Denver Post Broncos writer Parker Gabriel posts his Broncos Mailbag periodically during the offseason. Click here to submit a question.
After Sunday’s game, the focus will surely be on the special team and the analysis of another 16-point outing from the offense. But what about Vance Joseph? We got only two stops out of six drives, one in large part because of a dumb decision from Jimmy Garoppolo. We couldn’t get a single sack and had only three QB hits.
No three-and-outs, three drives of 10 or more plays (plus the six-play, 75-yard touchdown), unable to get a stop with over five minutes on the clock with two timeouts and the two-minute warning. Not saying there weren’t some positives (the run defense for example), but in the end this unit didn’t do enough to get the ball back to Russell Wilson, they couldn’t get key stops when needed, and didn’t make life difficult for Garoppolo, who’s not the scariest QB on the schedule. In your opinion, is it just a bad game, or a bad sign?
— Yoann, Beine-Nauroy, France
Where was our pass rush, Parker? We brought in Zach Allen and Frank Clark and it didn’t seem like they made all that much of a difference against Vegas.
— Mike, Denver
Combining these two entries and yeah, Yoann and Mike, there are some questions to answer about the defense.
The effort against the run and noted Broncos destroyer Josh Jacobs was solid, but the Raiders did too much damage on third and fourth downs and Denver couldn’t make Garoppolo uncomfortable at all. One of the realities of Week 1 is we’ll all look back a month from now and it’ll either look like a big flashing warning sign or an anomaly.
There are reasons for concern — though not for panic at this point — particularly in the pass-rush. Randy Gregory and Frank Clark combined for zero pressures. The Broncos had just three overall. And you just didn’t see one-on-one wins up front. As Sean Payton said Monday, the two ways to produce pressure are to beat your man or bring extra people. Obviously the former is preferred. But the Broncos just didn’t get much of that from its edge players or its interior linemen.
A consistent pass-rush is the best tool for getting off the field. You can stop the run on mixed downs, but if a quarterback then sits in the pocket with no heat, he’s going to find an answer more times than not. It’s not the only problem, but it’s definitely a part of the equation that can solve other problems. Pressure creates turnover opportunities. It’s a lot more difficult to pick on somebody in coverage if you have to worry about getting the ball out quickly.
So, let’s see if Joseph and the Broncos defense can create more against Washington.
What sense does it make for NFL teams to go to all the trouble of fielding a 53-player roster and 16-player practice squad, only to be allowed to dress 46 players plus two designates from the practice squad on game day? They’re saying it is economics or competitive fairness is ridiculous. The entire enterprise is costly and completely based on competition. Each team has exactly the same opportunity to build their rosters.
It makes absolutely no sense not to dress and potentially play any or all of the 69 players. Make it 70 and stop playing games juggling the roster on game day. The owners are loony for doing it the way they do.
Dress ’em and play ’em. There is nothing unfair about that. In fact, don’t you think it would improve the product?
— A Referee, Greeley
Hey Ref, good question.
The fairness explanation, typically, is that if you can dress all 53 players, then what happens when one team has six guys injured and the other only has one? Not sure if you’ve noticed, but NFL head coaches tend to be wound pretty tight and they’re not wild about going into a game with several less available players than the other team. So even if three of your top guys are hurt and three backups for the other team are hurt, at least under the current rules you’ll still both have 46 in uniform.
That’s the rationale. I tend to agree that it’s a little silly. Especially with big practice squads nowadays, maybe you could fill your gameday roster to 53 or 55 from your practice squad regardless of how many players are out. So if you’re fully healthy, great, you can bring two guys up. Have six players down for the week? Activate eight from the practice squad.
Of course, changes to those rules mean dealing with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and that’s why a major overhaul is unlikely. Payton said a couple of weeks ago that you have a roster and a p-squad, but really you’ve got 69 guys. Look at Week 1. Practice squad receiver Lil’Jordan Humphrey started, played the second-most snaps among receivers and logged the Broncos’ first touchdown of the season. The good news for him is he can only be elevated three times and then the team has to promote him to keep using him. But it would be simpler — and better money for players — if there were just more roster spots to go around.
Everyone keeps comparing Russell Wilson to Peyton Manning and how he changed his game to win the Super Bowl. I don’t agree with that comparison. A much better comparison is to a gunslinger that had a lot of success but couldn’t win the big one until he got older, had a run-focused coach to control the game, and got some help from a great running back. That coach was Mike Shanahan, the running back was Terrell Davis, and that QB was John Elway. The early career for Russ was similar to Elway under Dan Reeves. I am hoping Sean Payton can be Shanahan and Javonte Williams can be Terrell Davis. If they can be 80% as successful as those ’90s teams, it will mean great things for this year’s team. It might be sacrilege in Denver, but what do you think?
— Paul Heaton, Atlanta
Hey Paul, thanks for writing in. Hadn’t ever given much thought to the Wilson/Manning comparison beyond just the fact that they’re high-profile, accomplished players who moved to Denver after long stretches elsewhere. I can see the parallels in your second example, but would think about it more generally.
Wilson had an environment that really worked for him in Seattle. Clearly. His numbers and accomplishments back that up. Last year, obviously, did not work. Some of it is coaching and some of it is on the player. As players get older, their abilities change. The best ones figure out how to continue maximizing what they do have rather than getting hung up on what they used to have. If that’s controlling games and defenses with your mind and leaning on a decade-plus of experience, that’s great. If it’s using a run game and a stout defense to get in position to win, fine. If that’s relying on a coach like Payton or Shanahan to help you discover what you need to do, all the better.
Not only that, but quarterbacks and coaches also have to adjust to what they have on their roster. At the moment, Denver looks like a team that has to play through its run game. If they get their full complement of receiving options back at some point, maybe they’re a little more dynamic.
For the awesome money these men make, how do these football stars get along with other teammates? Is there a rivalry? If they are in a game or if they see them on the street, or in a club, is it all ego or respect for their other players?
— Boni, Chicago
Great question, Boni. The short answer is there’s probably every type of relationship you can imagine. In some ways it’s like a normal workplace environment and then in some cases it’s not. But you have guys who happen to play the same or similar positions that hit it off really quickly — inside linebackers Josey Jewell and Alex Singleton are good examples — and there are players who forge extremely close friendships — like safeties Kareem Jackson and Justin Simmons. Guys come from all different socioeconomic backgrounds, family structures, parts of the country, types of colleges, etc.
Not everybody has to be best friends within a locker room, but they have to figure out how to work together. And if a couple guys happen not to like each other, there’s a responsibility to figure out how to not let that impact the team on the field.
Obviously some players do make a lot more money than others. In the locker room last week, there were a couple of players marveling at the news that Joey Bosa had got five years and up to $170 million with $122 million guaranteed in San Francisco. For the most part, though, I think players take more of the mindset of trying to secure their own money rather than worrying about what other players get. Remember, the more the top players drive up the market price, the more everybody benefits. That’s part of the reason you see top running backs trying to take a hard line. What Jonathan Taylor accepts has a trickle down impact on a lot of other running backs.
Can we talk about Damarri Mathis? He struggled mightily out there on Sunday and the schedule isn’t going to get any easier. Are there any other options at that cornerback spot? Casey Hayward and Bryce Callahan are still out there. Honestly, I might even take Chris Harris’ old-self back.
— Mark, Arvada
Hey Mark, yeah, it was not Mathis’ best performance. He’s been limited some during the preseason by an ankle injury. He wasn’t on the injury report this past week, but he did miss quite a few preseason reps. Not an excuse, obviously, but the second-year player out of Pitt showed promise as a rookie, so you wonder if part of Sunday’s performance was about knocking rust off.
If he doesn’t bounce back, the Broncos could consider one of those veterans, but the fact is they already have one on the roster. That’s Fabian Moreau, who signed early in training camp and really played well as the preseason went along. If they decide to make a change, he’d probably get the first crack — especially after feisty, tough-minded Ja’Quan McMillian was inactive for Week 1.
One other consideration: If the Broncos get shorthanded at safety in the coming weeks because P.J. Locke’s out until at least Week 5 and Caden Sterns was injured Sunday, one route to consider is playing Essang Bassey at safety, moving Mathis to the nickel and putting Moreau on the outside.
Want more Broncos news? Sign up for the Broncos Insider to get all our NFL analysis.
