It's been said that the key to the Broncos' resurgence this season has been the much-improved play of oft-maligned quarterback Jake Plummer.
Wrong!
Hear me out: Plummer's having a fine year. But outside of chucking a few too many picks last year with either hand or "obscene gestures" with just one (is it just me or does obscene gestures sound a lot worse than just saying he flipped a guy off?), he's done almost everything right in Denver. In fact, I'm not sure he's playing any better now than he did his first year here.
Check the numbers:
2003: Went 189-302 (62.6%) for 2182 yards, 15 TDs, and 7 INTs.
2004: Went 303-521 (58.2%) for 4089 yards, 27 TDs, and 20 INTs.
2005: Has gone 160-264 (60.6%) for 1849 yards, 13 TDs, and 3 INTs.
If the 2003 totals look low, you'll remember he missed time due to injuries and postseason preparation. If the 2005 totals look low, it's because the season's not over, genius.
In 2003 the Broncos started out looking tremendous, but got lost when Steve Beuerlein (who I liked) and Danny Kanell (who's never shot anyone) had to fill in. That blew our chance for a home playoff game. Kind of a costly lesson, because I think the key to breaking Mike Shanahan's playoff losing streak would be to host a postseason game. Apparently Mike disagrees; his No. 2 QB this year is a well-known chump.
Considering Plummer was throwing the ball deeper than ever in '04, he was good every year. Last year's picks, though, were especially costly and therefore overly memorable. (Let's not forget that he showcased his inability to discern jerseys in Arizona, as well.) He's avoided turnovers almost completely this year.
But Plummer playing well is not much of a change. (Besides, we're 21st in the league in passing offense anyway.)
What has worked right? Well, the Broncos' overall rankings are aboutwhere they were a few weeks ago when I went through them-we still stop the run and can run on anybody despite giving carries to two backs.
If you know your Broncos history, you'd expect a tandem backfield to work out like it did when Sammy Winder was spelled by Gerald Wilhite and Gene Lang. Usually when you split the load, the runners have an average of about 6.0-but that's not yards per carry, it's time in the forty. Yet Mike Anderson (4.5 per carry for 669 yards) and Tatum Bell (6.3 for 606), both of whom are on pace for thousand-yard seasons (though it won't end like that), have been consistent while still making their own kinds of big plays.
I can't shake the feeling that we the Broncos have been a little lucky, but then I don't expect much of a dropoff. After blowing out what's left of the New York Jets franchise this Sunday, expect your Thanksgiving to include watching Denver tear through the history-rich Cowboys like an ethnic studies professor through the history of actual cowboys. (To be fair, Dallas leads the division-but it's Drew Bledsoe and it's not 1995 any more, you know?)
We have a mildly challenging schedule the rest of the year-at K.C, home against the Ravens, at Bills, then at home on Christmas Eve because the Raiders didn't get enough last week, and finally at San Diego. While I'd like to predict a first-round playoff bye, I can't help but be blown away by Pittsburgh having our record (7-2) despite playing Tommy Maddox.
Speaking of Broncos history...let's just say Maddox has a 32.6 rating this year, which is bad even for him. It would be his worst ever-if he hadn't once gone 6-for-23 with three interceptions for a season in New York. I am not kidding, he had a quarterback rating of zero. Anyway, this is all a long way of making fun of Tommy and saying the Steelers will once again snag the first-round bye, though we're still on pace in the AFC West.
(Which reminds me, if the Colts stay atop the AFC, that could clear the way for a Tony Dungy-Bill Cowher AFC title game. I mean, someone has to win that game, right? It might take a dozen overtimes but dang it, somebody's going to the Super Bowl. Aren't they?)
Wrong!
Hear me out: Plummer's having a fine year. But outside of chucking a few too many picks last year with either hand or "obscene gestures" with just one (is it just me or does obscene gestures sound a lot worse than just saying he flipped a guy off?), he's done almost everything right in Denver. In fact, I'm not sure he's playing any better now than he did his first year here.
Check the numbers:
2003: Went 189-302 (62.6%) for 2182 yards, 15 TDs, and 7 INTs.
2004: Went 303-521 (58.2%) for 4089 yards, 27 TDs, and 20 INTs.
2005: Has gone 160-264 (60.6%) for 1849 yards, 13 TDs, and 3 INTs.
If the 2003 totals look low, you'll remember he missed time due to injuries and postseason preparation. If the 2005 totals look low, it's because the season's not over, genius.
In 2003 the Broncos started out looking tremendous, but got lost when Steve Beuerlein (who I liked) and Danny Kanell (who's never shot anyone) had to fill in. That blew our chance for a home playoff game. Kind of a costly lesson, because I think the key to breaking Mike Shanahan's playoff losing streak would be to host a postseason game. Apparently Mike disagrees; his No. 2 QB this year is a well-known chump.
Considering Plummer was throwing the ball deeper than ever in '04, he was good every year. Last year's picks, though, were especially costly and therefore overly memorable. (Let's not forget that he showcased his inability to discern jerseys in Arizona, as well.) He's avoided turnovers almost completely this year.
But Plummer playing well is not much of a change. (Besides, we're 21st in the league in passing offense anyway.)
What has worked right? Well, the Broncos' overall rankings are aboutwhere they were a few weeks ago when I went through them-we still stop the run and can run on anybody despite giving carries to two backs.
If you know your Broncos history, you'd expect a tandem backfield to work out like it did when Sammy Winder was spelled by Gerald Wilhite and Gene Lang. Usually when you split the load, the runners have an average of about 6.0-but that's not yards per carry, it's time in the forty. Yet Mike Anderson (4.5 per carry for 669 yards) and Tatum Bell (6.3 for 606), both of whom are on pace for thousand-yard seasons (though it won't end like that), have been consistent while still making their own kinds of big plays.
I can't shake the feeling that we the Broncos have been a little lucky, but then I don't expect much of a dropoff. After blowing out what's left of the New York Jets franchise this Sunday, expect your Thanksgiving to include watching Denver tear through the history-rich Cowboys like an ethnic studies professor through the history of actual cowboys. (To be fair, Dallas leads the division-but it's Drew Bledsoe and it's not 1995 any more, you know?)
We have a mildly challenging schedule the rest of the year-at K.C, home against the Ravens, at Bills, then at home on Christmas Eve because the Raiders didn't get enough last week, and finally at San Diego. While I'd like to predict a first-round playoff bye, I can't help but be blown away by Pittsburgh having our record (7-2) despite playing Tommy Maddox.
Speaking of Broncos history...let's just say Maddox has a 32.6 rating this year, which is bad even for him. It would be his worst ever-if he hadn't once gone 6-for-23 with three interceptions for a season in New York. I am not kidding, he had a quarterback rating of zero. Anyway, this is all a long way of making fun of Tommy and saying the Steelers will once again snag the first-round bye, though we're still on pace in the AFC West.
(Which reminds me, if the Colts stay atop the AFC, that could clear the way for a Tony Dungy-Bill Cowher AFC title game. I mean, someone has to win that game, right? It might take a dozen overtimes but dang it, somebody's going to the Super Bowl. Aren't they?)
Comments
I am confused by your "Jake does play a bigger role than you think", followed by saying he doesn't impress you much. Well, whatever. Field position has definitely played a big part. But I still feel like we've been lucky.
*take that CSU
"Mr. Clark don't play."
The Baltimore Billicks? Who are you, Peter King?
The Steelers, Jaguars and Bengals (?) are all within a game of us in the overall AFC standings, so I am not sure if I agree that only Pitt has a shot (though they're clearly the best of the three). And all three used high picks on QBs lately...maybe it is wise to take them No. 1 every single freaking year.
So I ran into my old roommate yesterday who likes the Raiders, and he started talking crap to me because he thinks they will handle the Dolphins this week (and the Broncos couldn't). He was serious, too. Of course, he's the kind of kid who pointed out that Oakland leads the all-time series, like that's relevant. Am I the only one who could not care less about something like that?