Punting
Howard Brazee
Fred Waiss, Sr.
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:n95se5ljkuh6jqth8...@4ax.com...
> Tell me again, why did we switch punters?
I, too, was wondering that. If that's an upgrade, I'd hate to see a downgrade.
I also was wondering about the absence of the TEs in the offense.
The last game of last year, against SD, every offensive play it looked like
there were 13 defensive guys to Denver's 11. Haven't seen that this year until
this game.
The O-line got beat in the trenches, special teams got clobbered, and the
biggest difference was the QB play. Running game was pretty close to even.
Well, we all knew they'd lose one eventually. I suspect they'll lose to
Pittsburgh next week also, though playing at home might make a difference.
Probably not enough of one. That Pitt D is nasty.
It was nice to see Larson get in some hits on ST after his long absence.
Adam Smith
> As long as the Broncos can't stretch the field then opposing defenses have
> learned that all they have to do is defend the first ten yards. It's over for
> the rest of the season unless the offensive system changes.
I doubt that was ever much of a secret; I think the difference between
the Ravens and previous opponents is that the Ravens actually had the
personnel to make it work. Other teams will be able to make it work
too, but I doubt that all of them will.
It does make it seem likely that the Broncos won't win a playoff game,
though.
Howard Brazee
<adamc...@fastmail.us> wrote:
>I doubt that was ever much of a secret; I think the difference between
>the Ravens and previous opponents is that the Ravens actually had the
>personnel to make it work. Other teams will be able to make it work
>too, but I doubt that all of them will.
Next week's opponent has some similarities to the Ravens. I expect
the Dennison to be pretty busy right now.
>It does make it seem likely that the Broncos won't win a playoff game,
>though.
It depends on who they play.
Thinking on the undefeated teams - this week the Colts looked
vulnerable. Some people said we had to leave our running game when
we got behind - but last week New Orleans was way behind and won - by
running the ball.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Cleatarrior
> "Fred Waiss, Sr." <wa...@centurytel.net> wrote in
> news:k4SdnUcI5qDvhXPX...@centurytel.net:
> learned that all they have to do is defend the first ten yards. It's over for
> the rest of the season unless the offensive system changes.
>
>
Thank you.
A power running game we don't have.
Adam Smith
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:30:23 -0800 (PST), Adam Smith
>
> >I doubt that was ever much of a secret; I think the difference between
> >the Ravens and previous opponents is that the Ravens actually had the
> >personnel to make it work. Other teams will be able to make it work
> >too, but I doubt that all of them will.
>
> Next week's opponent has some similarities to the Ravens. I expect
> the Dennison to be pretty busy right now.
>
> >It does make it seem likely that the Broncos won't win a playoff game,
> >though.
>
> It depends on who they play.
>
> Thinking on the undefeated teams - this week the Colts looked
> vulnerable. Some people said we had to leave our running game when
> we got behind - but last week New Orleans was way behind and won - by
> running the ball.
I suppose there are likely playoff teams the Broncos could beat. If
the playoffs started today, it would be Indy, Denver, Cincinnati, New
England, Pittsburgh, and Houston getting in from the AFC. I'd say the
Colts and Steelers would probably beat the Broncos handily, the
Bengals and Patriots would be a toss-up (the Bengals game was a tie
for 59 minutes, and the Patriots game was a tie for 60 minutes), and I
have no idea about the Texans.
But that's assuming playoffs. The Chargers are only two games back
now, and there's still a lot of football left to play.