Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2708633, member: 8215"] I've cut this from the other thread. It's what I've been saying since the 80 minute siren. This is why I am hesitant to muck around with the playing roster to fit in Te'o, who, I'll admit in his last year was better than say Glenn was this year. But better or not, it's not as simple as adding him to the squad, or a straight swap. @[URL="https://broncoshq.com/member.php?u=2221"]Porthoz[/URL] (I think, I'm so tired) said that he doesn't believe we were as conservative as it's been made out, and I was coming on here to say the same thing. So many factors went in to why we played the way we did, and I have to say our game plan was a winning one. My thoughts on why some of the more contentious plays were potentially the right idea: * Going for two. For one it takes a square-up penalty goal out of the equation. It means that when we next defend our line we can push the limits and know that a penalty won't lose us the game. Conversely, it meant that the Cowboys couldn't afford to give another one away. They'd have to be quick off the tackled players, stay on side, be square at marker, basically do everything that would give the Broncos the breathing room they needed should they have the chance to attack their line. It's just unfortunate that the blatant unwillingness to pull up the Cowboy's slowing tactics meant those attacking opportunities were few and far between. * Kicking for touch. Regardless of the fact that it helped the Cows as much as us in terms of having a breather, giving them the ball 20 or so metres out is way better than 7 tackles. And the set start means that there isn't the chance for a broken line, should a grubber or bomb be diffused and a counter-attack beat the first tackler. Again, it worked. One of the guys here at work was marvelling at how the Broncos were just suffocating the cowboys. He had $25 on Tamou to score and Cows to win, and the more the game went on the more he was convinced that he'd done his money. We were rock-like in defence. That last tackle, that last fucking play was just a stupid fucking anomaly that no one saw coming. * For the same reason as above, not trying to push passes or go for the heroes victory was the way to go. Drop a ball and they collect it and race 80 metres? Everyone here would be tearing whoever passed the ball to shreds, saying that we were ahead and didn't need to throw low-percentage miracle passes. Poor Hunt. This will be the making of him though. It'll give him that bit more experience, teach him some valuable lessons in choosing the right option. In hindsight, the Cowboys were well contained - he didn't need to pull out a belter to fire up our defence. We were already on our toes and repelling every run safe in the knowledge that they just needed to hold out one more set. The hard, aggressive, low tackle was a risk because it also left the opponent open for an offload. It's the exact same thing as a high-risk, high-reward pass, in that it didn't need to be done, and by going wrong it put us under unnecessary pressure, and ultimately was one of the dominos that fell to lose us the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 282 (members: 0, guests: 282)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now