Quarterbacks and 4th quarter comebacks

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Tredici

I'll leave the sophisticated stat crunching to Lidderer. But if the above number is right, off hand I would say Jake has had a chance to come from behind in about 30% of the games played as a Bronco - and did not.

Also wondering how Pittsburgh managed to get 21 points ahead in just one play? I don't suppose answering a score with a score would've been a preferable option...

Tred, I know Jake played a role in the playoff demise and I've never said otherwise. But people like TJ put the brunt of the blame on him (as evidence, I have a rep comment from him stating that two of the TDs were Jake's fault...as if the defense was wholly incapable at that point of nutting up and making a stop!) when there are ten other guys on offense who have to execute their role properly, or else it doesn't matter what Jake does. I don't think the offense as a whole (including Jake) is very talented. I think that they are able to be effective generally due to Shanny's brilliant game planning and expert use of smoke and mirrors. But, when you fall behind, smoke and mirrors just does not work. You've got to ride on your talent at that point, and guys like Jeb Putzier and Mike Anderson just aren't terribly talented. It's easy to scapegoat the QB, but c'mon, he can't generate offense/comebacks without some help.

And that's saying nothing of the defense that allowed practically every 3rd down to be converted in the 1st half of the ballgame. You put just about any QB on the field that day, given all the factors, and I doubt the outcome changes.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It's probably already been pointed out... but in 1992 against the Houston Oilers, the Broncos were down 21-6 at one point.

I wasn't a math major, but I don't think 15 points is equivalent to 3 TDs

[Lidderer]

trent green has vs den, vs car, vs jax, vs tb, vs no, vs ne, vs sd, and another vs sd.

That's 8 failed comebacks(using the same leniance i afforded plummer). Here's the kicker.....that's just in 2004.

[Lidderer]

Originally Posted by Taco John

If Jake goes out under any circumstances, and commits multiple turnovers in a losing effort in the playoffs this upcoming year, who do you think will be under center come September 2007?

Commodore 64 QB-Rating Man, I fear.

I was more driving at how your fantasy scenarios from yesteryear suggested that plummer was at fault for our losses in spite of what others said about the D's anemic performances. And then when we didn't even bring in any offensive upgrades, instead focusing entirely on a defensive overhaul, this was mostly sidestepped. Only now we make a move for a young signal-caller and suddenly it's as clear as day that shanahan sees the fault in plummer.

just seemed odd is all.

[Lidderer]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

And that's saying nothing of the defense that allowed practically every 3rd down to be converted in the 1st half of the ballgame. You put just about any QB on the field that day, given all the factors, and I doubt the outcome changes.

I checked on the conversion rate in other playoff games, and i recall there not being a less successful D on stopping 3rd downs in a game since like 1999.

Truly disgusting defensive performance.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Tred, I know Jake played a role in the playoff demise and I've never said otherwise. But people like TJ put the brunt of the blame on him (as evidence, I have a rep comment from him stating that two of the TDs were Jake's fault...as if the defense was wholly incapable at that point of nutting up and making a stop!)

When you turn the ball over twice within the 20 yard line against an AFC Championship calibre team who just got done beating the Colts, I think it's unrealistic to expect your defense to pull off miracles. When you turn the ball over 4 times in a playoff game, I don't think there's much room to criticize the defense.

You can't give up the ball twice to an playoff calibre team within your own 20 yard line and just expect your defense to hold. It's a game of chicken, and their offense is going to be aggressive in that situation because they have virtually nothing to lose.

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Tred, I know Jake played a role in the playoff demise and I've never said otherwise. But people like TJ put the brunt of the blame on him (as evidence, I have a rep comment from him stating that two of the TDs were Jake's fault...as if the defense was wholly incapable at that point of nutting up and making a stop!) when there are ten other guys on offense who have to execute their role properly, or else it doesn't matter what Jake does. I don't think the offense as a whole (including Jake) is very talented. I think that they are able to be effective generally due to Shanny's brilliant game planning and expert use of smoke and mirrors. But, when you fall behind, smoke and mirrors just does not work. You've got to ride on your talent at that point, and guys like Jeb Putzier and Mike Anderson just aren't terribly talented. It's easy to scapegoat the QB, but c'mon, he can't generate offense/comebacks without some help.

Hard to fault the running backs in a comeback effort, especially if the coaches abandon using them, despite having good success on the ground. Go back and watch the game, They actually should have ridden Anderson, he was having a hell of a game, but was removed due to the defeceit. If you are going to pass on every down, it's on the QB to execute that. The loss isn't all on plummer, but he is the key to the comeback, and comebacks have to start with the QB.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Lidderer

Commodore 64 QB-Rating Man, I fear.

I was more driving at how your fantasy scenarios from yesteryear suggested that plummer was at fault for our losses in spite of what others said about the D's anemic performances. And then when we didn't even bring in any offensive upgrades, instead focusing entirely on a defensive overhaul, this was mostly sidestepped. Only now we make a move for a young signal-caller and suddenly it's as clear as day that shanahan sees the fault in plummer.

just seemed odd is all.

I still believe that we could have won any single of those games if we had executed the game plan. That said, I was very sensitive to the fact that we were short handed on defense by way of talent. I just wasn't willing to write a free pass for the offense for going three and out, turning the ball over, and generally failing to execute the game plan. Not to mention, those were Plummer's first and second years with the team. I think that speaks towards sample size. After a third year with the same results from the QB position, I think we've got a fair picture of what we exactly have here.

[-Slap-]

Originally Posted by orange 4 life

no, YOU crack me up.

elway never had a problem with that?

are you f***ing serious?

maybe you missed the '86, '87, and '89 superbowls, but i watched every agonizing minute, and those games CLOSELY resembled the playoff losses of the last three years.
a line that couldnt run block or protect the qb (despite his mobility), and a defense that was a friggin sieve.

elway had the EXACT same problem.

if we stop worrying about a baby faced qb that God willing wont see the field for three years maybe we could worry about getting a defense that can stop somebody in the playoffs.
funny how the one game the defense showed up we won.

Every time you guys bring Elway's name into this discussion, you makes fools of yourselves. Elway carried inferior teams from an inferior conference all the way to the Super Bowl. He got completely overmatched by far superior NFC talent, in a League without a salary cap.

If you believe Pittsburgh was far superior to the Broncos last year, you're just hopeless and willing to say anything to make excuses for Jake.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I wasn't a math major, but I don't think 15 points is equivalent to 3 TDs

It's three scores. You don't have to be a math major to know that three scores can include 3 touchdowns... or two touchdowns and one field goal.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by -Slap-

Every time you guys bring Elway's name into this discussion, you makes fools of yourselves.

Rediculous.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

When you turn the ball over twice within the 20 yard line against an AFC Championship calibre team who just got done beating the Colts, I think it's unrealistic to expect your defense to pull off miracles. When you turn the ball over 4 times in a playoff game, I don't think there's much room to criticize the defense.

You can't give up the ball twice to an playoff calibre team within your own 20 yard line and just expect your defense to hold. It's a game of chicken, and their offense is going to be aggressive in that situation because they have virtually nothing to lose.

Stop a third down, defense. Hold them to a freakin' field goal. I certainly can and will legitmately criticize the defense for failing to do their part in that game. And I will blame Plummer's offensive teammates for failing to give him any help by not executing their own specific roles properly. People have to get open for Jake to do anything, and they were not doing that.

And, for the record, the INT and the end of the first half is all on Stephen Alexender for not running the proper route. The coaches ripped him a new one on the sideline. But, I guess it's all Jake's fault when people don't execute their role properly.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

It's three scores. You don't have to be a math major to know that three scores can include 3 touchdowns... or two touchdowns and one field goal.

The question specifically said 3 TDs, not 3 scores...but, yes, that was a great comeback by Elway. He is John Elway, after all.

[-Slap-]

Originally Posted by Lidderer

I checked on the conversion rate in other playoff games, and i recall there not being a less successful D on stopping 3rd downs in a game since like 1999.

Truly disgusting defensive performance.

It was a great quarterbacking performance by Rothliesberger in a huge game. Having Jake as your hero, I excuse your inability to recognize a great quarterbacking performance in a huge game.

As we've witnessed repeatedly, Jake is only good for a first half field goal in huge games.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by 2KBack

Hard to fault the running backs in a comeback effort, especially if the coaches abandon using them, despite having good success on the ground. Go back and watch the game, They actually should have ridden Anderson, he was having a hell of a game, but was removed due to the defeceit. If you are going to pass on every down, it's on the QB to execute that. The loss isn't all on plummer, but he is the key to the comeback, and comebacks have to start with the QB.

I think the WRs (getting open) and OL (protecting without help of the run) play a pretty damn big role, too, both areas out of Plummer's control.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

The question specifically said 3 TDs, not 3 scores...but, yes, that was a great comeback by Elway. He is John Elway, after all.

Yeah, I'm not the one who brought him up. My only question was with regards to Jake's comebacks in a Broncos uniform, because I dismiss everything he did in Arizona out of hand. I'm only interested in his accomplishments as a Bronco. And there are some really worthwhile ones to discuss. I don't know that his comeback ability is one of them.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I still believe that we could have won any single of those games if we had executed the game plan.

Then you are delusional.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Then you are delusional.

Doesn't bother me any. I believe it's indesputable and that I have proven as much. When you take away the time that the opposing offense has to put points on the board, and put points on the board yourself, an amazing thing happens: you give your team the opportunity to win the game, AND you take pressure off your defense, allowing them to play aggressively (as opposed to on their heels).

Stated simply: when you execute the gameplan, you have an opportunity to win. When you fail to execute the gameplan, you give the opposing team the opportunity to score. Against high powered offenses like Indianapolis, that's suicide.

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I think the WRs (getting open) and OL (protecting without help of the run) play a pretty damn big role, too, both areas out of Plummer's control.

Absolutely, I actually put a lot of blame on the OL. The Weakness of the oline has always been pass protection. Once it was obvious we weren't running anymore, the house was coming, and it was over. Still, if the ball is in your hand, and you put it on the ground, you need to be prepared to accept the blame.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by 2KBack

Absolutely, I actually put a lot of blame on the OL. The Weakness of the oline has always been pass protection. Once it was obvious we weren't running anymore, the house was coming, and it was over. Still, if the ball is in your hand, and you put it on the ground, you need to be prepared to accept the blame.

I don't disagree at all. Plummer gets his blame, but it's silly to pin it all on him like Taco is doing.

[Lidderer]

Originally Posted by -Slap-

It was a great quarterbacking performance by Rothliesberger in a huge game. Having Jake as your hero, I excuse your inability to recognize a great quarterbacking performance in a huge game.

As we've witnessed repeatedly, Jake is only good for a first half field goal in huge games.

The thing is is that it wasn't even that remarkable of a performance by Big Ben. A lot of those conversions were obvious and easy reads/throws. That's not faulting him--he took what they gave him, and they gave him the game.

He's in my top 3 nfl players(heap and walter being the others), yes, but that doesn't cloud my vision.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I don't disagree at all. Plummer gets his blame, but it's silly to pin it all on him like Taco is doing.

Like me? Hey, I'm not the one bringing in his replacement.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Lidderer

The thing is is that it wasn't even that remarkable of a performance by Big Ben. A lot of those conversions were obvious and easy reads/throws. That's not faulting him--he took what they gave him, and they gave him the game.

He's in my top 3 nfl players(heap and walter being the others), yes, but that doesn't cloud my vision.

If you like stats, Elways first Superbowl win wasn't too remarkable either.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Like me? Hey, I'm not the one bringing in his replacement.

He's also axed the starting tailback, top receiving TE, and traded a 2nd rounder for a WR coming off an ACL tear. Guess he was just enamored with his other "weapons" on offense.

[Lidderer]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Doesn't bother me any. I believe it's indesputable and that I have proven as much. When you take away the time that the opposing offense has to put points on the board, and put points on the board yourself, an amazing thing happens: you give your team the opportunity to win the game, AND you take pressure off your defense, allowing them to play aggressively (as opposed to on their heels).

Stated simply: when you execute the gameplan, you have an opportunity to win. When you fail to execute the gameplan, you give the opposing team the opportunity to score. Against high powered offenses like Indianapolis, that's suicide.

As I recall your gameplan was positively ridiculous. Some points i remember: huge drives(which I countered effectively with how likely such a scenario playing out would be, which read: un-); something about how keeping indy off the field would lower their scoring(which a cursory glance at the indy scoring drives would rebuke).

You can't say: "look, indy is good, so we're gonna have to be incredible"

and then if we don't perform incredibly our qb has somehow failed.

Example:

Taco, you're gonna have to use 11,000 words in your next post in order for it to be persuasive. Only here's the hitch: you can only use one vowel.