last edited by Mediator12; 03-04-2013 at 11:37 AM..
Mediator12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 11:43 AM   #66
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12 View Post
I choose to differ greatly on that. As a playcaller in that situation, you have to protect from deep to short. That call, with eight in coverage is simply not wise. Especially since they were playing in a personnel package and formation designed to execute four verticals. I have been on record saying how well this defense played this year, but they made tremendous mistakes in every single aspect of that game including that playcall.

People love to criticize what they see, but they do not always understand why it really occurred. When you look at that play, it assumes with no timeouts BAL is going to simply be happy with a first down and then a spike. However, they had already demonstrated they were going to get vertical on this back end repeatedly during the game. They threw deep in that situation twice before for Long TD passes, because DEN playcalled underneath coverage and dared them to throw deep. Heck, they missed another sure TD because Flacco airmailed it in the Den Altitude missing a wide open Smith. As a playcaller, you need to be aware of that.

Instead, they dialed up a 5 under 3 deep look that if BAL called 4 verticals would stretch the safeties on the outide to make a play on a jump ball at best with one on one coverage. Ridiculous in that situation. Maybe if they had a time out and could afford to play it closer to the vest, but they had already PROVEN they would go deep if DEN played underneath.

My contention is why take the risk? That is what every playcaller has to determine on every play. Every playcall has risk, and why take the risk of getting stressed deep in that situation. Make a call where 4 verticals is not going to stress you deep and give 2 guys a chance to make a play by playing quarters coverage and take the risk underneath where they will waste time. It also helps you keep any catch in bounds by playing outside leverage and not inside like Moore mistakenly forgot to do in that coverage.

To me, the playcall seriously contributed to the mental errors by Moore. However, he should be playing the ball deep to short, and nowhere near what he did on that play.
So what's your opinion of the firing of the secondary coach, Milus? Does that solve the problem, or send a message, or is it one of those things where Moore's f'up is so bad, that somebody has to pay, but it's not going to be the player?
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:21 PM   #67
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 18,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12 View Post
I choose to differ greatly on that...
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other because I agree with what you're saying. The Broncos should have been prepared for a deep play. They shouldn't have taken any chances. But both the defensive play call and the way the players reacted generally suggested they were expecting the Ravens to go shorter and/or more underneath for a 1st down rather than going down field. That was the start of the problem, and the Ravens reaction to it and execution of it, along with the way Moore and Carter played it, was the end of it.
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:35 PM   #68
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12 View Post
Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes! The last 2 home playoff losses were all about mistakes and giving things away, versus not being able to win.

A very discipined and strong team, failed to play well at home for some reason. They were killing that team at one point just like the first time, but for some damn reason we gave up huge plays on defense and a Pick 6 as well. 21 of their 38 points were because of Mistakes.
There was no pressure on the QB and Rice ran for over 100 yards. That is why a big pocket pushing, run stuffing DT would do wonders for the defense and MLB position and for the team as a whole.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 01:04 PM   #69
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crush17 View Post
You all do realize Moore was only in his 2nd season, right?

As if there is no way he could possibly improve... what the crap.
Its great that he has time on his side, but that doesn't mean an alternative shouldn't be brought in, and an alternative better than Adams or Leonhard. Q. Carter, Moore, one solid FA to be the safety net, and a first three rounds draftee would be the ideal mix to fix our safety issues.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 01:29 PM   #70
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,937

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyR View Post
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other because I agree with what you're saying. The Broncos should have been prepared for a deep play. They shouldn't have taken any chances. But both the defensive play call and the way the players reacted generally suggested they were expecting the Ravens to go shorter and/or more underneath for a 1st down rather than going down field. That was the start of the problem, and the Ravens reaction to it and execution of it, along with the way Moore and Carter played it, was the end of it.
Frankly, if I'm the coach on one sideline and one of the Harbaugh Bros. is on the sideline opposite, I'm going to expect a wild ass gamble.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 04:43 PM   #71
Cito Pelon
Attack at all times . . .
 
Cito Pelon's Avatar
 
Not2Shabby County Seat

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AFC Championshipville, NotTooShabby County
Posts: 16,234

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Slim Shabby
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mediator12 View Post
I choose to differ greatly on that. As a playcaller in that situation, you have to protect from deep to short. That call, with eight in coverage is simply not wise. Especially since they were playing in a personnel package and formation designed to execute four verticals. I have been on record saying how well this defense played this year, but they made tremendous mistakes in every single aspect of that game including that playcall.

People love to criticize what they see, but they do not always understand why it really occurred. When you look at that play, it assumes with no timeouts BAL is going to simply be happy with a first down and then a spike. However, they had already demonstrated they were going to get vertical on this back end repeatedly during the game. They threw deep in that situation twice before for Long TD passes, because DEN playcalled underneath coverage and dared them to throw deep. Heck, they missed another sure TD because Flacco airmailed it in the Den Altitude missing a wide open Smith. As a playcaller, you need to be aware of that.

Instead, they dialed up a 5 under 3 deep look that if BAL called 4 verticals would stretch the safeties on the outide to make a play on a jump ball at best with one on one coverage. Ridiculous in that situation. Maybe if they had a time out and could afford to play it closer to the vest, but they had already PROVEN they would go deep if DEN played underneath.

My contention is why take the risk? That is what every playcaller has to determine on every play. Every playcall has risk, and why take the risk of getting stressed deep in that situation. Make a call where 4 verticals is not going to stress you deep and give 2 guys a chance to make a play by playing quarters coverage and take the risk underneath where they will waste time. It also helps you keep any catch in bounds by playing outside leverage and not inside like Moore mistakenly forgot to do in that coverage.

To me, the playcall seriously contributed to the mental errors by Moore. However, he should be playing the ball deep to short, and nowhere near what he did on that play.
Maybe Del Rio should have called for a timeout before the snap, or a more experienced guy other than Woodyard would have called a timeout. This kind of leads into having a 3-down MLB on the field rather than having Woodyard command the defense from his OLB position.
Cito Pelon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Denver Broncos