Panic?
mcgozer
but it was obvious to me even with such limited exposure to the game that
the Broncos seemed to be in trouble. Reading the remarks of others, who I
assume saw the entire game, there is a lot of angst. I think its a little
early to panic. I didn't expect them to go 6 - 0, and I expect them to lose
a few of the remaining games. However, if they lose half of the games after
the bye they go 11 - 5. If they can manage to do better than 50% they go
12 - 4 or 13 - 3. I can live with that.
Or does today's performance give the idea they can't manage 50% of the
remaining games? I'll have to watch for the replay on NFL network.
Adam Smith
Honestly after seeing the game today, it's hard to avoid the
conclusion that the Ravens are simply a better team than the Broncos.
The Ravens matched the physical intensity of the Broncos, and they
were the first opponent to not fade in the second half. (It wouldn't
surprise me if they had a similarly tough conditioning program.) If
anything, the second half was when the Ravens really seized the game
and started dominating.
Jon Jon
I wouldn't "panic", most 6-1 teams don't .. EVERY facet of a football
team went South Sunday and what to attribute that to is for the Coaches
to decide .. the one UPSIDE is IF we meet Baltimore again we "have their
film".
Though all teams have one, I am not fond of the Bye week - seems any
"momentum" is lost; though I reckon Baltimore players would disagree
with me LOL
Kudos to the Baltimore "D" - they did contain our Offense.
Hoping we regroup for Pittsburgh.
Test time for McDenver :-)
Smokie Darling (Annie)
> On Nov 1, 8:31 pm, "mcgozer" <mcgo...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > I didn't get to see the game today, well, I saw the first couple of series,
> > but it was obvious to me even with such limited exposure to the game that
> > the Broncos seemed to be in trouble. Reading the remarks of others, who I
> > assume saw the entire game, there is a lot of angst. I think its a little
> > early to panic. I didn't expect them to go 6 - 0, and I expect them to lose
> > a few of the remaining games. However, if they lose half of the games after
> > the bye they go 11 - 5. If they can manage to do better than 50% they go
> > 12 - 4 or 13 - 3. I can live with that.
>
> > Or does today's performance give the idea they can't manage 50% of the
> > remaining games? I'll have to watch for the replay on NFL network.
>
> Honestly after seeing the game today, it's hard to avoid the
> conclusion that the Ravens are simply a better team than the Broncos.
...and that's been said all along. The Ravens were the team to beat
in the AFC (since no one seems to count the Colts anymore).
> The Ravens matched the physical intensity of the Broncos, and they
> were the first opponent to not fade in the second half. (It wouldn't
> surprise me if they had a similarly tough conditioning program.) If
> anything, the second half was when the Ravens really seized the game
> and started dominating.
Yeah, that kickoff for a TD was pretty much a back breaker.
Adam Smith
wrote:
> On Nov 1, 10:43 pm, Adam Smith <adamcsm...@fastmail.us> wrote:
>
> > Honestly after seeing the game today, it's hard to avoid the
> > conclusion that the Ravens are simply a better team than the Broncos.
>
> ...and that's been said all along. The Ravens were the team to beat
> in the AFC (since no one seems to count the Colts anymore).
Indeed. I'm not surprised or really even upset that the Broncos can't
beat what looks to be one of the 2-3 best teams in the conference.
You can't expect that from a team with as many new starters as the
Broncos plus a new coaching staff.
> > The Ravens matched the physical intensity of the Broncos, and they
> > were the first opponent to not fade in the second half. (It wouldn't
> > surprise me if they had a similarly tough conditioning program.) If
> > anything, the second half was when the Ravens really seized the game
> > and started dominating.
>
> Yeah, that kickoff for a TD was pretty much a back breaker.
Definitely, but even aside from that the Ravens just started turning
the screws hard in the third quarter. For all the announcers' talk
about the Ravens being "fired up", I thought the Broncos' D was
matching the intensity of the Ravens' D for the first half. It was
the second half when they started looking tired, presumably because
the Ravens' offense had been wearing them down.
That last touchdown drive for the Ravens really showed how beat-up the
D was. It was a known rushing situation; all the Ravens needed to do
was kill a little clock and kick a field goal to put the game out of
two-possession reach, but the Broncos still couldn't stop them from
rushing for a TD.
What I find interesting is the fact that the Broncos' new defensive
toughness and physical-ness have reminded me of the way the Ravens
have been for the last decade, and now the Ravens are the first team
to physically out-last the Broncos for 60 minutes. The connection
seems pretty obvious.