PDA

View Full Version : RB Hillman to Broncos


Pages : 1 [2]

SPORTSWRITER
05-04-2012, 03:06 AM
This is a fantastic pick.

I think Hillman will be a GREAT change-of-pace back, and maybe a punt return prospect. Great quickness, and shows more power in breaking tackles than most backs his size. Some were comparing him to Darren Sproles.

TonyR
05-04-2012, 05:47 AM
Just a reminder that if the Broncos go no huddle they won't substitute a lot. So you'll either see a lot, or very little, of Hillman. If he shows the ability in camp and preseason he could very well become the primary back since he might fit the offense better than McGahee. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

BroncoInferno
05-04-2012, 05:55 AM
Just a reminder that if the Broncos go no huddle they won't substitute a lot. So you'll either see a lot, or very little, of Hillman. If he shows the ability in camp and preseason he could very well become the primary back since he might fit the offense better than McGahee. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Like I just said in another thread, if we are going to be playing a lot of no-huddle, I think it's pretty much a given that MacGahee is going to be shifted to more of a short yardage/goaline role (as was intended when he was originally signed) because he offers nothing as a receiver. He has 191 yards receiving that last three seasons combined, and a career YPC of 6.2. I expect Hillman and/or Moreno to get most of the PT when we're operating the no-huddle. If we decided to slow it down after building a lead, then they'll probably turn to MacGahee.

cmhargrove
05-04-2012, 05:55 AM
The new Black Hillis?

Ummm, that's the new Black Hillis "lite." Get it straight man.

pricejj
05-19-2012, 11:43 AM
but see, i'm not comparing the career numbers, i'm focusing solely on their ability to catch as a RB. hence why i said that LT & Faulk were on another level in terms of catching the ball as a RB.
because you said better hands than LT or Sproles. LT is a beast in catching and that's not a comparison you can just fling out there.

Hillman was a WR in High School.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_6LTLmZwpSU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_6LTLmZwpSU?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

R-Mac
05-19-2012, 12:55 PM
I looked at several RBs to find the best comparison to Ronnie Hillman, and I don't think is so similar to Darren Sproles. First of all, Hillman does not have a lot of production as a receiver. He caught 24 passes in 2011 and is not considered a reliable option in pass protection. Maybe he is not ready to make an impact on 3rd down. In 2010, he did not catch more than 2 passes in a game. In 2011, he had one game with 4 receptions and one game with 3 receptions. Hillman caught 2 touchdowns passes in 2 seasons. Sproles is built differently, he is more compact and seems to have more quickness and an extra gear in the open field. On the screen, Hillman looks more like a slot receiver than a RB.

From the players I watched, Steve Slaton is the best comparison. They are extremely similar. They have exactly the same height (5'9 1/8") and speed (4.45). Slaton at the Combine: 197 pounds. Hillman: 200 pounds (10 pounds heavier than his playing weight, but he is still very young and will grow stronger). Slaton carried the ball 664 times (5.9 YPC) in 3 seasons, scoring 50 rushing touchdowns. Hillman also carried the load at SDSU and had good production (36 rushing touchdowns in 2 seasons, 5.6 YPC).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rUgvCtO_OME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pmNfcyy3NXo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The running style is similar, they have the same height and speed. Slaton struggled after a strong rookie season with the Texans, but he is healthy now. Shoulder and neck injuries apparently hurt his ball security in 2009. I watched some videos of Ronnie Hillman and his ball security was not great. There were 2 fumbles against Michigan and I remember another one (Washington State?). He is really small, so it must be hard for him to protect the ball against violent hits.

Maybe if the Broncos had signed Slaton to play with Manning, the results would have been similar to what Hillman can do. I'm not thrilled with Hillman. I fear some fumbles and concussions against pro competition. I'd rather have a bigger, every-down RB like Edgerrin James. It's hard to judge Hillman's college highlights because he played against some really bad competition that could not match his game speed. I don't think he will be able to get away from NFL defenders that easy. I hope he becomes a good player, but I'm skeptical.

Tombstone RJ
05-19-2012, 02:18 PM
Nice find Rod...

pricejj
05-19-2012, 05:34 PM
...

1. Who wouldn't want Marshall Faulk (#2 overall), or Edgerrin James (#4 overall)? How much would you be willing to give up to get a back like that? Remember, we have the NFL's 11th leading rusher (McGahee). Pead was gone before the #57 pick. I'm happy with Hillman.

2. Just because SDSU did not utilize Hillman's pass-catching ability, doesn't mean he isn't a great receiving back. He was a WR/RB in High School, and has good hands. I wouldn't be worried about that aspect of his game at all. Receiving is one of his strengths.

3. Slaton had 1,200 yards rushing and 50 receptions as a rookie. I would take that. The Texans lined up Slaton in the I-formation as an every down back, where he took quite the pounding. It would be a pretty bad idea to do that with Hillman. Manning's Offense is a little different (if the Broncos run it right).

4. Hillman may not have the shiftiness of Sproles, but Hillman has a great burst, good direction changeability, and can run in between the Tackles. Hillman can jump 4" higher than both Slaton and Sproles, giving a good indication of his lower body strength.

R-Mac
05-19-2012, 06:35 PM
To catch passes in the NFL, A RB must also be able to stay in the pocket and protect the QB if necessary. Hillman is not good in pass protection yet. Sproles catches the ball, runs from passing formations and also blocks pass rushers, so the Saints can disguise what they do. We'll have to see if Hillman will be able to protect the QB and if he can run between the tackles in the NFL. I hope ball security does not become a problem.

Mike McCoy said the Broncos will use I-formation with Peyton Manning, something he did not use a lot with the Colts. Manning is learning the Broncos' offense (the same that Orton ran in 2011) and McCoy will add some of the things that Manning likes to do. But there will be two-back formations.

I agree that Steve Slaton had a good rookie season, but I hope Hillman has a good career and becomes a good, productive player for multiple seasons. I don't want him to disappear like Slaton.

hambone13
05-19-2012, 08:39 PM
I looked at several RBs to find the best comparison to Ronnie Hillman, and I don't think is so similar to Darren Sproles. First of all, Hillman does not have a lot of production as a receiver. He caught 24 passes in 2011 and is not considered a reliable option in pass protection. Maybe he is not ready to make an impact on 3rd down. In 2010, he did not catch more than 2 passes in a game. In 2011, he had one game with 4 receptions and one game with 3 receptions. Hillman caught 2 touchdowns passes in 2 seasons. Sproles is built differently, he is more compact and seems to have more quickness and an extra gear in the open field. On the screen, Hillman looks more like a slot receiver than a RB.

From the players I watched, Steve Slaton is the best comparison. They are extremely similar. They have exactly the same height (5'9 1/8") and speed (4.45). Slaton at the Combine: 197 pounds. Hillman: 200 pounds (10 pounds heavier than his playing weight, but he is still very young and will grow stronger). Slaton carried the ball 664 times (5.9 YPC) in 3 seasons, scoring 50 rushing touchdowns. Hillman also carried the load at SDSU and had good production (36 rushing touchdowns in 2 seasons, 5.6 YPC).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rUgvCtO_OME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pmNfcyy3NXo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The running style is similar, they have the same height and speed. Slaton struggled after a strong rookie season with the Texans, but he is healthy now. Shoulder and neck injuries apparently hurt his ball security in 2009. I watched some videos of Ronnie Hillman and his ball security was not great. There were 2 fumbles against Michigan and I remember another one (Washington State?). He is really small, so it must be hard for him to protect the ball against violent hits.

Maybe if the Broncos had signed Slaton to play with Manning, the results would have been similar to what Hillman can do. I'm not thrilled with Hillman. I fear some fumbles and concussions against pro competition. I'd rather have a bigger, every-down RB like Edgerrin James. It's hard to judge Hillman's college highlights because he played against some really bad competition that could not match his game speed. I don't think he will be able to get away from NFL defenders that easy. I hope he becomes a good player, but I'm skeptical.

Let's hope Hillman looks that good w/o the ZBS here.....

pricejj
05-19-2012, 10:23 PM
Mike McCoy said the Broncos will use I-formation with Peyton Manning, something he did not use a lot with the Colts. Manning is learning the Broncos' offense (the same that Orton ran in 2011) and McCoy will add some of the things that Manning likes to do. But there will be two-back formations.



If Manning runs anything close to McDaniels failure of an Offense, the Broncos will be lucky to win 4 games, and he will retire after 1 year.

The Broncos may have had the most rushing yards in 2011 (Tebow had 660 yards), but they also had the 31st passing attack...and 25th scoring Offense.

Who would be the Broncos RB's in the I-formation? McGahee and Hillman? :giggle: Good luck with that. I guess Hillman is your FB? I-formations don't work very well without a FB...just ask the Colts.

Here is McCoy's track record as an Offensive Coordinator (points):
2009: 20th
2010: 19th
2011: 25th

What a juggernaut. BTW, McDaniels led the Rams to the worst scoring Offense in the NFL in 2011 after he was fired from the Broncos.

Lestat
05-19-2012, 10:47 PM
in fairness to McCoy, look at who the QB's were in those years. Delhomme on his last leg then Kyle Orton and Tim Tebow.

not saying his offenses shouldn't have done better. but that's not the best QB talent either.

in terms of the I form being used and Manning not having run that. as good as Manning is i don't think they want the 96 million dollar man jacking up 40+ passes a game and exposing himself to hits(people forget that more often than not QB's get hit a lot after they get the ball out)when you can have a well rounded offense with a dominant running game.

this is Manning being Elway during the super bowl runs and giving him a running game to help take the pressure off. we want balance on offense, even if Manning is 100% you want the offense to be able to do multiple things on every occasion(God i hope we see some flea flickers)

pricejj
05-19-2012, 11:05 PM
I'm hoping for somewhere around 35 passing attempts per game, and 27 rushing attempts per game...right around where the Colts were in 2006.

I would have a lot more faith in occasionally using the "2-back system" that McCoy lovingly refers to, if we actually had a legitimate Fullback.

TonyR
05-22-2012, 05:56 AM
Long write up on Hillman linked below.

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/scouting-the-broncos-rb-ronnie-hillman

R-Mac
05-22-2012, 10:03 AM
Jeremiah Johnson is more impressive, but he won't get a fair opportunity because Hillman already has a roster spot and the Broncos must make him productive.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bWhvFsttcqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Johnson only got 14 carries last season, and averaged 5.5 YPC.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 10:06 AM
Jeremiah Johnson is more impressive, but he won't get a fair opportunity because Hillman already has a roster spot and the Broncos must make him productive.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bWhvFsttcqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Johnson only got 14 carries last season, and averaged 5.5 YPC.

Johnson is a scrub.

TonyR
05-22-2012, 10:09 AM
Jeremiah Johnson is more impressive, but he won't get a fair opportunity because Hillman already has a roster spot and the Broncos must make him productive.

So your logic is they drafted Hillman so they would be forced to start a less impressive guy over a more impressive guy?

pricejj
05-22-2012, 10:34 AM
Jeremiah Johnson is more impressive, but he won't get a fair opportunity because Hillman already has a roster spot and the Broncos must make him productive.


Johnson historically looks good in the offseason, and doesn't produce in games.

Hillman had 36 TD's the last 2 years in college. He is the most dynamic weapon we have in the backfield.

hambone13
05-22-2012, 10:36 AM
in fairness to McCoy, look at who the QB's were in those years. Delhomme on his last leg then Kyle Orton and Tim Tebow.

not saying his offenses shouldn't have done better. but that's not the best QB talent either.

in terms of the I form being used and Manning not having run that. as good as Manning is i don't think they want the 96 million dollar man jacking up 40+ passes a game and exposing himself to hits(people forget that more often than not QB's get hit a lot after they get the ball out)when you can have a well rounded offense with a dominant running game.

this is Manning being Elway during the super bowl runs and giving him a running game to help take the pressure off. we want balance on offense, even if Manning is 100% you want the offense to be able to do multiple things on every occasion(God i hope we see some flea flickers)

Well said, enough said.

hambone13
05-22-2012, 10:43 AM
Long write up on Hillman linked below.

http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/scouting-the-broncos-rb-ronnie-hillman

Are we suddenly a ZBS running team again? I know every team uses a bit of the philosophy but I was under the impression we've been a power running team since Shanny left. If I'm accurate in that assumption, this article is just bleh.

pricejj
05-22-2012, 11:31 AM
Well said, enough said.

The Broncos will average 60+ Offensive plays per game. I think the 2012 Broncos should have about 560 passing attempts, and 440 rushing attempts (like the 2006 Colts).

That leads to 35 passing attempts/game, which is perfect.

Broncos 1997, 513 pass attempts, 520 rush attempts, 1033 total plays
Colts 2006, 557 pass attempts, 439 rush attempts, 996 total plays
Colts 2009, 601 pass attempts, 366 rush attempts, 967 total plays
Broncos 2011, 429 pass attempts, 546 rush attempts, 975 total plays

Both the 2009 Colts and the 2011 Broncos were extreme (the most lopsided teams in the NFL). The 2010 Colts had even more passing attempts than the 2009 Colts.


Manning averaged 34.81 pass attempts/game in 2006.
Elway averaged 32.06 pass attempts/game in 1997.


Manning knows to win the Superbowl, you need a more balanced Offense... like the Colts in 2006. Keep in mind, Manning has a much higher comp. % than Elway did.

peacepipe
05-22-2012, 11:32 AM
Are we suddenly a ZBS running team again? I know every team uses a bit of the philosophy but I was under the impression we've been a power running team since Shanny left. If I'm accurate in that assumption, this article is just bleh.we have been since fox was hired. it changed under McD but brought back under fox.



http://www.milehighreport.com/2011/1/19/1943386/denver-broncos-the-return-of-zone-blocking

Ray Finkle
05-22-2012, 11:49 AM
I looked at several RBs to find the best comparison to Ronnie Hillman, and I don't think is so similar to Darren Sproles. First of all, Hillman does not have a lot of production as a receiver. He caught 24 passes in 2011 and is not considered a reliable option in pass protection. Maybe he is not ready to make an impact on 3rd down. In 2010, he did not catch more than 2 passes in a game. In 2011, he had one game with 4 receptions and one game with 3 receptions. Hillman caught 2 touchdowns passes in 2 seasons. Sproles is built differently, he is more compact and seems to have more quickness and an extra gear in the open field. On the screen, Hillman looks more like a slot receiver than a RB.

From the players I watched, Steve Slaton is the best comparison. They are extremely similar. They have exactly the same height (5'9 1/8") and speed (4.45). Slaton at the Combine: 197 pounds. Hillman: 200 pounds (10 pounds heavier than his playing weight, but he is still very young and will grow stronger). Slaton carried the ball 664 times (5.9 YPC) in 3 seasons, scoring 50 rushing touchdowns. Hillman also carried the load at SDSU and had good production (36 rushing touchdowns in 2 seasons, 5.6 YPC).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rUgvCtO_OME" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pmNfcyy3NXo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The running style is similar, they have the same height and speed. Slaton struggled after a strong rookie season with the Texans, but he is healthy now. Shoulder and neck injuries apparently hurt his ball security in 2009. I watched some videos of Ronnie Hillman and his ball security was not great. There were 2 fumbles against Michigan and I remember another one (Washington State?). He is really small, so it must be hard for him to protect the ball against violent hits.

Maybe if the Broncos had signed Slaton to play with Manning, the results would have been similar to what Hillman can do. I'm not thrilled with Hillman. I fear some fumbles and concussions against pro competition. I'd rather have a bigger, every-down RB like Edgerrin James. It's hard to judge Hillman's college highlights because he played against some really bad competition that could not match his game speed. I don't think he will be able to get away from NFL defenders that easy. I hope he becomes a good player, but I'm skeptical.

Slaton fumbled all the time and was never the same after his shoulder injury....

mwill07
05-22-2012, 12:02 PM
Hillman was listed at 190 lbs. going into this season, so he has probably gained more, but I don't see some strong guy, with thick legs. If Hillman is ever to be an every down back, he will need to strengthen and thicken his legs. Sorry, but a 5'9-5'10 200maybe lb RB with average leg strength is not going to last long in the NFL as a 20 carry type of guy. It is a good way to cut his career very short though.

he's only 20 years old. I think it's safe to assume he's got some filling out to do.

BroncoBen
05-22-2012, 12:08 PM
he's only 20 years old. I think it's safe to assume he's got some filling out to do.

That was a point made when Hillman was drafted.. that he will just be turning 21 this September.

Agamemnon
05-22-2012, 12:16 PM
he's only 20 years old. I think it's safe to assume he's got some filling out to do.

And to boot, we pretty clearly have no intentions of ever using him as a 20 carry per game guy. I mean Fox doesn't traditionally do that, and in the short-term with a much more pass-heavy offense it just isn't going to happen.

R-Mac
05-22-2012, 02:28 PM
Slaton fumbled all the time and was never the same after his shoulder injury....

Slaton lost 5 fumbles in 2009, and apparently he was playing with shoulder and neck injuries. Hillman lost 5 fumbles last season.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hillman-351465-broncos-denver.html

The 5-foot-9, 200-pounder must improve his ball security after losing five fumbles last season.

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2012/04/28/fantasy-spin-broncos-rb-ronnie-hillman

He will need to learn patience and work on his fumbling as that was an issue in college.

http://www.mockingthedraft.com/2012/4/15/2951022/ronnie-hillman-2012-nfl-draft-quick-report

Has fumble issues.

R-Mac
05-22-2012, 04:07 PM
So your logic is they drafted Hillman so they would be forced to start a less impressive guy over a more impressive guy?

Obviously, they think Hillman is very impressive. They traded up to get him early in the 3rd round. They gave a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick to select Hillman. I disagree with their evaluation.

Lestat
05-22-2012, 05:34 PM
Hillman is a back who will be explosive when he gets touches but will mostly be the Lightning to McGahee's Thunder. we're not expecting him to be a 25 carry a game franchise guy right now.
you want him to get a good number of touches per game like a Darren Sproles or Reggie Bush and use his ability when he gets the ball.

he can improve in ball security and with being a outlet or primary passing attack weapon.
but he's 20 years old, he's going to allow us to be multiple in our running scheme and give Manning another weapon to utilize on offense.

why are some fans complaining so much about it? i get that he wasn't the guy most wanted but he was the selection and he's here now.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 05:40 PM
Obviously, they think Hillman is very impressive. They traded up to get him early in the 3rd round. They gave a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick to select Hillman. I disagree with their evaluation.

I think the Broncos reached on Hillman but again (as I've argued in other posts) the Broncos draft did not go as planned. Hillman was the 4th rated RB on the Broncos board and the other 3 were gone (one was taken right after Osweiler I believe, yeah for Bross!) so instead of waiting on Hillman to fall to their next pick, they traded up to get him.

Overall this draft was pretty bad. When I say that I mean that instead of Decastro, Martin and Wolfe with their first 3 picks the Broncos got Wolfe, Brosweiler and Hillman and the Broncos over drafted every one of these guys.

Time will tell if this draft was a good draft but if these players don't turn out to be starting quality players long term, this draft is a first day big fail.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 05:45 PM
I think the Broncos reached on Hillman but again (as I've argued in other posts) the Broncos draft did not go as planned. Hillman was the 4th rated RB on the Broncos board and the other 3 were gone (one was taken right after Osweiler I believe, yeah for Bross!) so instead of waiting on Hillman to fall to their next pick, they traded up to get him.

Overall this draft was pretty bad. When I say that I mean that instead of Decastro, Martin and Wolfe with their first 3 picks the Broncos got Wolfe, Brosweiler and Hillman and the Broncos over drafted every one of these guys.

Time will tell if this draft was a good draft but if these players don't turn out to be starting quality players long term, this draft is a first day big fail.

LOL So how would it have been possible to get Decastro who was picked before us, Martin who was picked in the first round and Wolfe in the draft?

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 05:56 PM
LOL So how would it have been possible to get Decastro who was picked before us, Martin who was picked in the first round and Wolfe in the draft?

I'm saying Decastro was sitting there and the Broncos thought they would get him but it didn't pan out. IMHO they never thought Decastro would be sitting there to begin with and when he was, they changed their draft strategy hoping to get him. Well the stellers took him and then the Broncos tried to move back out of the second round but their only trade partner was NE and they traded to 31.

IMHO I think the Broncos wanted to trade into the second round to begin with but then Decastro got closer and closer and this changed some things.

I've also said that yes Martin was their second overall choice at RB but they did not rate him as a first round pick so obviously they didn't take him with the 31st pick. They were again probably hoping he'd be there at 36 and when he wasn't they took Wolfe.

Lestat
05-22-2012, 06:00 PM
i don't think it was an issue of them hoping such and such would fall. i think they had certain grades on guys and weren't going to go over that grade to get them. which is the same thing they did last year in Elway's first draft.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 06:01 PM
I'm saying Decastro was sitting there and the Broncos thought they would get him but it didn't pan out. IMHO they never thought Decastro would be sitting there to begin with and when he was, they changed their draft strategy hoping to get him. Well the stellers took him and then the Broncos tried to move back out of the second round but their only trade partner was NE and they traded to 31.

IMHO I think the Broncos wanted to trade into the second round to begin with but then Decastro got closer and closer and this changed some things.

I've also said that yes Martin was their second overall choice at RB but they did not rate him as a first round pick so obviously they didn't take him with the 31st pick. They were again probably hoping he'd be there at 36 and when he wasn't they took Wolfe.

They knew that the Bucs was going to draft Martin when they traded that pick to them.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 06:04 PM
They knew that the Bucs was going to draft Martin when they traded that pick to them.

Either way they had Martin rated as a second round pick, most likely an early second round pick.

how do you know that the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin at 31?

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 06:16 PM
Either way they had Martin rated as a second round pick, most likely an early second round pick.

how do you know that the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin at 31?

No team would trade a pick to another team without knowing who that team was targeting with that pick. There would be zero reason that team would trade risking losing someone they wanted.

pricejj
05-22-2012, 06:44 PM
Either way they had Martin rated as a second round pick, most likely an early second round pick.

how do you know that the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin at 31?

Tombstone...I can't believe you are falling for that DMac baloney. His entire theory is wrong. If you haven't noticed, he is a drama queen. He doesn't really have any football knowledge, and is always looking for the slant in a story...it's what he was trained to do.

1. Decastro was never projected to fall to #24. Would the Broncos have picked him if he fell to #25? Probably, but it was a surprise that he fell.
2. Doug Martin was always rated by the Broncos as a mid 2nd round draft pick, and he should have been. There is no indication that they ever had any intention on picking him, or they would have.
3. It's pretty clear by now that they planned on picking a DT with their 1st pick, unless by chance, some great prospect fell.
4. Wolfe was their 4th rated DT after Cox, Poe, and Brockers...and their #1 guy going into day 2. They are lucky Baltimore didn't pick him.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 06:45 PM
No team would trade a pick to another team without knowing who that team was targeting with that pick. There would be zero reason that team would trade risking losing someone they wanted.

Got any proof?

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 06:48 PM
Tombstone...I can't believe you are falling for that DMac baloney. His entire theory is wrong. If you haven't noticed, he is a drama queen. He doesn't really have any football knowledge, and is always looking for the slant in a story...it's what he was trained to do.

1. Decastro was never projected to fall to #24. Would the Broncos have picked him if he fell to #25? Probably, but it was a surprise that he fell.
2. Doug Martin was always rated by the Broncos as a mid 2nd round draft pick, and he should have been. There is no indication that they ever had any intention on picking him, or they would have.
3. It's pretty clear by now that they planned on picking a DT with their 1st pick, unless by chance, some great prospect fell.
4. Wolfe was their 4th rated DT after Cox, Poe, and Brockers...and their #1 guy going into day 2. They are lucky Baltimore didn't pick him.

Not sure what your point is as you are just reinforcing what I have already proclaimed, so thanks homey.

IMHO, you have serious reading comprehension problems.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 06:57 PM
Got any proof?

Good lord. Denver doesn't have to make that deal period. Do you really think Tampa says to Denver FU when they ask who they are picking? Yeah that will get the deal done. Hilarious!

Lestat
05-22-2012, 07:08 PM
Got any proof?

that's standard operating procedure for every NFL team. if you wanna trade up they ask who you plan to take just in case it's someone they want and then decide to stay pat based on who they want vs who they team trying to trade up wants or not liking the package offered.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:12 PM
that's standard operating procedure for every NFL team. if you wanna trade up they ask who you plan to take just in case it's someone they want and then decide to stay pat based on who they want vs who they team trying to trade up wants or not liking the package offered.
I can't believe anyone would think differently.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:12 PM
that's standard operating procedure for every NFL team. if you wanna trade up they ask who you plan to take just in case it's someone they want and then decide to stay pat based on who they want vs who they team trying to trade up wants or not liking the package offered.

ok fine, I just want some proof of this, a link or something.

pricejj
05-22-2012, 07:14 PM
Not sure what your point is as you are just reinforcing what I have already proclaimed, so thanks homey.

IMHO, you have serious reading comprehension problems.

Not sure why you are stuck on Doug Martin. It's pretty clear the Broncos needed a DT. Muscle hamster is 23 years old, and runs a 4.55 forty. People like to compare him to Ray Rice, but it's not even close. Rice runs a 4.42 forty...that's elite speed homey. Martin screams 2nd round RB. For some reason Tampa Bay felt compelled to trade into the 1st round to get him. There's a reason they haven't won a playoff game in 10 years.

Keep listening to Dmac though...

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:15 PM
ok fine, I just want some proof of this, a link or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:16 PM
Good lord. Denver doesn't have to make that deal period. Do you really think Tampa says to Denver FU when they ask who they are picking? Yeah that will get the deal done. Hilarious!

Got any proof yet that the Broncos knew Tampa was taking Martin?

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:16 PM
Got any proof yet that the Broncos knew Tampa was taking Martin?

Denver made the deal with the Bucs right?

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:19 PM
Not sure why you are stuck on Doug Martin. It's pretty clear the Broncos needed a DT. Muscle hamster is 23 years old, and runs a 4.55 forty. People like to compare him to Ray Rice, but it's not even close. Rice runs a 4.42 forty...that's elite speed homey. Martin screams 2nd round RB. For some reason Tampa Bay felt compelled to trade into the 1st round to get him. There's a reason they haven't won a playoff game in 10 years.

Keep listening to Dmac though...

I don't know if Dmac is right or not, I'm basing this on my own opinion of what happened.

Again with your "expert" draft analysis crap? I have already said that the Broncos probably had Martin rated as a second round pick. What the hell are you trying to prove?

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:20 PM
Denver made the deal with the Bucs right?

Do you have any proof the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin or not?

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:23 PM
Do you have any proof the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin or not?

Yeah they traded that pick to them.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:26 PM
Honestly why do you think teams wouldn't tell them?

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:35 PM
Honestly why do you think teams wouldn't tell them?

I don't know if teams have the time to ask every team they are trying to trade with (because there is probably more than one team) what player that team wants and then basing a trade on that. I think the teams are more concerned with trade compensation rather than "oh, you want THAT guy, well no then, we don't want to trade with you and we don't care if you are offering a 2nd, two 4ths and a 6th for the our 1/31 pick, if you want THAT guy, we aren't gonna trade with you."

Nah, I think teams are way more concerned with compensation and trying to get the best trade possible rather what player the team they are trading with is trying to get.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:37 PM
I don't know if teams have the time to ask every team they are trying to trade with (because there is probably more than one team) what player the want and then basing a trade on that. I think the teams are more concerned with trade compensation rather than "oh, you want THAT guy, well no then, we don't want to trade with you and we don't care if you are offering a 2nd, two 4ths and a 6th for the our 1/31 pick, if you want THAT guy, we aren't gonna trade with you."

Nah, I think teams are way more concerned with compensation and trying to get the best trade possible rather what player the team they are trading with is trying to get.

LOL asking who you are targeting takes less then a minute. Hilarious! And there are more then one phone line. This isn't the 50s Hilarious!

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:41 PM
LOL asking who you are targeting takes less then a minute. Hilarious! And there are more then one phone line. This isn't the 50s Hilarious!

Do you have any proof the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin or not?

Dedhed
05-22-2012, 07:46 PM
Do you have any proof the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin or not?

Please shut up.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:47 PM
Do you have any proof the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin or not?

Again yes Denver traded that pick to them. Hilarious! You act like teams are not in contact prior to their time on the clock as well. 10 minutes is more then long enough to work out a trade and find out who they are selecting regardless of what fantasy you live in.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:56 PM
Again yes Denver traded that pick to them. Hilarious! You act like teams are not in contact prior to their time on the clock as well. 10 minutes is more then long enough to work out a trade and find out who they are selecting regardless of what fantasy you live in.

lol, so you have no proof.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 07:59 PM
lol, so you have no proof.

So if you are running a team you don't feel it would be in your best interest to know if the team you are trading with is going to select one of your high targets?

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 07:59 PM
Please shut up.

see post 285

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 08:12 PM
So if you are running a team you don't feel it would be in your best interest to know if the team you are trading with is going to select one of your high targets?

No, what I am saying and have said is that the Broncos wanted Martin and rated him as the #2 RB in the draft however his value to the Broncos was in the second round. So when the Broncos traded with the Bucs they really didn't care if the Bucs took Martin or not. The Broncos were not going to take Martin at 31 so they traded back.

In a post draft interview the Broncos admitted that they saw value at the #36 spot and I assume what they meant is that on their draft board they valued Martin at #36--if he was there--and if not they'd take another player at #36 which happened to be Wolfe who I think they overdrafted.

Here is where I am speculating the most about the draft: I think the Broncos always intended to trade out of the first round but when Decastro started to drop, they were "hoping" to get him. However when pittsburgh took Decastro the Broncos went back to trying to trade out of the first round but they couldn't find a trading partner that provided the Broncos with a second round pick (or whatever trade value they were looking for) so they ended up trading with NE for the 31st pick. I don't think they really wanted the 31st pick but it was the best trade the Broncos could orchestrate at the time. Again, this is all just my opinion on what happened.

pricejj
05-22-2012, 08:14 PM
I don't know if Dmac is right or not, I'm basing this on my own opinion of what happened.

Again with your "expert" draft analysis crap? I have already said that the Broncos probably had Martin rated as a second round pick. What the hell are you trying to prove?

Oh, my bad, I didn't know you hatched this conspiracy all by yourself. Not sure what would give you any indication that your Martin theory is correct. The rest of it is legit, but not for Martin. I'm pretty sure they wanted Wolfe all along...if neither Cox, Brockers, or Poe fell to #25.

I got involved in the discussion late, read half your post, and was like "wtf?". Thanks for the disrespect, though.

Tombstone RJ
05-22-2012, 08:25 PM
Oh, my bad, I didn't know you hatched this conspiracy all by yourself. Not sure what would give you any indication that your Martin theory is correct. The rest of it is legit, but not for Martin. I'm pretty sure they wanted Wolfe all along...if neither Cox, Brockers, or Poe fell to #25.

I got involved in the discussion late, read half your post, and was like "wtf?". Thanks for the disrespect, though.

I apologize for the smart ass remarks, my bad.

pricejj
05-22-2012, 08:38 PM
Yeah, sorry for all the draft "expert" crap...I just can't stop thinking about the Broncos. I'm like addicted or something. Broncos maniac :sunshine:

bowtown
05-22-2012, 08:45 PM
As long as we are all just making things up, here's how I think it went down:

Elway wanted to draft Luck at 25 but when Decastro was still there at 23 he stopped trying to trade up and instead traded to 31 because he knew he could still take whoever NE previously wanted at that spot. Then when TB came calling it was clear that Hightower was not going to fall to us and that he could move into the 2nd round and have a shot at either Martin or his second favorite number... 36. I don't have any proof of this and everything I'm saying is just a big guess but in retrospect I think Elway prefers white guys.

DBroncos4life
05-22-2012, 08:55 PM
As long as we are all just making things up, here's how I think it went down:

Elway wanted to draft Luck at 25 but when Decastro was still there at 23 he stopped trying to trade up and instead traded to 31 because he knew he could still take whoever NE previously wanted at that spot. Then when TB came calling it was clear that Hightower was not going to fall to us and that he could move into the 2nd round and have a shot at either Martin or his second favorite number... 36. I don't have any proof of this and everything I'm saying is just a big guess but in retrospect I think Elway prefers white guys.

So much win in one post Ha!

Kaylore
05-23-2012, 04:52 AM
ok fine, I just want some proof of this, a link or something.

Sorry, the burden is on you to prove they didn't know. Especially since it's completely stupid to think they don't ask who they're taking.

Ray Finkle
05-23-2012, 05:14 AM
Slaton lost 5 fumbles in 2009, and apparently he was playing with shoulder and neck injuries. Hillman lost 5 fumbles last season.



He lost 5 fumbles.....had many, many more that were recovered.

Drek
05-23-2012, 05:47 AM
Do you have any proof the Broncos knew the Bucs were taking Martin or not?

Only the Broncos FO has "proof".

But if they didn't understand WHY Tampa was trading back up then they're the worst FO in the history of sports, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Facts we (and the Broncos) knew heading into the first round draft.

1. Tampa Bay really wanted a RB and was hoping Richardson would fall to them.

2. The Giants had not gone out of their way to hide their desire to add another RB to the stable.

So knowing 1 and 2 are true, why do you think Tampa Bay suddenly wants to trade in front of the Giants?

This debate of "did they ask?" falls completely apart when you realize that they didn't even need to. They knew why Tampa Bay was moving up. The Giants wanted a RB and Tampa didn't feel like it was safe to let them pick before them. Probably because David Wilson splitting time in New York with Bradshaw is a viable option with the Giants, but Tampa Bay needs a real every down back because Blount can't catch and he can't pass pro. Tampa needed a three down back, the Giants needed a 3rd down back with upside. Martin fits both, Wilson only fits the later. The Bucs couldn't gamble on the Giants liking Martin more than Wilson.

R-Mac
05-23-2012, 06:26 AM
He lost 5 fumbles.....had many, many more that were recovered.

Only 2 were recovered. 7 fumbles, 5 lost.

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2012, 09:15 AM
Sorry, the burden is on you to prove they didn't know. Especially since it's completely stupid to think they don't ask who they're taking.

Oh for **** sake. You guys are all saying that the Broncos Knew the Bucs were taking Martin yet no one has any proof of this.

None of you has provided on friggen link anywhere to prove that teams disclose to each other who they intend to take when making a trade.

Kaylor, provide a link or something to prove this, that's all I'm asking. The burden of proof is NOT ON ME.

DBroncos4life
05-23-2012, 09:41 AM
Oh for **** sake. You guys are all saying that the Broncos Knew the Bucs were taking Martin yet no one has any proof of this.

None of you has provided on friggen link anywhere to prove that teams disclose to each other who they intend to take when making a trade.

Kaylor, provide a link or something to prove this, that's all I'm asking. The burden of proof is NOT ON ME.

Buy a clue then you twit.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-23-2012, 09:51 AM
JFC. It's SOP in EVERY SINGLE SPORT to ask who they're taking.

You do it for 2 reasons:

You're not trading with someone who is taking the guy you want
You need to know who they're taking to try to gauge how it affects the next few picks and whether or not you can still get your guy later.

You don't get links for something that stupid because it's common freaking sense.

Anyone who actually thinks the Broncos (or any team) is ever caught flat-footed by who somebody takes in a trade up is desperate for something to complain about.

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2012, 10:25 AM
Buy a clue then you twit.

I'll go round and round with you on this brother. Until you prove your point I'll just continue building my case. Feed on this sucker:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d81f9116e/article/bears-sorry-for-trade-mess-but-ravens-reportedly-want-a-pick

Not once in this article does it say any where that teams discuss anything about what player a team wants when trading. Again, this backs up my point that teams are more interested in compensation and that the draft is too fluid to have time to discuss what player a team wants when making a trade. I especially like this tidbit: Newsome said more than one team approached the Ravens about a trade, but the Bears offered the best deal.

DBroncos4life
05-23-2012, 10:28 AM
I'll go round and round with you on this brother. Until you prove your point I'll just continue building my case. Feed on this sucker:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d81f9116e/article/bears-sorry-for-trade-mess-but-ravens-reportedly-want-a-pick

Not once in this article does it say any where that teams discuss anything about what player a team wants when trading. Again, this backs up my point that teams are more interested in compensation and that the draft is too fluid to have time to discuss what player a team wants when making a trade. I especially like this tidbit: Newsome said more than one team approached the Ravens about a trade, but the Bears offered the best deal.

So it says in there they didn't discuss who the Bears were drafting?

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2012, 10:34 AM
JFC. It's SOP in EVERY SINGLE SPORT to ask who they're taking.

You do it for 2 reasons:

You're not trading with someone who is taking the guy you want
You need to know who they're taking to try to gauge how it affects the next few picks and whether or not you can still get your guy later.

You don't get links for something that stupid because it's common freaking sense.

Anyone who actually thinks the Broncos (or any team) is ever caught flat-footed by who somebody takes in a trade up is desperate for something to complain about.

But isn't this tantamount to collusion during the draft? If this happens fine, if what you are saying is correct fine, I'm simply asking for some proof.

Please educate me with some proof of this. That is all I'm asking. Everyone says this is common knowledge and obviously I'm in the dark. It should be easy, very easy to prove this yes?

Kaylore
05-23-2012, 01:48 PM
But isn't this tantamount to collusion during the draft? If this happens fine, if what you are saying is correct fine, I'm simply asking for some proof.

Please educate me with some proof of this. That is all I'm asking. Everyone says this is common knowledge and obviously I'm in the dark. It should be easy, very easy to prove this yes?

First, thanks for the rep telling me to "STFU."

Second, it's fallacious to argue that something happened and then demand proof that it didn't when there is no evidence one way or the other. If you don't understand that, then by all means please STFU yourself.

Or else I am going to accuse you of having sex with a dead sheep and demand you prove you didn't do it.

DBroncos4life
05-23-2012, 01:54 PM
First, thanks for the rep telling me to "STFU."

Second, it's fallacious to argue that something happened and then demand proof that it didn't when there is no evidence one way or the other. If you don't understand that, then by all means please STFU yourself.

Or else I am going to accuse you of having sex with a dead sheep and demand you prove you didn't do it.

Ha!

BroncoBeavis
05-23-2012, 01:55 PM
First, thanks for the rep telling me to "STFU."

Second, it's fallacious to argue that something happened and then demand proof that it didn't when there is no evidence one way or the other. If you don't understand that, then by all means please STFU yourself.

Or else I am going to accuse you of having sex with a dead sheep and demand you prove you didn't do it.

It wasn't dead at the time. That I can confirm.

Tombstone RJ
05-23-2012, 03:38 PM
First, thanks for the rep telling me to "STFU."

Second, it's fallacious to argue that something happened and then demand proof that it didn't when there is no evidence one way or the other. If you don't understand that, then by all means please STFU yourself.

Or else I am going to accuse you of having sex with a dead sheep and demand you prove you didn't do it.

see post 323

Kaylore
05-23-2012, 03:53 PM
I'll go round and round with you on this brother. Until you prove your point I'll just continue building my case. Feed on this sucker:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d81f9116e/article/bears-sorry-for-trade-mess-but-ravens-reportedly-want-a-pick

Not once in this article does it say any where that teams discuss anything about what player a team wants when trading. Again, this backs up my point that teams are more interested in compensation and that the draft is too fluid to have time to discuss what player a team wants when making a trade. I especially like this tidbit: Newsome said more than one team approached the Ravens about a trade, but the Bears offered the best deal.

This proves nothing! It doesn't say they didn't ask, either! You're trying to argue against something that is common sense.

You can cite the multiple examples of teams that have a pre-existing agreement that they will trade, but only if their player falls to them, which is fairly common practice.

baja
05-23-2012, 04:30 PM
First, thanks for the rep telling me to "STFU."

Second, it's fallacious to argue that something happened and then demand proof that it didn't when there is no evidence one way or the other. If you don't understand that, then by all means please STFU yourself.

Or else I am going to accuse you of having sex with a dead sheep and demand you prove you didn't do it.

I can vouch for him.

I saw the sheep alive, badly beaten but alive.

mwill07
05-23-2012, 08:52 PM
cecil's thoughts on Hillman's prospects for 2012 (http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=642228&view=findpost&p=14406120):

know this about Hillman...they drafted him to replace McGahee (eventually)

If he's good in pass pro then that could be week one. he could take some time to get in as the starter like Portis did years ago (week 5 or week 6).

Either way it will still be a RBBC that has a "power" component. This year it could be Hillman 1, McGahee 1a -- in 2013 it could be Hillman 1, Fannin 2

I could see Hillman getting around 225 carries, with McGahee getting somewhere in the 125 range mostly on short yardage and goalline situations. That's if Hillman begins the year as the starter. With the mileage on McGahee it's unlikely he plays through the entire year injury free.

it's an interesting take - we are all assuming Hillman was drafted to compliment a big back, Cecil thinks Hillman will replace.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:02 AM
Thanks for posting that bit from Lammey. There has been wide speculation on this board that Hillman may actually become the feature back this year, much like Addai did during his rookie year in 2006.

Here's another interesting post from that blog:
So who is the leader on the depth chart at TE, Dreesen or Tamme?



They don't like us commenting on DC stuff right now, but I will say this. First, I saw Tamme. Then I saw Dreesen. ALSO, both will be used quite a bit in this offense.
Tamme as the lead receiver, move TE...lets say 60 catches for him. Dreesen as the blocker, red zone target...lets say 25 catches for him. The reason? Outside of Decker/DThomas they don't have much in the WR corps. I expect Bubba Caldwell to be the slot but his looks may be limited.

Exactly as most of us have been speculating, although I think he is low on his Tamme and Dreessen catches estimates. I'm thinking more in the 100-80 catches range for Tamme, with about 40 catches for Dreessen.

DENVERDUI55
05-24-2012, 05:55 AM
Thanks for posting that bit from Lammey. There has been wide speculation on this board that Hillman may actually become the feature back this year, much like Addai did during his rookie year in 2006.

Here's another interesting post from that blog:
So who is the leader on the depth chart at TE, Dreesen or Tamme?



They don't like us commenting on DC stuff right now, but I will say this. First, I saw Tamme. Then I saw Dreesen. ALSO, both will be used quite a bit in this offense.
Tamme as the lead receiver, move TE...lets say 60 catches for him. Dreesen as the blocker, red zone target...lets say 25 catches for him. The reason? Outside of Decker/DThomas they don't have much in the WR corps. I expect Bubba Caldwell to be the slot but his looks may be limited.

Exactly as most of us have been speculating, although I think he is low on his Tamme and Dreessen catches estimates. I'm thinking more in the 100-80 catches range for Tamme, with about 40 catches for Dreessen.

140 catches for TEs here? Wow

socalorado
05-24-2012, 06:19 AM
Thanks for posting that bit from Lammey. There has been wide speculation on this board that Hillman may actually become the feature back this year, much like Addai did during his rookie year in 2006.

Here's another interesting post from that blog:
So who is the leader on the depth chart at TE, Dreesen or Tamme?



They don't like us commenting on DC stuff right now, but I will say this. First, I saw Tamme. Then I saw Dreesen. ALSO, both will be used quite a bit in this offense.
Tamme as the lead receiver, move TE...lets say 60 catches for him. Dreesen as the blocker, red zone target...lets say 25 catches for him. The reason? Outside of Decker/DThomas they don't have much in the WR corps. I expect Bubba Caldwell to be the slot but his looks may be limited.

Exactly as most of us have been speculating, although I think he is low on his Tamme and Dreessen catches estimates. I'm thinking more in the 100-80 catches range for Tamme, with about 40 catches for Dreessen.

Rep.
I love it.
I remember you saying that the TEs would be getting huge numbers and that after the #1 and #2 WRs, there wasnt gonna be much coming there way,
with Caldwell next in line.
I think Hillman will be the defacto #1, ala McCoy in PHIL, with Willis doing alot of the dirty work inside the red zone, keeping him healthy for the year.
Cant wait to see the speed of this offense.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 07:07 AM
Pricejj overestimating predicted stats again itt

BroncoBeavis
05-24-2012, 07:19 AM
I can vouch for him.

I saw the sheep alive, badly beaten but alive.

I think the coroner's report determined Death by Unga Bunga, if I remember correctly.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 10:03 AM
Pricejj overestimating predicted stats again itt

What do you think are fair numbers? Here's a breakdown...

Joel Dreessen has averaged 30 receptions a year for the past 3 years, only starting an average of 10 games. I think he is the secret weapon of this Offense, and could be a guy who the Defense forgets to cover on 3rd down. With Peyton Manning, and being a full-time starter (like Ben Utecht, or Rob Gronkowski) 40 receptions seems about right. He did have 6 TD's last year. We know he's a weapon.

Jacob Tamme had 67 receptions, while only starting 8 games in 2010 in his only significant time with Manning. He came in mid-season to replace Dallas Clark who went on the IR after game 6 with 37 receptions. What do you get when you add both of those numbers together? 104 receptions. Dallas Clark (Manning's go-to TE) had 100 receptions in 2009, as TE became a focal point of the Indy Offense.

McCoy and Manning have both acknowledged that TE's will be at the start of progressions (as it should be). FYI...Gronk and Hernandez teamed up for 169 receptions last year.

So, if you assume Manning will have 340 to 380 receptions this year, who is going to catch them all?

DT = 80
Decker = 80
Tamme = 100
Dreessen = 40
Hillman = 40
McGahee = 20
Caldwell = 20
Total = 380

Tamme may only end up with 80, but he should be able to get 100 if the Offense is running smoothly. DT may get 100, but we'll see if he has matured enough. Decker probably won't get more than 80 lining up against the #1CB. Caldwell only figures to get some time in the slot, and will rarely be on the field. Back up your claim that my projections are overestimated.

DBroncos4life
05-24-2012, 10:18 AM
140 catches for TEs here? Wow

He predicted 40 catches for both McGahee and Hillman so we are up too 220 catches from players other then WRs

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3593556

pricejj
05-24-2012, 10:21 AM
He predicted 40 catches for both McGahee and Hillman so we are up too 220 catches from players other then WRs

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3593556

McGahee could get 40, but I'll give 20 of those to Caldwell for good measure. In 2006 Addai had 40 receptions, and Rhodes had 36, on the way to Manning's only Superbowl win. It's not a stretch, it's a healthy goal.

The Patriots had 206 receptions from non-WR's in 2011 (they don't throw to the RB much).
The Colts had 187 receptions from non-WR's in 2009 (while runnning primarily a 3 WR set). Austin Collie ended up with 60 receptions from the slot. The Broncos will line up Tamme in the slot.

DBroncos4life
05-24-2012, 10:25 AM
McGahee could get 40, but I'll give 20 of those to Caldwell for good measure. In 2006 Addai had 40 receptions, and Rhodes had 36, on the way to Manning's only Superbowl win. It's not a stretch, it's a healthy goal.
Do you really think we are going to try an mimic the stats of the 2006 Colts to win a SB?

pricejj
05-24-2012, 10:29 AM
Do you really think we are going to try an mimic the stats of the 2006 Colts to win a SB?

The Patriots are.

DBroncos4life
05-24-2012, 10:30 AM
The Patriots are.

Awesome let me know how that is going for them.

s0phr0syne
05-24-2012, 10:33 AM
What do you think are fair numbers? Here's a breakdown...

Joel Dreessen has averaged 30 receptions a year for the past 3 years, only starting an average of 10 games. I think he is the secret weapon of this Offense, and could be a guy who the Defense forgets to cover on 3rd down. With Peyton Manning, and being a full-time starter (like Ben Utecht, or Rob Gronkowski) 40 receptions seems about right. He did have 6 TD's last year. We know he's a weapon.

Jacob Tamme had 67 receptions, while only starting 8 games in 2010 in his only significant time with Manning. He came in mid-season to replace Dallas Clark who went on the IR after game 6 with 37 receptions. What do you get when you add both of those numbers together? 104 receptions. Dallas Clark (Manning's go-to TE) had 100 receptions in 2009, as TE became a focal point of the Indy Offense.

McCoy and Manning have both acknowledged that TE's will be at the start of progressions (as it should be). FYI...Gronk and Hernandez teamed up for 169 receptions last year.

So, if you assume Manning will have 340 to 380 receptions this year, who is going to catch them all?

DT = 80
Decker = 80
Tamme = 100
Dreessen = 40
Hillman = 40
McGahee = 20
Caldwell = 20
Total = 380

Tamme may only end up with 80, but he should be able to get 100 if the Offense is running smoothly. DT may get 100, but we'll see if he has matured enough. Decker probably won't get more than 80 lining up against the #1CB. Caldwell only figures to get some time in the slot, and will rarely be on the field. Back up your claim that my projections are overestimated.


You're getting a lot of flack for your predictions, but I commend you for giving a breakdown to support where you're coming from.

Over the last 6 years that he played, Manning did average about 370 completions per year (per NFL.com stats). So while your numbers correlate well with what he did in Indianapolis in terms of total completions, I don't think they will be accurate with the Fox-ball that he'll be playing here. I expect the attempts and completions to fall drastically, probably around 300 completions this year. That's just my impression, and there's no way to predict who will be more accurate until the season's end.

Also, not sure about the breakdown. Tamme is not as good as Clark was in his prime. He's Clark-lite, and I don't think it's fair to assume he'll produce in the same capacity. But we shall see. At first your numbers look unrealistic, but maybe your breakdown will prove to be true...at least proportionately.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 10:35 AM
The Patriots have found the secret to the most explosive Offense in the NFL. Single RB, Two TE sets. You simply cannot defend two big, fast TE's. They can kill you both in the run game, and the pass game...it's so unpredictable.

Once the Colts went away from 2 TE sets in 2008...they started having the worst run game in the NFL. You can't win the SB doing that, and you are going to get your QB worn out and killed.

The 2006 Colts had the perfect formula. Although I believe the Broncos still need a true #1WR (Decker may not be up to snuff on the right side), the personnel we have on Offense should be able to make a run at the Superbowl.

DBroncos4life
05-24-2012, 10:44 AM
The Patriots have found the secret to the most explosive Offense in the NFL. Single RB, Two TE sets. You simply cannot defend two big, fast TE's. They can kill you both in the run game, and the pass game...it's so unpredictable.

Once the Colts went away from 2 TE sets in 2008...they started having the worst run game in the NFL. You can't win the SB doing that, and you are going to get your QB worn out and killed.

The 2006 Colts had the perfect formula. Although I believe the Broncos still need a true #1WR (Decker may not be up to snuff on the right side), the personnel we have on Offense should be able to make a run at the Superbowl.
The Giants don't agree with that at all. Also are you really suggesting our TE's are as good as the Pats TE's?

pricejj
05-24-2012, 11:01 AM
You're getting a lot of flack for your predictions, but I commend you for giving a breakdown to support where you're coming from.

Over the last 6 years that he played, Manning did average about 370 completions per year (per NFL.com stats). So while your numbers correlate well with what he did in Indianapolis in terms of total completions, I don't think they will be accurate with the Fox-ball that he'll be playing here. I expect the attempts and completions to fall drastically, probably around 300 completions this year. That's just my impression, and there's no way to predict who will be more accurate until the season's end.

Also, not sure about the breakdown. Tamme is not as good as Clark was in his prime. He's Clark-lite, and I don't think it's fair to assume he'll produce in the same capacity. But we shall see. At first your numbers look unrealistic, but maybe your breakdown will prove to be true...at least proportionately.

If we play Fox-ball, we won't get anywhere close to the Superbowl. Having a non-pass catching FB on the field at all times, makes the Offense predictable. If you don't have 2 dominant WR's (which we don't), Manning will rarely have an open target. The 97-98 Broncos were successful with the I-formation because they had the best Offensive Line in the NFL...and Terell Davis. They also had Eddie McCaffrey (2" taller than Decker, and a much better WR), Rod Smith (a true #1), and Shannon Sharpe (HOF'er).

Why would you take the ball out of Manning's hands? He has a 66-68% completion rate. Elway only completed 55% of his passes.

Even if you only had 32 passing attempts per game (like the '97 Broncos), Manning would still complete 348 passes (with a 68% completion rate).

With 34.81 pass attempts per game (like the 2006 Colts), Manning had 362 completions (with a 65% completion rate). Manning has improved his accuracy since then, so if we recalculate using a 68% completion rate...that's about 380 receptions.

Anywhere in between 340 to 380 receptions is where Manning will (hopefully) realistically be. Manning has averaged 382.6 receptions over the last 5 years.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 11:04 AM
The Giants don't agree with that at all. Also are you really suggesting our TE's are as good as the Pats TE's?

No, that's why I put a realistic goal of 140 receptions for Tamme and Dreessen. Like I said, Gronk and Hernandez had 169 receptions.

Keep in mind Welker caught 122 balls. I don't think we will have a WR doing that, but we are still just as potentially good as NE.

peacepipe
05-24-2012, 11:10 AM
If we play Fox-ball, we won't get anywhere close to the Superbowl. Having a non-pass catching FB on the field at all times, makes the Offense predictable. If you don't have 2 dominant WR's (which we don't), Manning will rarely have an open target. The 97-98 Broncos were successful with the I-formation because they had the best Offensive Line in the NFL...and Terell Davis. They also had Eddie McCaffrey (2" taller than Decker, and a much better WR), Rod Smith (a true #1), and Shannon Sharpe (HOF'er).

Why would you take the ball out of Manning's hands? He has a 66-68% completion rate. Elway only completed 55% of his passes.

Even if you only had 32 passing attempts per game (like the '97 Broncos), Manning would still complete 348 passes (with a 68% completion rate).

With 34.81 pass attempts per game (like the 2006 Colts), Manning had 362 completions (with a 65% completion rate). Manning has improved his accuracy since then, so if we recalculate using a 68% completion rate...that's about 380 receptions.

Anywhere in between 340 to 380 receptions is where Manning will (hopefully) realistically be. Manning has averaged 382.6 receptions over the last 5 years.fox-ball got carolina to the SB,especially now that he has a QB that he can trust to throw the ball.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 11:35 AM
fox-ball got carolina to the SB,especially now that he has a QB that he can trust to throw the ball.

If we run Fox-ball, I will shave my nether-regions and move to Waziristan, and Manning will retire after this season. Foxball will never score many points, and the Defense was absolutely blown out of the water. This isn't 2002. The league is a bit more "pass-friendly" these days.

peacepipe
05-24-2012, 11:59 AM
If we run Fox-ball, I will shave my nether-regions and move to Waziristan, and Manning will retire after this season. Foxball will never score many points, and the Defense was absolutely blown out of the water. This isn't 2002. The league is a bit more "pass-friendly" these days.fox-ball avg. 20.3 points a game with jake delhomme as QB(2003,yr carolina went to SB). you don't think he can do better with Manning at QB?

socalorado
05-24-2012, 12:05 PM
What do you think are fair numbers? Here's a breakdown...

Joel Dreessen has averaged 30 receptions a year for the past 3 years, only starting an average of 10 games. I think he is the secret weapon of this Offense, and could be a guy who the Defense forgets to cover on 3rd down. With Peyton Manning, and being a full-time starter (like Ben Utecht, or Rob Gronkowski) 40 receptions seems about right. He did have 6 TD's last year. We know he's a weapon.

Jacob Tamme had 67 receptions, while only starting 8 games in 2010 in his only significant time with Manning. He came in mid-season to replace Dallas Clark who went on the IR after game 6 with 37 receptions. What do you get when you add both of those numbers together? 104 receptions. Dallas Clark (Manning's go-to TE) had 100 receptions in 2009, as TE became a focal point of the Indy Offense.

McCoy and Manning have both acknowledged that TE's will be at the start of progressions (as it should be). FYI...Gronk and Hernandez teamed up for 169 receptions last year.

So, if you assume Manning will have 340 to 380 receptions this year, who is going to catch them all?

DT = 80
Decker = 80
Tamme = 100
Dreessen = 40
Hillman = 40
McGahee = 20
Caldwell = 20
Total = 380

Tamme may only end up with 80, but he should be able to get 100 if the Offense is running smoothly. DT may get 100, but we'll see if he has matured enough. Decker probably won't get more than 80 lining up against the #1CB. Caldwell only figures to get some time in the slot, and will rarely be on the field. Back up your claim that my projections are overestimated.

^Rep
Nice breakdown and analysis.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 12:25 PM
fox-ball avg. 20.3 points a game with jake delhomme as QB(2003,yr carolina went to SB). you don't think he can do better with Manning at QB?

It would not be out of the realm of possibility. The Offense is going to have to be able to put up points quickly. I don't care how strong the Defense is, it's going to be tough to hold the Patriots under 30. A no-huddle passing game, with ability to run the ball, is the best way to do that...unless you have the '97 Broncos.

peacepipe
05-24-2012, 12:29 PM
It would not be out of the realm of possibility. The Offense is going to have to be able to put up points quickly. I don't care how strong the Defense is, it's going to be tough to hold the Patriots under 30. A no-huddle passing game, with ability to run the ball, is the best way to do that...unless you have the '97 Broncos. unless NEs' defense shows significant improvement,NE will be the ones worried about keeping denver under 30.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 12:37 PM
The Patriots will probably average in the neighborhood of 32 ppg again. They may have also improved their Defense to top 10.

Manning's Offenses typically average ~ 27 ppg. Even if JDR improves the Defense to top 10 (which is highly unlikely), it is going to be tough to beat the Patriots with home-field advantage. Real tough.


The good news is, we match up on paper pretty well with the Patriots. Manning knows how to beat those freaks. Hopefully, he can take a little bit from Fox and McCoy to make the Broncos Offense a well-oiled machine.

It's going to be exciting, that's for sure. :sunshine:

unless NEs' defense shows significant improvement,NE will be the ones worried about keeping denver under 30.

Hopefully the cards are in our favor my friend. We're definitely going to need some Mile High Magic. ;D

BroncoBeavis
05-24-2012, 12:37 PM
fox-ball got carolina to the SB,especially now that he has a QB that he can trust to throw the ball.

It also got John Fox fired in 2010. I never realized what a golden ticket losing one super bowl damn near a decade ago was.

baja
05-24-2012, 12:38 PM
I think "Fox Ball" is going to be McCoy ball on offense and JDR ball on defense.

Beantown Bronco
05-24-2012, 12:38 PM
It also got John Fox fired in 2010. I never realized what a golden ticket losing one super bowl damn near a decade ago was.

Clausen vs. Manning......hmmmmm

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 12:39 PM
What do you think are fair numbers? Here's a breakdown...

Joel Dreessen has averaged 30 receptions a year for the past 3 years, only starting an average of 10 games. I think he is the secret weapon of this Offense, and could be a guy who the Defense forgets to cover on 3rd down. With Peyton Manning, and being a full-time starter (like Ben Utecht, or Rob Gronkowski) 40 receptions seems about right. He did have 6 TD's last year. We know he's a weapon.

Jacob Tamme had 67 receptions, while only starting 8 games in 2010 in his only significant time with Manning. He came in mid-season to replace Dallas Clark who went on the IR after game 6 with 37 receptions. What do you get when you add both of those numbers together? 104 receptions. Dallas Clark (Manning's go-to TE) had 100 receptions in 2009, as TE became a focal point of the Indy Offense.

McCoy and Manning have both acknowledged that TE's will be at the start of progressions (as it should be). FYI...Gronk and Hernandez teamed up for 169 receptions last year.

So, if you assume Manning will have 340 to 380 receptions this year, who is going to catch them all?

DT = 80
Decker = 80
Tamme = 100
Dreessen = 40
Hillman = 40
McGahee = 20
Caldwell = 20
Total = 380

Tamme may only end up with 80, but he should be able to get 100 if the Offense is running smoothly. DT may get 100, but we'll see if he has matured enough. Decker probably won't get more than 80 lining up against the #1CB. Caldwell only figures to get some time in the slot, and will rarely be on the field. Back up your claim that my projections are overestimated.

You said mcgahee was gonna catch 40 balls

And I doubt tamme gets 100, but it is way more likely than the mcgahee prediction

Still not seeing the slot reciever catching only 20 balls to a TE catching 100 though.... so....

And why would decker be going against a CB1 if Thomas is healthy/productive??

peacepipe
05-24-2012, 12:47 PM
Clausen vs. Manning......hmmmmmsafe to say if fox had manning those yrs in carolina he'd still be there.

Lestat
05-24-2012, 12:47 PM
What do you think are fair numbers? Here's a breakdown...

Joel Dreessen has averaged 30 receptions a year for the past 3 years, only starting an average of 10 games. I think he is the secret weapon of this Offense, and could be a guy who the Defense forgets to cover on 3rd down. With Peyton Manning, and being a full-time starter (like Ben Utecht, or Rob Gronkowski) 40 receptions seems about right. He did have 6 TD's last year. We know he's a weapon.

Jacob Tamme had 67 receptions, while only starting 8 games in 2010 in his only significant time with Manning. He came in mid-season to replace Dallas Clark who went on the IR after game 6 with 37 receptions. What do you get when you add both of those numbers together? 104 receptions. Dallas Clark (Manning's go-to TE) had 100 receptions in 2009, as TE became a focal point of the Indy Offense.

McCoy and Manning have both acknowledged that TE's will be at the start of progressions (as it should be). FYI...Gronk and Hernandez teamed up for 169 receptions last year.

So, if you assume Manning will have 340 to 380 receptions this year, who is going to catch them all?

DT = 80
Decker = 80
Tamme = 100
Dreessen = 40
Hillman = 40
McGahee = 20
Caldwell = 20
Total = 380

Tamme may only end up with 80, but he should be able to get 100 if the Offense is running smoothly. DT may get 100, but we'll see if he has matured enough. Decker probably won't get more than 80 lining up against the #1CB. Caldwell only figures to get some time in the slot, and will rarely be on the field. Back up your claim that my projections are overestimated.

i like the breakdown. one issue, i believe Caldwell gets much more than 20 recs, i'd say Dreessen is the top TE who will get 70+ catches, Tamme i'd put him around 50-60. Caldwell to me is going to be the determining factor of this offense. the reason i say this is due to how much offensive success Manning has had in the past and a good chunk of it has been with the third WR being very good and making the defense pay for overloading on the top 2.

we saw it with Stokely,Garcon and others.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 12:49 PM
i like the breakdown. one issue, i believe Caldwell gets much more than 20 recs, i'd say Dreessen is the top TE who will get 70+ catches, Tamme i'd put him around 50-60. Caldwell to me is going to be the determining factor of this offense. the reason i say this is due to how much offensive success Manning has had in the past and a good chunk of it has been with the third WR being very good and making the defense pay for overloading on the top 2.

we saw it with Stokely,Garcon and others.

Blair white, Gonzalez...

pricejj
05-24-2012, 12:57 PM
i like the breakdown. one issue, i believe Caldwell gets much more than 20 recs, i'd say Dreessen is the top TE who will get 70+ catches, Tamme i'd put him around 50-60. Caldwell to me is going to be the determining factor of this offense. the reason i say this is due to how much offensive success Manning has had in the past and a good chunk of it has been with the third WR being very good and making the defense pay for overloading on the top 2.

we saw it with Stokely,Garcon and others.

There is one VERY BIG problem with your reasoning. Although Manning had great passing stats with 3 WR's...the Colts running game was the worst in the NFL. Adding a 3rd WR would take a 2nd TE (or FB) off the field...which is crucial in the running game.

Cecil Lammey said that Caldwell is lining up in the slot...and that you won't see much of him this year. Tamme will be the slot, sometimes lining up covering the tackle.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:04 PM
The 2nd TE in the slot, who can block, (not 3rd WR) is the secret to success. It adds so much more versatility by drastically improving the running game.

Let me ask you, would you rather have a shrimpy guy (with 4.4 speed) running around the field trying to get open...

OR

...a 6'4" guy (with 4.5 speed) who can block?

Both of them will get open being guarded by the #3CB. The taller, bigger TE has height advantage, is a much bigger target, and offers a lot of blocking support in the run game.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:08 PM
What defensive coordinator would run a nickel formation against the 2 TE set? Regardless of were the TE lines up

Lestat
05-24-2012, 01:12 PM
Blair white, Gonzalez...
in fairness though, Gonzalez looked damn good before his injury issues.
White was a practice squad call up and they still had other guys at that time.

There is one VERY BIG problem with your reasoning. Although Manning had great passing stats with 3 WR's...the Colts running game was the worst in the NFL. Adding a 3rd WR would take a 2nd TE (or FB) off the field...which is crucial in the running game.

Cecil Lammey said that Caldwell is lining up in the slot...and that you won't see much of him this year. Tamme will be the slot, sometimes lining up covering the tackle.

not really, i didn't say his presence was mandatory. i said that he would be key to the offense in terms of it being as efficient as possible.
i know Tamme will be the slot a good portion of the time but a guy like Caldwell is going to be getting more down field and big play opportunities to take the cover off the defense. DT is a semi deep threat, Decker is more of a short throw to intermediate route guy, Tamme,Dreessen,Gronkowski,Hillman,McGahee don't provide that.

don't get me wrong, DT and Decker will make plays down the field this season.
but Caldwell is the guy who if he can come in and be explosive it will give the offense the ability to be a juggernaut. they'll be able to attack short,underneath,medium,over the top,in the slot,on the outside and etc.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:14 PM
And why would decker be going against a CB1 if Thomas is healthy/productive??

Because Decker lines up on the right side, and DT lines up on the left. Traditionally, the #1WR lines up on the right, and the #2WR lines up on the left. #1CB's always play on the left side of the Defense (like Champ Bailey).

What defensive coordinator would run a nickel formation against the 2 TE set? Regardless of were the TE lines up

I don't care who you line up against Tamme in the slot...you aren't going to be able to stop him with a #3CB or OLB.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:19 PM
Because Decker lines up on the right side, and DT lines up on the left. Traditionally, the #1WR lines up on the right, and the #2WR lines up on the left. #1CB's always play on the left side of the Defense (like Champ Bailey).

These formations/assignments are in constant fluctuation. What's more likely is that Thomas ends up as WR1 and decker as WR2 and the CBs/formations will fall as they may

we were running champ in the nickel spot at times last season for crying out loud. Everything is not so clear cut and set in stone as you make it out to be

Lestat
05-24-2012, 01:20 PM
The 2nd TE in the slot, who can block, (not 3rd WR) is the secret to success. It adds so much more versatility by drastically improving the running game.

Let me ask you, would you rather have a shrimpy guy (with 4.4 speed) running around the field trying to get open...

OR

...a 6'4" guy (with 4.5 speed) who can block?

Both of them will get open being guarded by the #3CB. The taller, bigger TE has height advantage, is a much bigger target, and offers a lot of blocking support in the run game.

i know Peyton can throw guys open(mercy how wonderful it is to say that about our QB) but down field speed and separation is more important than just a big target. being bigger and taller doesn't make you a better blocker and Tamme is not really known for that either way. he's a receiving TE who can be a slot guy and beat your LB or #3 CB coverage.

but he's still not a real deep threat type. he's a nice target and can go up and get it. but stretching the defense and beating them over the top? i don't see him doing that consistently.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:21 PM
not really, i didn't say his presence was mandatory. i said that he would be key to the offense in terms of it being as efficient as possible.
i know Tamme will be the slot a good portion of the time but a guy like Caldwell is going to be getting more down field and big play opportunities to take the cover off the defense. DT is a semi deep threat, Decker is more of a short throw to intermediate route guy, Tamme,Dreessen,Gronkowski,Hillman,McGahee don't provide that.

don't get me wrong, DT and Decker will make plays down the field this season.
but Caldwell is the guy who if he can come in and be explosive it will give the offense the ability to be a juggernaut. they'll be able to attack short,underneath,medium,over the top,in the slot,on the outside and etc.

That is the problem with having Decker is the #1 WR. If you want a deep threat, just take Decker off the field. We really need a speed guy (like Marvin Harrison, or Pierre Garcon) as a #1 WR.

Whatever the case, they are going to put Decker at #1 WR and see if he can get open...if he can't, they need to find someone who can. It's all about matchups. DT can get open. Tamme can get open. Dreessen can get open. Both RB's can get open. If Decker can't, then he shouldn't be on the field.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:23 PM
That is the problem with having Decker is the #1 WR. If you want a deep threat, just take Decker off the field. We really need a speed guy (like Marvin Harrison, or Pierre Garcon) as a #1 WR.

.

Demaryius Thomas.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:26 PM
These formations/assignments are in constant fluctuation. What's more likely is that Thomas ends up as WR1 and decker as WR2 and the CBs/formations will fall as they may

we were running champ in the nickel spot at times last season for crying out loud. Everything is not so clear cut and set in stone as you make it out to be

Well, it was with the Colts Offense, and that's what made it so potent. The skill players would figure out how to get open against the guys who were guarding them. Manning would figure out where the mismatch was, what the Defense was running, and deliver the ball.

DT can get open all the time against a #2CB, but not against #1CB's...so it is better to play him on the left side (like Reggie Wayne).

Decker has a tough time getting open no matter who is guarding him.

We'll see how it develops.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:29 PM
Well, it was with the Colts Offense, and that's what made it so potent. The skill players would figure out how to get open against the guys who were guarding them. Manning would figure out where the mismatch was, what the Defense was running, and deliver the ball.

DT can get open all the time against a #2CB, but not against #1CB's...so it is better to play him on the left side (like Reggie Wayne).

Reggie Wayne was the unquestioned WR1 in Indy. He was/will be covered by CB1 or doubled with a safety nearly all the time, regardless of which side of the field he lines up on

How can Thomas not get open against CB1s? What is this based off of? Being the biggest and fastest player in the WR corps?

Lestat
05-24-2012, 01:30 PM
That is the problem with having Decker is the #1 WR. If you want a deep threat, just take Decker off the field. We really need a speed guy (like Marvin Harrison, or Pierre Garcon) as a #1 WR.

Whatever the case, they are going to put Decker at #1 WR and see if he can get open...if he can't, they need to find someone who can. It's all about matchups. DT can get open. Tamme can get open. Dreessen can get open. Both RB's can get open. If Decker can't, then he shouldn't be on the field.

but getting open is not the same as being a down field threat. DT is the most complete WR in the aspects of being able to catch almost anywhere, Decker would be right behind him but he's not a deep threat guy, he's got solid speed but he's not going to tear the cover off the defense, neither will any of the other options in the fold behind DT.

i think all will be productive but our WR corps are similar to a basketball team that can score mid range and a bit in the post but doesn't have that consistent outside shooter that keeps the defense from focusing in on stopping the things the team is really adept at.

Beantown Bronco
05-24-2012, 01:31 PM
Traditionally, the #1WR lines up on the right, and the #2WR lines up on the left.

I don't know that that's really true.

Reggie Wayne
Desean Jackson
Larry Fitzgerald
Calvin Johnson
Andre Johnson

All line up regularly on the left. Not 100% of the time, because they do move around, but most of the time.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:32 PM
i know Peyton can throw guys open(mercy how wonderful it is to say that about our QB) but down field speed and separation is more important than just a big target. being bigger and taller doesn't make you a better blocker and Tamme is not really known for that either way. he's a receiving TE who can be a slot guy and beat your LB or #3 CB coverage.

but he's still not a real deep threat type. he's a nice target and can go up and get it. but stretching the defense and beating them over the top? i don't see him doing that consistently.

One of Manning's favorite plays was sending Dallas Clark deep through the middle of the field to split the Safeties. If you don't double team Tamme (with a CB and a Safety) he is going to get open and catch the ball. If you don't double-team DT (with a CB and a Safety) he is going to get open and catch the ball. If you split the Safeties by sending the Tamme deep...you can't double team both of them.

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:34 PM
I don't know that that's really true.

Reggie Wayne
Desean Jackson
Larry Fitzgerald
Calvin Johnson
Andre Johnson

All line up regularly on the left. Not 100% of the time, because they do move around, but most of the time.

In the Colts Offense Reggie Wayne ALWAYS lined up on the left side. At first, Marvin Harrison was lining up on the right, then Pierre Garcon took over when Harrison retired. You cannot be constantly shifting people in the hurry-up Offense...

Manning's hurry-up Offense is a primary reason why he is so successful.

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:36 PM
Manning's ability to run the hurry-up Offense is a primary reason why he is so successful.

fyp

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:39 PM
fyp

If you run the hurry-up, you can't be switching guys everywhere all the time. So what's it going to be? DT on the left, Tamme in the slot, and Decker on the right...or huddle after every play?

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:41 PM
If you run the hurry-up, you can't be switching guys everywhere all the time. So what's it going to be? DT on the left, Tamme in the slot, and Decker on the right...or huddle after every play?

I was implying that manning was the reason the hurry up offense was so successful and not vice versa

Pretty sure a large part of that was Peyton moving guys around and changing formations constantly too. It's not like everyone is lining up in the same spot every single play

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:48 PM
I was implying that manning was the reason the hurry up offense was so successful and not vice versa

Pretty sure a large part of that was Peyton moving guys around and changing formations constantly too. It's not like everyone is lining up in the same spot every single play

1. The only players to change would be the RB (every other posession).
2. All of the players would stay in the same spots except the blocking TE, and the Slot. Those two players can line up on either side of the formation (with the blocking TE always covering the OT).


Just do some research man, you will figure out what I'm talking about. I watched both Colts Superbowls on you-tube to get the low down. You should do the same. You can read my "The Broncos No-Huddle" thread if you want. There is also a really good article with visuals written by Chris Brown a few days ago (I posted a link in the no-huddle thread, and someone made another thread too).

lolcopter
05-24-2012, 01:50 PM
You haven't seen Peyton play all that much then, YouTube scout. He will audible in and out of shotgun, motion receivers, split out RBs, move pretty much anyone around that gives him that much more info/edge against the defense. I'm glad you think you have everything figured out, I can only hope the rest of our opponents feel the same way

pricejj
05-24-2012, 01:55 PM
You haven't seen Peyton play all that much then, YouTube scout. He will audible in and out of shotgun, motion receivers, split out RBs, move pretty much anyone around that gives him that much more info/edge against the defense. I'm glad you think you have everything figured out, I can only hope the rest of our opponents feel the same way

1. Audibling in and out of shotgun doesn't change anybodies position on the field.
2. There is no motion from the skill players.
3. An RB might split wide 5% of the time.

Just do some reading and watch some games.

eff1ngham
05-24-2012, 02:02 PM
i like the breakdown. one issue, i believe Caldwell gets much more than 20 recs, i'd say Dreessen is the top TE who will get 70+ catches, Tamme i'd put him around 50-60. Caldwell to me is going to be the determining factor of this offense. the reason i say this is due to how much offensive success Manning has had in the past and a good chunk of it has been with the third WR being very good and making the defense pay for overloading on the top 2.

we saw it with Stokely,Garcon and others.

I sort of mentioned it in the no-huddle thread, but I feel that Caldwell, or perhaps another WR will be more involved not just because they may run a 3 WR set, but also because I don't know if we can count on Thomas and Decker to instantly be a legit #1 and #2 from day one. If they struggle at all to pick up the offense or run precise routes, we could see more guys taking the field even if it's for a series or two

DENVERDUI55
05-24-2012, 02:36 PM
You haven't seen Peyton play all that much then, YouTube scout. He will audible in and out of shotgun, motion receivers, split out RBs, move pretty much anyone around that gives him that much more info/edge against the defense. I'm glad you think you have everything figured out, I can only hope the rest of our opponents feel the same way

Manning uses little motion and plays with base personel 70 percent of the time or so.

baja
05-24-2012, 02:51 PM
Manning uses little motion and plays with base personel 70 percent of the time or so.


Wow I must of somehow managed to watch only the 30% of the plays in motion because every time I caught manning on TV he was motioning all over the place.

DENVERDUI55
05-24-2012, 03:10 PM
Wow I must of somehow managed to watch only the 30% of the plays in motion because every time I caught manning on TV he was motioning all over the place.
Show me a youtube video with a lot of motion? There is plenty out with Manning there I'll just go down them. The Colts offense was so simple it's funny it works so well. Shows you how important execution is and a HOF QB.

Here I'll throw some up there. I really wonder if you have watched the Colts much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2IlQc71Kpw&feature=related

SBXLI No motion through first 1 quarter of offensive plays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R_sylxxQCQ&feature=related

Last 4 min against Pats. Tell me where there is a lot of motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk55fQvqRKk&feature=related

Random game against cowboys. I could keep going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrarlFVekO8&feature=related

baja
05-24-2012, 03:14 PM
It's a joke man I'm referring to Manning running (motion) up and down the line while waving his arms frantically every play until the game clock read one second.

DENVERDUI55
05-24-2012, 03:33 PM
It's a joke man I'm referring to Manning running (motion) up and down the line while waving his arms frantically every play until the game clock read one second.

I thought you were serious. LOL