Skip to main content

Broncos lose again

The Denver Broncos lost their second preseason game last night 27-13 to the Seattle Seahawks, dropping the team to 0-2 in pretend games so far this year.

Kyle Orton was better yesterday than he was in the first game. That’s not saying much. He completed 18 of 26 passes for 182 yards and a touchdown, and also threw an interception in the end zone. Let’s discuss that pick and the series of events leading to it because it is emblematic, I fear, of what Denver’s season could look like.

The Broncos got the ball on their own 13 yard line and, thanks largely to a series of complete passes, moved into scoring position. (Check the play-by-play here; it’s the drive that started with 10:33 left in the second.) After a short pass to Eddie Royal, the Broncos get first-and-goal on the four. LaMont Jordan runs three yards to the one. So it’s second-and-goal on the one or, in other words, the Broncos had three chances to move the ball one yard.

Well, here’s a team with a proud history of running the ball, and with a ton of RBs to evaluate on the roster. Surely ONE of the downs will go to a run. Instead, it’s three straight passing plays. The first two were incomplete passes to Jabar Gaffney, and I think one of them was that laser Orton threw over Gaffney’s head when he was standing wide open in the back of the end zone. Whenever that opportunity came, Orton blew it badly. But he didn’t call three straight pass plays. On fourth down, Orton ran away from pressure, switched the ball to his left hand (huh?), and lofted an absolute rainbow in the middle of about eighteen Seattle defenders which, predictably, was picked off. You know, it’s the kind of idiot play you make when you know you have absolute job security. (Chris Simms was 5-for-7, but Orton started the second half this time and Tom Brandstater came in later, so I guess Simms is the secret weapon this year.)

Again, though, why weren’t we running it? I get that Shanahan isn’t the coach here anymore, but it’s not like the conventional wisdom suggests it’s easy to throw with only one yard and an end zone to work with. And Shanahan HAS thrown in those situations, though often with bootlegs or play action or some other “set up the pass with the run” scheming. The fourth-down pick was awful. The sycophantic local announcers excused it since it was fourth down and everything, but as my brother pointed out, doesn’t the field position mean something? Since the Seahawks got a touchback, the interception, though not as costly as some, gave the Seahawks nineteen yards we didn’t have to give them, plus valuable breathing room on dropbacks, etc.

Look, it’s one thing when your team doesn’t win, but plays hard. It’s one thing when your team is young, and doesn’t quite know what it’s doing yet, but is still exciting and tough. But when your team is young, a little short on talent, and making horrible decisions on the sideline and on the field, it makes for a terrible year.

Comments

John said…
You are exactly right, particularly about that 2nd quarter drive. The worst part is that the field position may have mattered quite a bit, as the Seahawks marched down the field and scored right before the half.

I was sorely disappointed in the sycophantic coverage of the game in the local media on two points. First, the local media blamed Gaffney for the incompletion in the end zone, calling it a "drop." I am not sure which game they were watching; Orton fired it in way too hard and way too high for the conditions. Second, the local media tried to play up Orton's one touchdown pass. But the prior play was a horribly underthrown fade to Tony Scheffter that richocheted off the defender's hands and should have been intercepted. So Orton just as easily should have had a 2-pick game.

This is going to be a long season.

Popular posts from this blog

National Basketball Association Finals Preview Blowout!

If you're looking for a stereotypical matchup breakdown for the NBA Finals between the Detroit Pistons and San Antonio Spurs, (Game One is tonight, 7 o'clock Mountain, ABC), you've come to the right place! Center: Ben Wallace, Pistons vs. Nazr Mohammed, Spurs Wallace might be the league's top defender, winning his third Defensive Player of the Year award this season and leading the Pistons in both blocks and steals. It's said he's an improved offensive player, but he still scores primarily on tips and wide-open dunks. "Big Ben" is horrific from the foul line, connecting on 42.8% this season. Also, his brother has taken on NBA players and can probably beat up Mohammed's brother. Mohammed has been a good fit for the Spurs since being traded from the Knicks. It appears Isiah Thomas may have finally made his first mistake as general manager in New York, as Mohammed has started every Spurs' playoff game, averaging 8.1 points to go with a solid seven...

Forget Brett Favre (*)

From my 2007 NFL season preview : Favre's not as good as he once was-who is?-but he's not the disgrace people make him out to be...I don't think he "deserves" to go out with another Lombardi or anything, but I hope he gets to leave on a good note. Oops. What a mistake. And I even knew this day was coming. Let me say that Brett Favre deserves to go down in history with whatever records he earns, so long as a giant asterisk is placed by each and every one of them. As you may have heard, Sunday's victory over the New York Giants made Favre the winningest quarterback in NFL history. I don't know what ESPN did on TV, but this record practically went unnoticed in the places I follow sports. But it's of crucial importance to me. Why? "Maybe someday down the road it will mean a lot," a typically humble Favre said after the 149th win of his career, moving past Hall of Famer [and indisputable greatest quarterback of all time] John Elway. Humble...

Did CU ever win the Pac-12?

In 2010, I bet a college buddy of mine (who longtime readers may remember as the only other contributor to Hole Punch Sports) that CU’s football team would not win the Pac-12 in the next 15 years. Guess what? It’s time for me to gloat, because I was right. Why we were doomed Back in the day, a lot of people made the argument that CU should join the Pac-12 because we’d get so much more TV money there. Of course, given college football is the answer to the question, “what if you had a sport where multiple teams were like the Yankees, and you created a whole universe of haves and have-nots?”, then yeah, you want to be aligned with some of the haves. But the question in my mind wasn’t, “will CU be better off with more money?” That’s an obvious yes. The question I asked was, will CU be any more competitive in their own conference if they’re competing against teams who are also getting more money? I couldn’t see why they would be. The mathematical angle Legend has it that Cowboys runn...