Our Defensive Coordinator, Vic Fangio

Originally posted by defenderDX:

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

Yeah. It impacted a lot. I think last td he got bowled.

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

our linebackers didn't cost us the game last night though. it was not playing press coverage when that is obviously the solution when you play an offense that is completely dependent on timing.

we can say we're missing everyone in the world BUT
if you don't press the bronco's then they go and do what they want

you press them you beat them. that's been the case for a peyton manning led offense for 16 years now
that's the point.

it's like me telling you that you can stop bullets with this bullet proof vest and you say no that's ok I'll try something else.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

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

Yeah. It impacted a lot. I think last td he got bowled.

And you think Willis makes that tackles with a wall of offense there? Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. The last full game Willis played, he too had 8 tackles. So no, not THAT big of a drop off. What hurt more than anything was that Wilhoite was forced into calling the defensive alignments. That said, I don't remember any blown assignments but we also don't know if we had to dumb down the alignments either.

I do agree with nc that scheme is primarily to blame in both coverage and pass rush.

Note `primarily` not `only`

Originally posted by jonesadrian:
our linebackers didn't cost us the game last night though. it was not playing press coverage when that is obviously the solution when you play an offense that is completely dependent on timing.

This. Everybody knows this about Manning and his offense...been battle tested for 38 years!

Seriously...you guys think we had the right game plan and you just chalk everything up to "personnel" as to why we gave up 42 points? Really?

Originally posted by NCommand:

And you think Willis makes that tackles with a wall of offense there? Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. The last full game Willis played, he too had 8 tackles. So no, not THAT big of a drop off. What hurt more than anything was that Wilhoite was forced into calling the defensive alignments. That said, I don't remember any blown assignments but we also don't know if we had to dumb down the alignments either.

Well theres a lot mote gping pn than number of tackles dont you think?

Why did Borland play so much, why not more dime defense.

Originally posted by defenderDX:
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.

"Tried" doesn't cut it. Instead of leaving him out there exposed after the first couple of TDs, he should have made the change and put Cook on him instead. Cook is 6'2 and a lot stronger. It's not like Marshall was healthy enough to get behind him, which had been an issue for Cook when he was with the Vikings. It basically would have been a basketball jump ball between two tall guys and all Cook need to do was jump high and bat it away.

Originally posted by NCommand:

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.

Guess what? that's our scheme. Get over it.

Also, we did not have the personnel we needed. And it's shown the last couple weeks. Even more so against Manning.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
I do agree with nc that scheme is primarily to blame in both coverage and pass rush.

Note `primarily` not `only`

Agreed. That was my only point. I wouldn't play press the entire time myself (Manning and the OC would pick up on it). No way. You have to mix it up with him. And yes, no doubt having Willis in would have helped, no question (he does a lot of the little things that go unnoticed). I have no idea what Fnagio was thinking with his personnel choices and odd switches though.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

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

Yeah. It impacted a lot. I think last td he got bowled.

And you think Willis makes that tackles with a wall of offense there? Borland lead the team with 8 tackles. The last full game Willis played, he too had 8 tackles. So no, not THAT big of a drop off. What hurt more than anything was that Wilhoite was forced into calling the defensive alignments. That said, I don't remember any blown assignments but we also don't know if we had to dumb down the alignments either.

How is losing Willis in replacement of Borland NOT that big of a drop off? you're laughable. Borland got bowled over on the goaline, and isn't as good in pass protection due to lack of size. The size Willis has. Also your point about Wilhoite.

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Guess what? that's our scheme. Get over it.

Also, we did not have the personnel we needed. And it's shown the last couple weeks. Even more so against Manning.

Our scheme is whatever we want it to be. If we wanted to just run coverage why draft and acquire nothing but prototypical press corners?

Originally posted by susweel:
Why did Borland play so much, why not more dime defense.

We only had 3 corners available. Again, personnel issues as well. NOT just Fangio

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Guess what? that's our scheme. Get over it.

Also, we did not have the personnel we needed. And it's shown the last couple weeks. Even more so against Manning.

Very weak argument. We were #2 coming into this game WITH THE PERSONNEL WE'VE BEEN USING ALL YEAR LONG against two 5-1 teams, KC, AZ, Chicago, etc. That's DAMN impressive. Last night had nothing to do with personnel. Get over it!

Originally posted by jonesadrian:

Originally posted by defenderDX:
Guess what? that's our scheme. Get over it.

Also, we did not have the personnel we needed. And it's shown the last couple weeks. Even more so against Manning.

Our scheme is whatever we want it to be. If we wanted to just run coverage why draft and acquire nothing but prototypical press corners?

Dontae Johnson? who else?