Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calm Down Broncos Country, It's Only Week 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by CanDB View Post
    In case anyone did not see already...

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...loss/42629895/

    The biggest beef with Broncos fans, none of whom were allowed into the stadium over coronavirus concerns, was Fangio’s head-scratching decision to hold onto his timeouts after the Titans crossed midfield at the two-minute warning while trailing 14-13.

    Banking on the three-time Super Bowl winner missing a fifth kick, Fangio chose not to ice the kicker or spend his timeouts to save as much time as possible for his young offense to respond.

    “I didn’t think icing the kicker was worth it because he had been struggling anyway (but) I did miss a timeout there after the second-down play from the 29-yard line,” Fangio acknowledged a day later.

    When Titans running back Derrick Henry “got 13 yards down to our 16, I should have called timeout there," Fangio said. "That was the one I missed.”

    Instead, precious seconds ticked away to the amazement and amusement of the Titans.

    Fangio, a longtime defensive coordinator, wasn’t thinking like a head coach.

    “It was totally my fault there,” Fangio said Tuesday. “I had too much thought into what I was going to call next on defense. I missed it.”


    The one thing I will say....I respect him for accepting fault. That is a good thing!
    This was my thinking too. I can fully understand not calling the timeouts is the Titans remained at 40+ yards from the goalline, leaving them having to convert a 50 yard + FG to win. But as they got closer the risk to not calling at least one of the timeouts increased dramatically.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by CanDB View Post
      First, I thought Belichick blew it. He looked like the deer in the headlight but was saved by one of the most confusing play calling in SB history. That's a dead horse beating that does not need more of same.

      Again, just to be sure, I never said we lost solely because of his poor clock management. But it was a big factor in the end, when the chips were on the table. That's his job to manage. And I have posted this already, for what it's worth, I do have some concerns about this happening again, perhaps in an even bigger game. Maybe I am concerned for nothing.

      Anyway, there are lots of positives about this youngish team, and I still have long term optimism. And with the exception of more injuries, I still believe we got a chance for the postseason.
      It really wasn't though. The biggest problem with that drive wasn't timeouts, it was the defense's inability to once again get themselves off the field. If the defense made some plays the timeout situation wouldn't matter at all. Keep in mind Tennessee started that drive inside their own 10.

      12 plays, 67 yards, outside of the two incomplete passes the defense never stopped a play for less than a 4 yard gain. And no they weren't in "prevent" because they blitzed multiple times on that drive.

      You should be concerned, but you're concerned about the wrong thing. The defense as a whole should be the concern, not timeouts.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by CanDB View Post
        In case anyone did not see already...

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...loss/42629895/

        The biggest beef with Broncos fans, none of whom were allowed into the stadium over coronavirus concerns, was Fangio’s head-scratching decision to hold onto his timeouts after the Titans crossed midfield at the two-minute warning while trailing 14-13.

        Banking on the three-time Super Bowl winner missing a fifth kick, Fangio chose not to ice the kicker or spend his timeouts to save as much time as possible for his young offense to respond.

        “I didn’t think icing the kicker was worth it because he had been struggling anyway (but) I did miss a timeout there after the second-down play from the 29-yard line,” Fangio acknowledged a day later.

        When Titans running back Derrick Henry “got 13 yards down to our 16, I should have called timeout there," Fangio said. "That was the one I missed.”

        Instead, precious seconds ticked away to the amazement and amusement of the Titans.

        Fangio, a longtime defensive coordinator, wasn’t thinking like a head coach.

        “It was totally my fault there,” Fangio said Tuesday. “I had too much thought into what I was going to call next on defense. I missed it.”


        The one thing I will say....I respect him for accepting fault. That is a good thing!
        But it's focusing on the wrong thing. Let me put it in terms a Winnipegger should understand: The Red River flooded and there's water pouring into your basement. The homeowner is worrying about someone pumping out his basement, but he's ignoring that water is still pouring in, and that not putting up sandbags is the reason for that.

        Whether the Broncos used timeouts or not, there was very very very little evidence that the defense was going to be able to get itself off the field. And there's a pretty good chance the Broncos would have just needed up in the exact same spot. Until they figure out why the defense was so poor, and how they can fix that, especially in high leverage situations, then worrying about timeouts will be a waste. You have to stop the water from coming into the basement before you can think about pumping it out.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
          It really wasn't though. The biggest problem with that drive wasn't timeouts, it was the defense's inability to once again get themselves off the field. If the defense made some plays the timeout situation wouldn't matter at all. Keep in mind Tennessee started that drive inside their own 10.

          12 plays, 67 yards, outside of the two incomplete passes the defense never stopped a play for less than a 4 yard gain. And no they weren't in "prevent" because they blitzed multiple times on that drive.

          You should be concerned, but you're concerned about the wrong thing. The defense as a whole should be the concern, not timeouts.
          That's one way to look at it. I'm not as worried about the D as you say you are, except for injuries. Tennessee scored 16 points. Gostkowski missed three FGAs and one XPA, but one FGA was deflected by Shelby Harris and another came at the end of the drive on which Michael Ojemudia's pick was cancelled out by a PF on Alexander Johnson. If not for that, Denver would have had the ball in good FP. Previously, Melvin put the ball on the ground at the -23 and Tennessee scored five plays later. Denver had four plays inside the +5 and scored no points. Jeudy dropped some passes and Lock overhtrew a couple of deep ones. Denver should have had at least seven more points. Scoring will improve as the young O develops chemistry. The offensive miscues and unfortunate penalty that negated the pick contributed to keeping D on the field too long.
          "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by samparnell View Post
            That's one way to look at it. I'm not as worried about the D as you say you are, except for injuries. Tennessee scored 16 points. Gostkowski missed three FGAs and one XPA, but one FGA was deflected by Shelby Harris and another came at the end of the drive on which Michael Ojemudia's pick was cancelled out by a PF on Alexander Johnson. If not for that, Denver would have had the ball in good FP. Previously, Melvin put the ball on the ground at the -23 and Tennessee scored five plays later. Denver had four plays inside the +5 and scored no points. Jeudy dropped some passes and Lock overhtrew a couple of deep ones. Denver should have had at least seven more points. Scoring will improve as the young O develops chemistry. The offensive miscues and unfortunate penalty that negated the pick contributed to keeping D on the field too long.
            I think the D has good players, and given what they did last year, I'm hopeful they will end up being quite good. So I'm not completely alarmed by them. But I just want to see them make plays to get themselves off the field. There were some very good bright spots on Monday, particularly the run defense. But they just looked that big play, the knockout punch to end drives. I'm sure they'll find it, but until they do, it's a concern.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
              It really wasn't though. The biggest problem with that drive wasn't timeouts, it was the defense's inability to once again get themselves off the field. If the defense made some plays the timeout situation wouldn't matter at all. Keep in mind Tennessee started that drive inside their own 10.

              12 plays, 67 yards, outside of the two incomplete passes the defense never stopped a play for less than a 4 yard gain. And no they weren't in "prevent" because they blitzed multiple times on that drive.

              You should be concerned, but you're concerned about the wrong thing. The defense as a whole should be the concern, not timeouts.
              Oh I know D was a big part of the problem on that drive....but I'll be concerned about whatever I am concerned about.

              Having said that, our D only gave up a FG, when in fact they were in 4 down mode.

              But I think we can safely move on. I know our D needs improvement. But it takes an entire team to do their specific jobs. Especially when the cards are on the table. I would love to have seen Lock and company with close to a minute on the clock. That may have been a real uplift for us all, in spite of the rustiness of most teams in game one.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by GMTD View Post
                This was my thinking too. I can fully understand not calling the timeouts is the Titans remained at 40+ yards from the goalline, leaving them having to convert a 50 yard + FG to win. But as they got closer the risk to not calling at least one of the timeouts increased dramatically.
                Exactly. The closer they got, the more relevant the clock management. Heck, poor Gostkowski maybe misses a 40+ yarder...but I am not betting on a potential HoF'er to miss a chip shot. You and I can kick a 25 yarder.......ha ha, sometimes.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Can someone explain the penalty on Johnson that took away OJ’s INT? I’ve rewatched the play and he hits Henry as Tannehill throw the ball. Henry was on the field so I’m not sure how he’s “out of the play” as the ref said. Sure he’s not the intended target but that doesn’t give him immunity from getting hit, he’s not the QB and since he’s at the LoS he’s still within the area to jam any potential receivers.

                  That just strikes me as an absolutely absurd call. Sure it’s possible Johnson saw Tannehill passing and decided to take a shot while he can but he’s still apart of the play. Basically if Tannehill hadn’t thrown it yet, it would’ve been completely ok but because he was throwing it only the receiver he’s throwing it to can be hit and only after the ball is touched by someone? Surely that sounds absurd to you guys as well?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
                    Can someone explain the penalty on Johnson that took away OJ’s INT? I’ve rewatched the play and he hits Henry as Tannehill throw the ball. Henry was on the field so I’m not sure how he’s “out of the play” as the ref said. Sure he’s not the intended target but that doesn’t give him immunity from getting hit, he’s not the QB and since he’s at the LoS he’s still within the area to jam any potential receivers.

                    That just strikes me as an absolutely absurd call. Sure it’s possible Johnson saw Tannehill passing and decided to take a shot while he can but he’s still apart of the play. Basically if Tannehill hadn’t thrown it yet, it would’ve been completely ok but because he was throwing it only the receiver he’s throwing it to can be hit and only after the ball is touched by someone? Surely that sounds absurd to you guys as well?
                    No it was a BS call. All he did was push him. Didnt see if Henry actually fell to the ground. Guarantee if O doesnt catch that interception, the flag isnt thrown

                    Even IF that is a penalty, it shouldnt negate the turnover. that is complete and utter BS. The 15 yards(also it shouldnt even be 15 fricken yards for a push. should be 5. football is so soft nowadays) shouldve been taken off where we would have had the ball

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by beastlyskronk View Post
                      Can someone explain the penalty on Johnson that took away OJ’s INT? I’ve rewatched the play and he hits Henry as Tannehill throw the ball. Henry was on the field so I’m not sure how he’s “out of the play” as the ref said. Sure he’s not the intended target but that doesn’t give him immunity from getting hit, he’s not the QB and since he’s at the LoS he’s still within the area to jam any potential receivers.

                      That just strikes me as an absolutely absurd call. Sure it’s possible Johnson saw Tannehill passing and decided to take a shot while he can but he’s still apart of the play. Basically if Tannehill hadn’t thrown it yet, it would’ve been completely ok but because he was throwing it only the receiver he’s throwing it to can be hit and only after the ball is touched by someone? Surely that sounds absurd to you guys as well?
                      It was a brutal call. That's a call they make when they're just looking to call someone for something. But unfortunately Johnson gave them the chance to. He just needs to be smarter next time.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Butler By'Note View Post
                        It was a brutal call. That's a call they make when they're just looking to call someone for something. But unfortunately Johnson gave them the chance to. He just needs to be smarter next time.
                        That’s the thing though, is it not within his right to get a jam on a potential receiving target at the LoS? The explanation did the call no favors either, the only players out of a play are on the sideline.

                        It’s like when a QB gets outside of the pocket, defenders can all but tackle WRs as long as the ball isn’t coming to them. It kind of contradicts what Johnson was called for. So can WRs not block if they’re on the opposite side of the field? They’re “out of the play” technically. What happens if the ball got batted back however far to Henry?

                        The explanation really bothers me. And it looked to be a part of the game plan to hit the TEs and RBs at the LoS whenever they went out for a pass but that was the only time it was called. It just seems like a made up call to me.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Dotst View Post
                          No it was a BS call. All he did was push him. Didnt see if Henry actually fell to the ground. Guarantee if O doesnt catch that interception, the flag isnt thrown

                          Even IF that is a penalty, it shouldnt negate the turnover. that is complete and utter BS. The 15 yards(also it shouldnt even be 15 fricken yards for a push. should be 5. football is so soft nowadays) shouldve been taken off where we would have had the ball
                          Terrible call, but that was a really exciting play by Ojemudia. That's the kind of flash you want to see from a 3rd round pick. As far as the call, I can remember times when those kind of flags have gone in the Broncos' favor. I think bad officiating usually evens out. We'll get one of those in our favor soon.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Sucked for Ojemudia. What an incredible play to make as a rookie on your first career interception. Could have turned the game around. Would have been a huge boost to his confidence. Instead, he's robbed of that experience. Hope he focuses on how well he played in his first game against a good team.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Shurmur is going to have been a mistake
                              Red 98

                              Kareem rises to the top

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by dizzolve View Post
                                Shurmur is going to have been a mistake
                                Present future past tense?

                                Hopefully not, because that carousel has been out of control, like the DC position under Shanny. At least Shurmur is a proven OC and fielded decent Eagles and Vikes offenses -and that's with Keenum! Let's give him, and the group of youngsters on offense, some time.

                                Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X