Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Still a great coordinator. One of the best in the league.

No question...the need to defend he and HaRoman at times goes overboard. Just a bad game plan. Period.

Game plan is kind of limited when you're missing 5 starters on defense......I only defend Roman because idiotic fans dont know what they're talking about when they want him fired.

Seriously? You mean the same 5 starters we've missed all year...and then got our #1 CB back to replace the departed Willis? Come on man...we had plenty of talent on that field to at least make this a manageable game. It was the same lineup we ended with last week. We sat back and gave Manning all he needed.

uh, no. Didn't start the game with Willis, didn't start the game with Ward, didn't start the game with Culliver. You have Brock coming back after missing a ton of action.

We had 3 f**king corners available last night. Couldn't generate ANY pass rush with 4 players. Went down early vs. St. Louis. can't do that with Denver. Manning plays a full game. these weren't the Rams. Off man is our scheme. It would actually be effective if we could generate decent pressure without blitzing. I don't blame Fangio for the loss. Period.

When Brock gave up that last touchdown, why the f**k was he playing so far off? When on previous downs the CB's lined up didn't play as far off.

So then why not blitz? It's not like they could have got carved up any worse by Manning. That was just stupid having one and sometimes all corners give 10 yards of cushion and then absolutely no pressure on Manning. Even on the play he fell down because he got tripped, it took FOREVER for someone to get back there and touch him down.

More than likely nothing the defense did was going to change the outcome of this game, but to have a pretend "pass rush" of 4 and sometimes 3 guys while Manning dissects you to the tune of 22 FOR 26 was just lame beyond belief.

Originally posted by DelCed2486:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Still a great coordinator. One of the best in the league.

No question...the need to defend he and HaRoman at times goes overboard. Just a bad game plan. Period.

Game plan is kind of limited when you're missing 5 starters on defense......I only defend Roman because idiotic fans dont know what they're talking about when they want him fired.

Seriously? You mean the same 5 starters we've missed all year...and then got our #1 CB back to replace the departed Willis? Come on man...we had plenty of talent on that field to at least make this a manageable game. It was the same lineup we ended with last week. We sat back and gave Manning all he needed.

uh, no. Didn't start the game with Willis, didn't start the game with Ward, didn't start the game with Culliver. You have Brock coming back after missing a ton of action.

We had 3 f**king corners available last night. Couldn't generate ANY pass rush with 4 players. Went down early vs. St. Louis. can't do that with Denver. Manning plays a full game. these weren't the Rams. Off man is our scheme. It would actually be effective if we could generate decent pressure without blitzing. I don't blame Fangio for the loss. Period.

When Brock gave up that last touchdown, why the f**k was he playing so far off? When on previous downs the CB's lined up didn't play as far off.

So then why not blitz? It's not like they could have got carved up any worse by Manning. That was just stupid having one and sometimes all corners give 10 yards of cushion and then absolutely no pressure on Manning. Even on the play he fell down because he got tripped, it took FOREVER for someone to get back there and touch him down.

More than likely nothing the defense did was going to change the outcome of this game, but to have a pretend "pass rush" of 4 and sometimes 3 guys while Manning dissects you to the tune of 22 FOR 26 was just lame beyond belief.

We DID blitz. Did people not watch the game? My POINT is, IF you CAN'T generate pressure with at least 4 then it is going to be TOUGH to beat him. Because he will eat our blitzes alive.

It was just bad... 2 backup ILB's vs. Peyton Manning... Our #1 CB coming back after missing FIVE weeks of game action... Could have not been 100% still, could have been rusty. Who knows. Our defense was decimated top to bottom. vs. a high powered offense like Peyton that is clicking = recipe for disaster...

Take away 3 players from the 'legion of boom'. See what happens

Fangio is good, no doubt about it. But what he doesn't do well is make adjustments during the game once his plan has gone to sh*t. He is stubborn and doesn't want to get out of his scheme no matter what is happening on the field because he plays a style of defense that depends on outstanding players making plays. Well guess what? Right now we don't have outstanding players out there. How about changing you're one flavor D and help protect those players. For example, he left a rookie Jimmie Ward exposed trying to cover a top tier WR that's a foot taller all game and gave him no help after getting beat over and over again. That lost us the Chicago game.

The other Fangio trait that's also shared by Roman, is that they don't adjust they're game plan to fit they're next opponent. The New York Giiants figured out how to beat all world QBs like Peyton and Brady. They decided to put 4 Defensive Ends, they're best pass rushers, on the DLine at the same time. Why didn't Fangio activate Tank and put the top 4 pass rushers on the line at the same time and just make a B-line ot the QB. The Giants ddn't hve top LBS or DBs and they knew it. They knew that if the pass rushers didn't disrupt Brady, he'd pick them apart. What did you have to lose Vic?

Vic and Roman play not to lose instead of taking a chance to win. We knew this game was going to be a loss (short week, two straight away games,altitude, everyone hurt, etc.) but instead of being bold and try something different that might catch the Broncos by surprise, they showed up with this predictable crap.

Originally posted by REB4:
Fangio is good, no doubt about it. But what he doesn't do well is make adjustments during the game once his plan has gone to sh*t. He is stubborn and doesn't want to get out of his scheme no matter what is happening on the field because he plays a style of defense that depends on outstanding players making plays. Well guess what? Right now we don't have outstanding players out there. How about changing you're one flavor D and help protect those players. For example, he left a rookie Jimmie Ward exposed trying to cover a top tier WR that's a foot taller all game and gave him no help after getting beat over and over again. That lost us the game.

The other Fangio trait that's also shared by Roman, is that they don't adjust they're game plan to fit they're next opponent. The New York Giiants figured out how to beat all world QBs like Peyton and Brady. They decided to put 4 Defensive Ends, they're best pass rushers, on the DLine at the same time. Why didn't Fangio activate Tank and put the top 4 pass rushers on the line at the same time and just make a B-line ot the QB. The Giants ddn't hve top LBS or DBs and they knew it. They knew that if the pass rushers didn't disrupt Brady, he'd pick them apart. What did you have to lose Vic?

Vic and Roman play not to lose instead of taking a chance to win. We knew this game was going to be a loss (short week, two straight away games,altitude, everyone hurt, etc.) but instead of being bold and try something different that might catch the Broncos by surprise, they showed up with this predictable crap.

Fangio tried giving Ward help in that game but the Bears made it hard due to their personnel groupings. He did attempt it though from what I read.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Still a great coordinator. One of the best in the league.

No question...the need to defend he and HaRoman at times goes overboard. Just a bad game plan. Period.

Game plan is kind of limited when you're missing 5 starters on defense......I only defend Roman because idiotic fans dont know what they're talking about when they want him fired.

Seriously? You mean the same 5 starters we've missed all year...and then got our #1 CB back to replace the departed Willis? Come on man...we had plenty of talent on that field to at least make this a manageable game. It was the same lineup we ended with last week. We sat back and gave Manning all he needed.

uh, no. Didn't start the game with Willis, didn't start the game with Ward, didn't start the game with Culliver. You have Brock coming back after missing a ton of action.

We had 3 f**king corners available last night. Couldn't generate ANY pass rush with 4 players. Went down early vs. St. Louis. can't do that with Denver. Manning plays a full game. these weren't the Rams. Off man is our scheme. It would actually be effective if we could generate decent pressure without blitzing. I don't blame Fangio for the loss. Period.

When Brock gave up that last touchdown, why the f**k was he playing so far off? When on previous downs the CB's lined up didn't play as far off.

You're kind of making our point here esp. on this last line! I'll give you Willis but we played just fine w/o him most last game and we had a full week to prepare for this one. Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. Willis lead the team with 8 tackles two games ago and that was against Charles and the Chiefs (great running team). So was the drop off THAT big? Most of the game was played in the secondary. The starters were essentially the same: Reid and Bethea and Brock for Cully, Cox and Cook for Ward (odd choice). Soooo? Cully was playing average at best and not so hot last game and he was essentially replaced by a better player in Brock. At worst, it's a wash. So the only difference from start to finish was the Cook for Ward. Fangio made some odd choices on this one. Instead of keeping Cox at LCB where he was rolling and sliding him inside to the slot when needed, he moved him to the opposite side of the field at RCB and then inserted Cook into the slot and started Brock on the other side at LCB. Odd eh?

And why would you think we'd generate ANY pass rush when every pass is thrown under 3 seconds? Playing off coverage made it easy to pass for their offensive schemes and their game plan was to attack Brock (coming off an injury)? We played right into their hands. If it wasn't Brock and Culliver stayed in, I'm sure they would have targeted him with Thomas as well. Same difference. But our scheme would have stayed the same, I'm sure!

Why was he playing so far off? That's scheme, my friend, scheme! Nothing more. So odd personnel choices and moving players around to opposite positions and off-coverage schemes 100% of the game against Manning is begging to lose.

IMHO, had we continued to play Cox at LCB and slide him inside to the slot, put Brock back at his more natural RCB position and when Cox slid inside, bring in Johnson/Cook/Cully to play outside off the bench (like last week), we would have been much better suited to face Manning. THEN, if we played tough, physical, jamming press coverage on top of this, I feel we had a real shot in this game b/c our pass rush was getting there at 3.5+ seconds while Manning was throwing piddly 2-7 yard passes all under 3 seconds BECAUSE we were playing off coverage and giving him those easy passes.

It sure seemed as thought Denver receivers were running textbook routes with little opposition most of the time. Niner receivers were covered far more tightly. Is it skill, scheme or what? I am asking because I do not know.

Fangio's D:

just like the late 80s and 90s, Fangio had a similar Defense in New Orleans.. He had the same type of LBs (The Dome Patrol) and had the same freakin scheme.. The defense he had then is pretty similar to ours, very strong unit, and can get after the QB..

but, they would always FOLD when facing a smart QB like Joe Montana or Steve Young..

Originally posted by carlgo:
It sure seemed as thought Denver receivers were running textbook routes with little opposition most of the time. Niner receivers were covered far more tightly. Is it skill, scheme or what? I am asking because I do not know.

Denver played more man and more physical press. Our secondary scheme relies solely on off coverage and "team coverage" such as pattern matching and a number of other designs. In short, we don't play press (and single high S) like Seattle does against them. They are 2-0 against them. We are an embarrassing 0-1.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Still a great coordinator. One of the best in the league.

No question...the need to defend he and HaRoman at times goes overboard. Just a bad game plan. Period.

Game plan is kind of limited when you're missing 5 starters on defense......I only defend Roman because idiotic fans dont know what they're talking about when they want him fired.

Seriously? You mean the same 5 starters we've missed all year...and then got our #1 CB back to replace the departed Willis? Come on man...we had plenty of talent on that field to at least make this a manageable game. It was the same lineup we ended with last week. We sat back and gave Manning all he needed.

uh, no. Didn't start the game with Willis, didn't start the game with Ward, didn't start the game with Culliver. You have Brock coming back after missing a ton of action.

We had 3 f**king corners available last night. Couldn't generate ANY pass rush with 4 players. Went down early vs. St. Louis. can't do that with Denver. Manning plays a full game. these weren't the Rams. Off man is our scheme. It would actually be effective if we could generate decent pressure without blitzing. I don't blame Fangio for the loss. Period.

When Brock gave up that last touchdown, why the f**k was he playing so far off? When on previous downs the CB's lined up didn't play as far off.

You're kind of making our point here esp. on this last line! I'll give you Willis but we played just fine w/o him most last game and we had a full week to prepare for this one. Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. Willis lead the team with 8 tackles two games ago and that was against Charles and the Chiefs (great running team). So was the drop off THAT big? Most of the game was played in the secondary. The starters were essentially the same: Reid and Bethea and Brock for Cully, Cox and Cook for Ward (odd choice). Soooo? Cully was playing average at best and not so hot last game and he was essentially replaced by a better player in Brock. At worst, it's a wash. So the only difference from start to finish was the Cook for Ward. Fangio made some odd choices on this one. Instead of keeping Cox at LCB where he was rolling and sliding him inside to the slot when needed, he moved him to the opposite side of the field at RCB and then inserted Cook into the slot and started Brock on the other side at LCB. Odd eh?

And why would you think we'd generate ANY pass rush when every pass is thrown under 3 seconds b/c we playing off coverage and they were scheming the crap out of our defense and game planning to attack Brock (coming off an injury)?

Why was he playing so far off? That's scheme, my friend, scheme! Nothing more. So odd personnel choices and moving players around to opposite positions and off-coverage schemes 100% of the game against Manning is begging to lose.

IMHO, had we continued to play Cox at LCB and slide him inside to the slot, put Brock back at his more natural RCB position and when Cox slid inside, start Johnson/Cook/Cully outside, we would have been much better suited to face Manning. THEN, if we played tough, physical, jamming press coverage, I feel we had a real shot in this game b/c our pass rush was getting there at 3.5+ seconds while Manning was throwing piddly 2-7 yard passes all under 3 seconds BECAUSE we were playing off coverage and giving him those designs/plays.

Brock played the furthest off in the redzone. And just because Brock is our #1 corner coming back DOESN'T mean he is a. 100% b. not rusty. Brock was clearly not the same Brock last night. I would have preferred to have a fully healthy Culliver. And there are benefits of playing off-man coverage. But you're acting like it's the worst scheme to play in. My point is Manning will rape the blitz. Which he did, when we blitzed. Just didn't do enough tonight on all 3 levels. Borland had 8 tackles, so what? Still a huge mismatch compared to Willis. So why WOULDN'T the drop off be that big? lol.

Point is, needed to generate pressure somehow without blitzing. Couldn't do it. Brock was clearly 'off', which I had feared after not playing for 5 straight games. We got scored on consecutively if I remember correctly vs. the Rams even with more starters. Can't do that with Peyton... can't f**king do that. Also we did vs. Alex. Tonight was even worse to start the game compared to the last 2 weeks. Yes, it makes a difference.

Originally posted by NCommand:

You're kind of making our point here esp. on this last line! I'll give you Willis but we played just fine w/o him most last game and we had a full week to prepare for this one. Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. Willis lead the team with 8 tackles two games ago and that was against Charles and the Chiefs (great running team). So was the drop off THAT big? Most of the game was played in the secondary. The starters were essentially the same: Reid and Bethea and Brock for Cully, Cox and Cook for Ward (odd choice). Soooo? Cully was playing average at best and not so hot last game and he was essentially replaced by a better player in Brock. At worst, it's a wash. So the only difference from start to finish was the Cook for Ward. Fangio made some odd choices on this one. Instead of keeping Cox at LCB where he was rolling and sliding him inside to the slot when needed, he moved him to the opposite side of the field at RCB and then inserted Cook into the slot and started Brock on the other side at LCB. Odd eh?

And why would you think we'd generate ANY pass rush when every pass is thrown under 3 seconds? Playing off coverage made it easy to pass for their offensive schemes and their game plan was to attack Brock (coming off an injury)? We played right into their hands. If it wasn't Brock and Culliver stayed in, I'm sure they would have targeted him with Thomas as well. Same difference. But our scheme would have stayed the same, I'm sure!

Why was he playing so far off? That's scheme, my friend, scheme! Nothing more. So odd personnel choices and moving players around to opposite positions and off-coverage schemes 100% of the game against Manning is begging to lose.

IMHO, had we continued to play Cox at LCB and slide him inside to the slot, put Brock back at his more natural RCB position and when Cox slid inside, bring in Johnson/Cook/Cully to play outside off the bench (like last week), we would have been much better suited to face Manning. THEN, if we played tough, physical, jamming press coverage on top of this, I feel we had a real shot in this game b/c our pass rush was getting there at 3.5+ seconds while Manning was throwing piddly 2-7 yard passes all under 3 seconds BECAUSE we were playing off coverage and giving him those easy passes.

Nc you didnt feel there was a drop off in ilb play?

is it me and my brand new 60 inch TV, or did Brock looked FAT???

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Nc you didnt feel there was a drop off in ilb play?

apparently not. borland plays with heart but he just looked undersized and was a total mismatch vs. run and pass

We had zero inside pressure. And physically we could not hang with bronco receivers. Scary part is our backfoeld is what we wanted. Brock cox reid bethea. Still got scorched. Oir ilbs were exposed.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Still a great coordinator. One of the best in the league.

No question...the need to defend he and HaRoman at times goes overboard. Just a bad game plan. Period.

Game plan is kind of limited when you're missing 5 starters on defense......I only defend Roman because idiotic fans dont know what they're talking about when they want him fired.

Seriously? You mean the same 5 starters we've missed all year...and then got our #1 CB back to replace the departed Willis? Come on man...we had plenty of talent on that field to at least make this a manageable game. It was the same lineup we ended with last week. We sat back and gave Manning all he needed.

uh, no. Didn't start the game with Willis, didn't start the game with Ward, didn't start the game with Culliver. You have Brock coming back after missing a ton of action.

We had 3 f**king corners available last night. Couldn't generate ANY pass rush with 4 players. Went down early vs. St. Louis. can't do that with Denver. Manning plays a full game. these weren't the Rams. Off man is our scheme. It would actually be effective if we could generate decent pressure without blitzing. I don't blame Fangio for the loss. Period.

When Brock gave up that last touchdown, why the f**k was he playing so far off? When on previous downs the CB's lined up didn't play as far off.

You're kind of making our point here esp. on this last line! I'll give you Willis but we played just fine w/o him most last game and we had a full week to prepare for this one. Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. Willis lead the team with 8 tackles two games ago and that was against Charles and the Chiefs (great running team). So was the drop off THAT big? Most of the game was played in the secondary. The starters were essentially the same: Reid and Bethea and Brock for Cully, Cox and Cook for Ward (odd choice). Soooo? Cully was playing average at best and not so hot last game and he was essentially replaced by a better player in Brock. At worst, it's a wash. So the only difference from start to finish was the Cook for Ward. Fangio made some odd choices on this one. Instead of keeping Cox at LCB where he was rolling and sliding him inside to the slot when needed, he moved him to the opposite side of the field at RCB and then inserted Cook into the slot and started Brock on the other side at LCB. Odd eh?

And why would you think we'd generate ANY pass rush when every pass is thrown under 3 seconds b/c we playing off coverage and they were scheming the crap out of our defense and game planning to attack Brock (coming off an injury)?

Why was he playing so far off? That's scheme, my friend, scheme! Nothing more. So odd personnel choices and moving players around to opposite positions and off-coverage schemes 100% of the game against Manning is begging to lose.

IMHO, had we continued to play Cox at LCB and slide him inside to the slot, put Brock back at his more natural RCB position and when Cox slid inside, start Johnson/Cook/Cully outside, we would have been much better suited to face Manning. THEN, if we played tough, physical, jamming press coverage, I feel we had a real shot in this game b/c our pass rush was getting there at 3.5+ seconds while Manning was throwing piddly 2-7 yard passes all under 3 seconds BECAUSE we were playing off coverage and giving him those designs/plays.

Brock played the furthest off in the redzone. And just because Brock is our #1 corner coming back DOESN'T mean he is a. 100% b. not rusty. Brock was clearly not the same Brock last night. I would have preferred to have a fully healthy Culliver. And there are benefits of playing off-man coverage. But you're acting like it's the worst scheme to play in. My point is Manning will rape the blitz. Which he did, when we blitzed. Just didn't do enough tonight on all 3 levels. Borland had 8 tackles, so what? Still a huge mismatch compared to Willis. So why WOULDN'T the drop off be that big? lol.

Point is, needed to generate pressure somehow without blitzing. Couldn't do it. Brock was clearly 'off', which I had feared after not playing for 5 straight games. We got scored on consecutively if I remember correctly vs. the Rams even with more starters. Can't do that with Peyton... can't f**king do that. Also we did vs. Alex. Tonight was even worse to start the game compared to the last 2 weeks. Yes, it makes a difference.

You're backwards. Nobody is saying we s/h blitzed. Like when teams blitz against us, CK and Manning will kill you. That's the last thing you do against Manning! What you do is play physical, jamming press with the WR's and throw off their timing routes (like how the Giants played us back in the 80's when we ran the WCO). That disrupts timing and allows that extra second (hesitation by the QB) for your base pass rushers to get there (Lynch, Brooks, Smith, McDonald, Williams, Dobbs, etc.). And yes, then you also mix it up and play off coverage at times, some pattern matching, disguise coverages, etc. But to sit back the entire game in off coverage is just asking to play right into their offensive philosophy AND strengths.

And yes, I agree about Culliver. It didn't take long to see the Broncos were game planning to get their best playmaker (Thomas) on our weakest link in the secondary (Brock off the injury). But, to be fair, even if Culliver was in there, they would have targeted him as well b/c there was no way they were going after Cox!

So I'm not sure what your argument is...we had the personnel we needed but Fangio made some odd personnel choices/switches, left Brock on an island and game planned to the strengths of the Broncos. That's we they scored 42 points NOT b/c Borland repalced Willis or any other personnel excuse.

Originally posted by defenderDX:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Nc you didnt feel there was a drop off in ilb play?

apparently not. borland plays with heart but he just looked undersized and was a total mismatch vs. run and pass

Nope...not as big as you'd think.