Skip to main content

Tebow and the Broncos upend the banged up Pittsburgh Steelers

Starting tailback Rashard Mendenhall? Out. Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger? Hobbled. Left tackle Max Starks? Center Maurkice Pouncey? Out. Cornerback Cortez Allen? Out. Nose tackle Casey Hampton? Center Doug Legursky? Defensive end Brett Keisel? All hurt in yesterday's game. These players and others were either too banged up to play yesterday for the Steelers or severely limited. I didn't realize how banged up the team was going into the game. I heard announcers and analysts mention it pre-game, but until game-time, I was fairly ignorant on how bad things really were for the Steelers on the injury front.

However, injury-riddled or not, the Steelers came in with a poor strategy on defense, executed that strategy poorly and were burned for it time and again.

Get this. Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow completed just 10 passes for the entire game, including overtime. He was 10 for 21 throwing the ball. However, those 10 completions added up to an astounding 316 yards through the air, 31.6 yards per completion and 15.0 yards per attempt. Even missing more times than hitting, Tebow averaged 15 yards a pass attempt. That's insane!

The major problem was Pittsburgh was banged up on the d-line and couldn't exert much, if any pressure on Tebow throughout the game. They also contended on playing straight-up man defense through the game's duration. With the Broncos' stellar running attack being, like most every team, Pittsburgh's #1 concern on defense, this allowed for some open receivers in conjunction with deep balls. To his credit, Tebow flung the ball deep effectively on multiple occasions. However, I can't tell you how open these receivers were. The Steelers' defense was continually too aggressive and bit on the play-action fakes. This freed up receivers time and time again. I'm not just saying all this because I'm a "Tebow-hater". For the game, the Steelers had 0 sacks, 1 tackle-for-loss, 2 pass deflections and how many times was Tebow hit? Zero. If you don't believe me, you can read the stats here - http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=320108007. So, like I said, Tebow had so much time in the pocket, he likely could have sat back there for the game's 60-minute duration, heaved up a long ball to a wide open receiver and the Broncos would have likely won 7-0.

On the flip side, the Broncos were all over Ben Roethlisberger and his ailing ankle. The Steelers offensive line did not do a good job of protecting the hobbled quarterback. For the game, Big Ben was sacked 5 times, hit 6 times, 7 passes were deflected and Denver tackled Pittsburgh for a loss on 6 different occasions. In those four categories, Pittsburgh totaled 3, while Denver totaled 24. Yeah, just a  SLIGHT difference there.

Those were the keys of the game. Tebow played pretty well, especially for how he had been playing the previous three outings, but the two biggest reasons for the Broncos' success yesterday was 1) Their offensive line and 2) Their defensive line. I've always said that a great o-line can make a pedestrian quarterback appear Hall-of-Fame worthy and a great d-line can make a Pro Bowl quarterback look pedestrian. The Broncos did just that yesterday, on both sides of the ball, dominating in the trenches and pulling out a game they deserved to win. I say that because the Broncos got jobbed on a couple of calls. In the 2nd half and already up by a couple scores, Roethlisberger threw a lateral that appeared to go behind the line-of-scrimmage. The pass was dropped and Denver recovered. However, the refs blew their whistles, called the pass incomplete and since the whistle blew, the play was not reviewable. That would likely have resulted in at least another field goal for the Broncos. Also in the 4th quarter, on the Broncos final drive in regulation, a Steeler grabbed Tebow's face mask and that wasn't called. Denver would be forced to punt a couple plays later.

I also think Denver won this game because it just appeared as if they wanted it more. Pittsburgh, perhaps because they were so battered and bruised and perhaps because they feel they were screwed by the system in going 12-4 and having to play on the road at an 8-8 team, but they just didn't look like they were into the game much. Denver, on the other hand, played with passion. They had something to prove, especially after having lost 3 consecutive games and to some subpar competition (and getting manhandled by Buffalo). This showed. Denver looked more pumped up throughout the contest and when things began going their way in the 2nd quarter, this intensity only escalated.

Up next for the Broncos will be a road game against the New England Patriots. Who I think will win this game is largely dependent upon which Broncos' defense shows up. Is it the defense which allowed 40+ points to Detroit, New England and Buffalo or is it the defense which allowed 18 or fewer points to the likes of Miami, Kansas City (twice), San Diego, the New York Jets, etc.? If the former defense shows up, it's going to be very difficult for the Broncos to play shoot-out with Tom Brady and the Patriots. However, if the latter shows up, then anything is possible. The Patriots have anything but the league's best defense. Statistically speaking, they have one of the worst. I'm giving the edge to the Pats, but wouldn't call it a guarantee due to the before-mentioned defense.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"