PDA

View Full Version : Desperate Broncos play Van Pelt for 3 quarters


GP
08-14-2005, 03:11 PM
I haven't seen anybody (maybe I missed it in another thread somewhere) mention the fact that Denver kept their second-string QB in the game until the fourth quarter. Each time they trotted Van Pelt out there during the third quarter, I kept thinking, "Geez...am I really SEEING this?!"

Had we kept Banks in the game that long, we would have scored more points, and the Broncos wouldn't have done as well as they did.

To me, it was very obvious that the Texans were using this game primarily as a way to experiment different schemes and to really evaluate individual performances.....while it looked as though the Broncos were primarily trying to win the game. I'm not saying that the Broncos didn't use the game to try out different schemes and evaluate players....but it sure seemed like keeping your second-string QB in for 3/4 of the game and just pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, was an attempt to ensure a win first and foremost. If they need the confidence THAT bad, then that's pretty sad. :embarrass

If I am not mistaken, they also had Ron Dayne in the game the whole time (he broke a long run towards the end of the game). So, there's another example to support my theory.

Anyway, it just makes me mad when I see comments about how "boring the game was," and how "nobody should pay money to see that," such as what someone reported McLame of the Chronic say about last night's game.

1. No season-ending injuries. 2. Good first-team execution on both sides of the ball. 3. We scored two TDs. What else can someone expect for a flippin' pre-season game that doesn't count for anything?

Don't drink the McLame kool-aid. This was by far the best first-game pre-season game we've had, IMO.

aj.
08-14-2005, 03:47 PM
Van Pelt is essentially a rookie with no career NFL starts. He needs the work. Our third string QB has more NFL experience than Van Pelt.

Dayne could be considered their 3rd or 4th string RB behind Bell, Griffin, and Anderson. I don't agree with the assertion that the Broncos somehow left their "better" players in longer than the Texans did and that might have played a factor in the game. It was what it was. The Texans first team offense was good except for the goal line deal and the defense looked pretty good overall.

Vinny
08-14-2005, 03:51 PM
Van Pelt is essentially a rookie with no career NFL starts. He needs the work. Our third string QB has more NFL experience than Van Pelt.

Dayne could be considered their 3rd or 4th string RB behind Bell, Griffin, and Anderson. I don't agree with the assertion that the Broncos somehow left their "better" players in longer than the Texans did and that might have played a factor in the game. It was what it was. The Texans first team offense was good except for the goal line deal and the defense looked pretty good overall.This is how I see it too. I'd have played Van Pelt like they did also. He impressed me. He needed the snaps.

aj.
08-14-2005, 03:54 PM
He's one of those guys that needs to learn to slide otherwise he will have a very short career. He got loose for the long run but he also got hammered another time on a scramble.

jmantexfan
08-14-2005, 07:22 PM
I don't agree with the assertion that the Broncos somehow left their "better" players in longer than the Texans did and that might have played a factor in the game.

When i came home the Texans second team offense was gtting ready to score the 1st TD against what I believe was the first team Broncos D. I think they kept their first team in one or two more series after that. Remember, Plummer threw a TD pass, and that was after the Banks to Murphy connection. Actually they (Broncos) had some of there first team players in the game in the 2nd quarter. We did pretty good considering our starters only saw one drive compared to a whole quarter by the Broncos.

HJam72
08-14-2005, 07:28 PM
I don't think they should charge regular season prices for these games, but the fans ought to know it will be like this. Hey, I guess if they can sell 'em.

HJam72
08-14-2005, 07:39 PM
I can understand why they played Van Pelt and Dane so much, but it does kind of explain why we lost, too, ya know.

aj.
08-14-2005, 07:45 PM
Van Pelt and Dayne had nothing to do with the fact that the Texans offense gained only 40 yards on 27 plays on 7 'drives' that yielded 6 punts and only 3 first downs during one of the more inept and hideous stretches of football I've seen in a while, beginning late in the second quarter and lasting until late in the fourth....


... of course I'm sure that's because the Broncos kept their front line defensive players in the game longer too. :rolleyes:

HJam72
08-14-2005, 07:49 PM
No, but they did help their offense avoid having some of the same problems. 3rd string teams usually don't score much, even against 3rd string defenses.

TexansTrueFan
08-14-2005, 07:49 PM
ok i also thought plummer and the starting offense of Denver played 2 series longer than our starting O. I think the Old coach is to concerned with winning meaningless pre-season games. But it is obvious that we still need to improve on our depth, but our starting groups on O and D looked very solid.

aj.
08-14-2005, 07:54 PM
Pretty sad when people are blaming any loss on Bradlee Van Pelt and Ron Dayne.

Plummer played three series. Carr played one. Our first team D played great the first two series. I remember looking at the scoreboard late in the first quarter and seeing the lopsided stats: Texans 6 first downs to the Broncos 1. I also remember looking at the scoreboard late in the third quarter and seeing the Texans with only one more first down.

TexansTrueFan
08-14-2005, 07:57 PM
Pretty sad when people are blaming any loss on Bradlee Van Pelt and Ron Dayne.

Plummer played three series. Carr played one. Our first team D played great the first two series. I remember looking at the scoreboard and looking at the lopsided stats - Texans 6 first downs to the Broncs 1.


well sice the first team O and D will be the the ones playing this season we should have a lot to look forward to !

HJam72
08-14-2005, 07:59 PM
Pretty sad when people are blaming any loss on Bradlee Van Pelt and Ron Dayne.



Depends on who's playing against them.

TexansTrueFan
08-14-2005, 08:03 PM
we always lose against the broncos in pre-season so i'm not to concerned, plus i'm very pleased with what i saw from our team !!!!!

nunusguy
08-14-2005, 08:06 PM
one of the more inept and hideous stretches of football I've seen in a while
Hey AJ, this is the first football of any kind those of us on this side of the Atlantic
have seen for a while (actually about 6 months).

TexansTrueFan
08-14-2005, 08:07 PM
Hey AJ, this is the first football of any those of us on this side of the Atlantic
have seen for a while (actually about 6 months).


unless u like arean football :tomato: "which i hate"

aj.
08-14-2005, 08:08 PM
Depends on who's playing against them.

They were playing against Babin, DeLoach, Simmons, Anderson, Faggins, Orr, Bell, Evans, and others who have nearly as much or in some cases more experience as they do.

nunusguy
08-14-2005, 08:09 PM
unless u like arean football :tomato: "which i hate"
Call that football ?

HJam72
08-14-2005, 08:14 PM
They were playing against Babin, DeLoach, Simmons, Anderson, Faggins, Orr, Bell, Evans, and others who have nearly as much or in some cases more experience as they do.

Then they're lack of experience must not be hurting them much.

TexansTrueFan
08-14-2005, 08:15 PM
Call that football ?


na its more like ungraceful ballet. i have watches one quarter of one gam,e and wanted to vomit.

GP
08-14-2005, 10:22 PM
Facts are facts.

We took out our starting guys well before they did. AND, we were cycling in our third stringers while they STILL had their second team out there. How can Van Pelt have really done any damage to us, and build up his confidence, knowing that he was playing against third-stringers?

It would have been nice to win the game, but at least we didn't leave our first and second teamers in there longer (like the Broncos did) JUST to try and win it. Geez, the Broncos fans and media must really be putting a lot of pressure on Shanahan for him to pull that stunt last night.

Oh, but I forgot. We "didn't punch the ball into the end zone from the one-yard-line,"...yeah, what a horrible game we played last night.

We scored twice. Nobody got hurt (seriously hurt). We didn't get blown out at home. For a pre-season game, what else do you want?

RTP2110
08-14-2005, 10:35 PM
It's not that Denver left thier good players in longer. It's just that thier depth is better than our depth, thus they looked better.

HJam72
08-14-2005, 11:45 PM
For a pre-season game, what else do you want?

I want Super Bowl rings. :yahoo:

phan1
08-15-2005, 03:12 AM
I was really impressed with him. He played great. As for a problem keeping him on the field the whole game? I don't care one lick. But he was going so well, why not keep him out there and get the reps?

rittenhouserobz
08-15-2005, 07:26 AM
I think it is wonderful that they kept their 1st string players out there to play our second string players. I think it is a gift. Our 2nd string players getting exposure to 1st string talent.

Runner
08-15-2005, 09:42 AM
I think the starters (many if not all) usually go the full first half the second game, but I'm not sure.

dtran04
08-15-2005, 10:19 AM
On the segment last night on Ch.13, Casserly said to expect the starters to play the entire first half. We'll see if that's true or not...

BroncoMan13
08-15-2005, 12:02 PM
I haven't seen anybody (maybe I missed it in another thread somewhere) mention the fact that Denver kept their second-string QB in the game until the fourth quarter. Each time they trotted Van Pelt out there during the third quarter, I kept thinking, "Geez...am I really SEEING this?!"

Had we kept Banks in the game that long, we would have scored more points, and the Broncos wouldn't have done as well as they did.

To me, it was very obvious that the Texans were using this game primarily as a way to experiment different schemes and to really evaluate individual performances.....while it looked as though the Broncos were primarily trying to win the game. I'm not saying that the Broncos didn't use the game to try out different schemes and evaluate players....but it sure seemed like keeping your second-string QB in for 3/4 of the game and just pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, was an attempt to ensure a win first and foremost. If they need the confidence THAT bad, then that's pretty sad. :embarrass

If I am not mistaken, they also had Ron Dayne in the game the whole time (he broke a long run towards the end of the game). So, there's another example to support my theory.

Anyway, it just makes me mad when I see comments about how "boring the game was," and how "nobody should pay money to see that," such as what someone reported McLame of the Chronic say about last night's game.

1. No season-ending injuries. 2. Good first-team execution on both sides of the ball. 3. We scored two TDs. What else can someone expect for a flippin' pre-season game that doesn't count for anything?

Don't drink the McLame kool-aid. This was by far the best first-game pre-season game we've had, IMO.


I haven't read past this first post so this may have been covered already...

The Broncos needed to play Van Pelt a lot. Last season he was on the PS and didn't see more than one series in all of the preseason last year (his rookie year 7th round draft pick). He hasn't played in NFLE and just won the #2 spot last week in camp. The Broncos said all week long that they wanted to get a good look at him in a "real game". While Bradlee is our #2 at this point he has less experience than 99% of the 2nd year players in this league. It was a smart move on Denver's part to keep him out there and get a quality bit of film on him. I was impressed with his touch and already knew about the athleticsm. I also noticed that he focused on his hot target a lot and will have to get out of that habbit in a hurry!

One thing we can certainly agree on... thank god neither team had any major injuries!

BroncoMan13
08-15-2005, 12:15 PM
Also I forgot to add that Ron Dayne is currently a 3rd stringer and he just moved up the week prior to the game.

As for depth, I would say yes our 2nd team is deeper than the Texans at this point.

As far as your 2nd teamers getting some time against our 1st team... I would be excited if it was vice versa. I'm really interested in seeing what a guy like Van Pelt could do against the "real" comp in the league. Same with Dayne in our system.

Also please note that guys like Nick Ferguson, John Lynch, DJ Williams, Al Wilson, and Ian Gold played only two series. Along the line you saw a few guys stay in a little longer but they aren't our true starters. The only real starter along the line was Trevor Pryce. He played extended snaps b/c Shanahan wanted to see how his back responded. For those of you that didn't know he had a bad back injury last year... bad enough that one of his legs was completely numb, no strength, control, etc. We needed to get him some reps to see how the back responds. Warren, Fatefahi, and Brown did not play. In reality it was our 2nd team DL that was playing most of the game and that might be why you so those guys so long. Same thing on offense at LT w/Lepsis out.

Anyhow, I thought your boys played a good game. Dom Davis is strong as always. Not sure why Capers doesn't like him... I'd take him in a heart beat! Andre looked good. The little quick out that he caught at the beginning of the game was a good play. Nice audible by Carr recognizing the coverage was 10 yards back and that it was a smaller corner that probably couldn't (and didn't) take Andre down one on one. Besides that play and the PI penalty in the endzone I thought our first draft pick, Darrent Williams played pretty well. The hit he put on Wells was great. Considering he is 5'8" and 175# he blew him up! Wells responded well with a smack to the helmet... good on him!

I think you guys got a player in T.Johnson as well. He has a nasty streak and is playing out of position in the 3-4 but he brings it and will succeed. He is one of a few players I was hoping the Broncos would make a move on!

Huge
08-15-2005, 02:49 PM
Man, they must be hurtin' at QB if Van Pelt has made it to 2nd string. And if that's the case and I was their head coach, I'd have left him in the game longer than what they did.

He was fun to watch at Colorado State. But that was because of his running ability. He needs a ton of reps for this league and pre-season is the best time to get 'em.

ATX
08-15-2005, 03:58 PM
Dom Davis is strong as always. Not sure why Capers doesn't like him... I'd take him in a heart beat!

where'd you get that from?

BroncoMan13
08-15-2005, 10:13 PM
Dom hasn't liked Davis as his feature back since day 1. He doesn't like his size which like I said before is puzzling b/c Morency is basically the same size.

I used to live in Houston (moved this past March) and remember many a time the Texans commenting on needing and wanting a larger feature back. Thus the supp pick in Hollings. Like I said, I think Davis is a big time gamer and would love to have him in Denver... he does need to hang on to the ball a bit better though.

infantrycak
08-15-2005, 11:46 PM
Dom hasn't liked Davis as his feature back since day 1. He doesn't like his size which like I said before is puzzling b/c Morency is basically the same size.

I used to live in Houston (moved this past March) and remember many a time the Texans commenting on needing and wanting a larger feature back. Thus the supp pick in Hollings. Like I said, I think Davis is a big time gamer and would love to have him in Denver... he does need to hang on to the ball a bit better though.

He asked for a source. Supply just one occasion where the Texans commented that they needed a larger feature back. And FYI-Hollings and Davis are listed at exactly the same weight right now. DD has been listed at 5 lbs heavier. Morency is lighter. IMO some folks just want to perpetuate the myth that a run oriented offense means a big RB. Dom Capers and Emmitt Smith (212 lbs) would seem to disagree.