PDA

View Full Version : Chris Gronkowski (FB) traded to Broncos


Pages : 1 [2]

mwill07
05-24-2012, 02:53 PM
Gronkowski joined the Colts LAST SEASON, Peyton did not play last year lol!

reply (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3594980&postcount=215)

Kaylore
05-24-2012, 03:42 PM
I don't understand how trading a backup corner (like fourth string who was an undrafted free agent that played special teams) for a freaking full back could warrant an 11 page thread?


....Oh that's right. It's May. Carry on.:oyvey:

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 04:03 PM
I have studied every NFL team over the years. 14 years of following Manning in Indy I think I know them inside and out. So why would anything I say about Indy hold less water?

I think what I said has been twisted to the extreme, and now even posters on here that I enjoyed talking to are ganging up on me.

I don't have any issue with trading Vaughn, it's the ****ty FB they got back. I am calling it how I see it. I thought Denver had a good draft, most of you didn't, but you'll stand by this move as a good move? This move is absolute nothing, yet the homers swear its quality.

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 04:05 PM
reply (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3594980&postcount=215)

Yeah Manning rallied on behalf of Gronk.

DBroncos4life
05-24-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't understand how trading a backup corner (like fourth string who was an undrafted free agent that played special teams) for a freaking full back could warrant an 11 page thread?


....Oh that's right. It's May. Carry on.:oyvey:

I've seen moneyball. The going rate for an undrafted CB should be no less then one highly drafted player.

DBroncos4life
05-24-2012, 04:32 PM
That versatility can be beneficial.. After your excellent write up of the Indy offense you should know they don't need a FB in the Manning offense. I'm not sure how Green and Thomas block, but if one could block it would allow one to not get cut and keep roster spaces for another position.

I would have gotten an UDFA if they wanted a cheap FB or pursued a talented one on the market.

Any insight on why the 10 Colts brought this FB in in the first place then?

Wes Mantooth
05-24-2012, 04:43 PM
Yeah Manning rallied on behalf of Gronk.

Yes, he most likely did.

baja
05-24-2012, 04:48 PM
He is Manning's room mate of choice on away games

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 04:59 PM
Yes, he most likely did.

Lol! That's funny

Cito Pelon
05-24-2012, 04:59 PM
Wheres Vaughn going to play? You got champ porter Florence Harris bolden and Syd, all of whom are better than Vaughn IMO. You can't base it on Vaughn's performance, since there's not much there at all. As far as returning kicks, the new rule pretty much took the value out of that real fast. Catching a touchback doesn't require much skill.

There's a few returnable kicks still, you still need a good returner on the team. But Elway brought in his own guys that he thinks will fill that returner/gunner/backup role that Vaughn filled.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-24-2012, 05:15 PM
I have studied every NFL team over the years. 14 years of following Manning in Indy I think I know them inside and out. So why would anything I say about Indy hold less water?

I think what I said has been twisted to the extreme, and now even posters on here that I enjoyed talking to are ganging up on me.

I don't have any issue with trading Vaughn, it's the ****ty FB they got back. I am calling it how I see it. I thought Denver had a good draft, most of you didn't, but you'll stand by this move as a good move? This move is absolute nothing, yet the homers swear its quality.



I thought they had a great draft.

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 05:16 PM
Any insight on why the 10 Colts brought this FB in in the first place then?

The 10 Colts knew without Manning at the helm, to beat opponents they needed to run a lot more. The Gronk acquisition was late in the offseason, and all they could afford. Indy always operated at the top of the salary cap.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-24-2012, 05:17 PM
There's a few returnable kicks still, you still need a good returner on the team. But Elway brought in his own guys that he thinks will fill that returner/gunner/backup role that Vaughn filled.

Ya punt returns are important. I was just thinkin kick offs at home. I think theyll use Hillman on punt returns. Not sure who on kickoffs. They a few options though.

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 05:18 PM
Ya punt returns are important. I was just thinkin kick offs at home. I think theyll use Hillman on punt returns. Not sure who on kickoffs. They a few options though.

Judie/Page?

NorCalBronco7
05-24-2012, 05:50 PM
Bmore Manning arguing the value of this trade. Oh course.

Drunken.Broncoholic
05-24-2012, 06:14 PM
Good to see im not the only bronco fan out here in NorCal.

Archer81
05-24-2012, 07:23 PM
Last I checked the only FB on the roster was Sylvester, with Green able to fill in some as well. Gronkowski the third may be a Bronco in September, but he may not be. Its a competition/depth thing.

For the love of pete.

:Broncos:

mwill07
05-24-2012, 08:33 PM
, to beat opponents they needed to run a lot more. The Gronk acquisition was late in the offseason, and all they could afford. Always operated at the top of the salary cap.

Sounds familiar.

barryr
05-24-2012, 08:37 PM
I don't see the big deal with this move that some have made it. They wanted another FB and dealt an undrafted CB coming off injury to get him. Vaughn is a pretty good ST player, but that's about it. Not a deal to jump for joy, but hardly one to be upset about either.

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 08:47 PM
This is the last comment I will make on this topic..

Just because the Broncos have a lot of depth at CB, does not mean that they should allow themselves to just wash on a move. Indy will be going more balanced with a power run game.. Yet they let Gronk go in a trade? If they are going power run to help the rookie QB, why not want a powerful run blocking fullback? Yet they let Gronk go...

CB is a far more important position than FB.. I want to see good moves, I'm aloud to not like the move, this is the beautiful thing about the forum, we can all share our opinions.

I appologoze if the way I come off doesn't mesh with you. Like it or not I am here, I will be posting. As fans of a successful organization with a good history, you should welcome fans, and demonstrate the class the organization has shown over the years. I love to talk football, and I am happy to be here, we are all rooting for Denver. I already bought tickets and I will be one of the only ones cheering for Denver on Dec 16TH at M&T Stadium!

DENVERDUI55
05-24-2012, 08:57 PM
This will go down as a trade that mean absolutely nothing in the long run. Couple of scrubs swapped.

rovolution
05-24-2012, 09:01 PM
Wow...11 pages....

Lestat
05-24-2012, 09:03 PM
this is what you fail to understand. no one has an issue with you having a legit opinion.
the issue is you keep decrying this move as being akin to the end of the world.

CB is not a more important position than FB when one is likely to get cut and the other has a chance to compete to be the starter and when you have a plethora of replacements.

the Colts have a 262 lb FB to replace Gronk, they just drafted two TE's and said they will run a lot of two TE sets. the FB is going to lose a lot of time on the field to Dwayne Allen who will be their complete and blocking TE.

the Colts needed CB depth and had a solid FB they could deal, we needed a solid FB and had some CB depth we could deal.
we swapped a guy who was likely to get cut for a guy who could be our starting FB.
swapping a future cut for a potential starter is a win to me.

baja
05-24-2012, 09:04 PM
.......and we did it without our master of the mundane, Drama Llama

baja
05-24-2012, 09:07 PM
this is what you fail to understand. no one has an issue with you having a legit opinion.
the issue is you keep decrying this move as being akin to the end of the world.

CB is not a more important position than FB when one is likely to get cut and the other has a chance to compete to be the starter and when you have a plethora of replacements.

the Colts have a 262 lb FB to replace Gronk, they just drafted two TE's and said they will run a lot of two TE sets. the FB is going to lose a lot of time on the field to Dwayne Allen who will be their complete and blocking TE.

the Colts needed CB depth and had a solid FB they could deal, we needed a solid FB and had some CB depth we could deal.
we swapped a guy who was likely to get cut for a guy who could be our starting FB.
swapping a future cut for a potential starter is a win to me.

Didn't you know with a good FO we could have traded for a starting DT???

DENVERDUI55
05-24-2012, 09:14 PM
They are going to implement the secret play in the new offense..........................THE FULLBACK DIVE!

baja
05-24-2012, 09:22 PM
They are going to implement the secret play in the new offense..........................THE FULLBACK DIVE!

What most people don't know is he is going to wear #15

Bmore Manning
05-24-2012, 09:36 PM
this is what you fail to understand. no one has an issue with you having a legit opinion.
the issue is you keep decrying this move as being akin to the end of the world.

CB is not a more important position than FB when one is likely to get cut and the other has a chance to compete to be the starter and when you have a plethora of replacements.

the Colts have a 262 lb FB to replace Gronk, they just drafted two TE's and said they will run a lot of two TE sets. the FB is going to lose a lot of time on the field to Dwayne Allen who will be their complete and blocking TE.

the Colts needed CB depth and had a solid FB they could deal, we needed a solid FB and had some CB depth we could deal.
we swapped a guy who was likely to get cut for a guy who could be our starting FB.
swapping a future cut for a potential starter is a win to me.

Who is the 262 pound FB the Colts have?
That's your opinion that Gronk is going to be a starter, I don't see him being much of anything.

Shananahan
05-24-2012, 09:58 PM
Who cares if he's a starter or not?

Worst-case scenario is he's cut before the season, much like Vaughn apparently would have been.

lonestar
05-25-2012, 12:02 AM
I asked you a question. You dodged it. I'll ask again. What were you a fan of before manning got into the league? Did you not follow it? We're you a soccer fan?

Good post..

I think you have to remember that many bronco fans or for that matter NFL fans have not been fans for the 14 years that Manning has been in the league..

Hell some of them are 14, If it was not for MAdden being a success and fantasy football the average NFL fan would most likely be 10 years more mature than some are today..

I'll also add that way to many people became fans when Elway won those two super blows and many more became Bronco fans because of Elway himself..

Not many old timers around that KNOW the franchise prior to Elway..

24champ
05-25-2012, 12:18 AM
I don't understand how trading a backup corner (like fourth string who was an undrafted free agent that played special teams) for a freaking full back could warrant an 11 page thread?


....Oh that's right. It's May. Carry on.:oyvey:

I asked that question myself about 6 pages back.

Bronco Yoda
05-25-2012, 12:30 AM
I can't believe this thread even has legs. Whaaaateeeeeevaaaaaaaaaah.

Boomhauer
05-25-2012, 04:40 AM
If (Vaughn) was really the 2nd best corner on our roster, he would still be on the team.
Especially considering he was also our best kick returner.

Got three starts and significant playing time in another during a four game stretch (1-3) against Cin, Ten, GB, SD last season. Recorded 19 combined tackles, 4 passes defended and 1 pick. He has the awareness and all the skills, moreso than Goodwin, but as I said never stuck for w/e reasons.
I'd disagree he was our best return man. He has the speed, but not the inate vision for it.

kappys
05-25-2012, 04:59 AM
Good post..

I think you have to remember that many bronco fans or for that matter NFL fans have not been fans for the 14 years that Manning has been in the league..

Hell some of them are 14, If it was not for MAdden being a success and fantasy football the average NFL fan would most likely be 10 years more mature than some are today..

I'll also add that way to many people became fans when Elway won those two super blows and many more became Bronco fans because of Elway himself..

Not many old timers around that KNOW the franchise prior to Elway..


Good Post. I became a fan of Elway and Simon Fletcher as kid in the mid-80's growing up in New Jersey of all places - not that I got to see too much of the Broncos but come playoff time Elway was amazing. As fate would have it when I was 12 my dad got transferred to Denver and I became a dedicated fan of the franchise.

When you are young players sometimes have a much bigger role than being a fan of the franchise itself. That tends to develop with age I think - at least if you aren't bred to be a fan. My parents never watched football when I grew up so I pretty much sat by myself on Sundays.

Beantown Bronco
05-25-2012, 07:24 AM
There's a few returnable kicks still, you still need a good returner on the team. But Elway brought in his own guys that he thinks will fill that returner/gunner/backup role that Vaughn filled.

Last season, we had only 22 kick returns. That's one per game. That HAS to be the least valuable position on the team. A fullback will most certainly have an impact on more than one play per game.

Beantown Bronco
05-25-2012, 07:29 AM
I'd disagree he (Vaughn) was our best return man. He has the speed, but not the inate vision for it.

He averaged 30 yards per kick return. Nobody else on the team was above 25.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-p=2&d-447263-s=PERSON_TEAMS.TEAMS.FULL_NAME&tabSeq=0&season=2011&Submit=Go&experience=null&archive=false&statisticCategory=KICK_RETURNS&conference=null&qualified=true

Boomhauer
05-25-2012, 07:35 AM
He averaged 30 yards per kick return. Nobody else on the team was above 25.

And he averaged over 62yrds/return the year before. Your point?

Beantown Bronco
05-25-2012, 07:37 AM
And he averaged over 62yrds/return the year before. Your point?

Are you for real? In this case, the sample size is not one. Only one guy on the team (Willis) had more kick returns than him last year, and it was only a difference of one return. So the statistic is valid.

You tell me, then. If Vaughn wasn't our best kick returner last year, then who was and why?

Drek
05-25-2012, 07:54 AM
Got three starts and significant playing time in another during a four game stretch (1-3) against Cin, Ten, GB, SD last season. Recorded 19 combined tackles, 4 passes defended and 1 pick. He has the awareness and all the skills, moreso than Goodwin, but as I said never stuck for w/e reasons.
I'd disagree he was our best return man. He has the speed, but not the inate vision for it.

1. Goodman, not Goodwin.

2. Vaughn has **** awareness and coverage skills. He's fast. That's it.

3. He was only the #3 CB to start last year because Thompson is slow as death and too small to play outside.

Vaughn has one skill and one skill only. He's fast. He was destined for early cuts when this team brought Bolden, Judie, and Page aboard. All three can return, so can Hillman. Bolden and Judie are both more physical, more instinctive corners who have comparable speed when healthy. Add that we'll have a hard time keeping both Bolden and Judie now that we've stacked the front end of the CB corps with Florence and Porter, while still having Harris, and you can see that Vaughn just doesn't fit in those numbers.

He got replaced by younger and better players. This happening just a little ways into organized team activities is a sure fire sign that the FO quickly identified Bolden, Judie, etc. as better players than Vaughn already.

baja
05-25-2012, 08:04 AM
1. Goodman, not Goodwin.

2. Vaughn has **** awareness and coverage skills. He's fast. That's it.

3. He was only the #3 CB to start last year because Thompson is slow as death and too small to play outside.

Vaughn has one skill and one skill only. He's fast. He was destined for early cuts when this team brought Bolden, Judie, and Page aboard. All three can return, so can Hillman. Bolden and Judie are both more physical, more instinctive corners who have comparable speed when healthy. Add that we'll have a hard time keeping both Bolden and Judie now that we've stacked the front end of the CB corps with Florence and Porter, while still having Harris, and you can see that Vaughn just doesn't fit in those numbers.

He got replaced by younger and better players. This happening just a little ways into organized team activities is a sure fire sign that the FO quickly identified Bolden, Judie, etc. as better players than Vaughn already.

This is the way we are going to find our NT type player. A good player on some team is going to get caught up in the numbers game and we will be the beneficiary of that.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 08:21 AM
Who is the 262 pound FB the Colts have?
That's your opinion that Gronk is going to be a starter, I don't see him being much of anything.

I think he meant that Gronk will be the #1FB. Spencer Larsen was the starting FB here last year. They are clones of each other. Neither is special, but will be nice to have around in a pinch. If the guy can provide a block to help us pick up a 1st down in the Superbowl, then great.

Unfortunately by carrying a FB, we will probably only roll with 5 WR's.

Drek
05-25-2012, 08:35 AM
This is the way we are going to find our NT type player. A good player on some team is going to get caught up in the numbers game and we will be the beneficiary of that.

I think our NT position is already settled.

The team will pay Warren because their hands are tied. Bannan is the #2 behind him, then Siliga who has some long term potential after coming out of college too early for his own good.

We aren't short on NT depth, we're short on proven guys carrying clean bills of health.

baja
05-25-2012, 08:41 AM
I think our NT position is already settled.

The team will pay Warren because their hands are tied. Bannan is the #2 behind him, then Siliga who has some long term potential after coming out of college too early for his own good.

We aren't short on NT depth, we're short on proven guys carrying clean bills of health.

I don't think it is settled if Warren will even be on the team.

Tombstone RJ
05-25-2012, 08:47 AM
I find it hard to believe the Broncos will be dumb enough the pay Warren $4m only to release or cut him.

Elway: "Hey Ty, here's $4m to rehab and get healthy, now go play somewhere else!"

Drek
05-25-2012, 08:47 AM
I don't think it is settled if Warren will even be on the team.

If not then Bannan will be the #1 NT and Siliga will back him up. The team has an established road map for NT already put in place.

outdoor_miner
05-25-2012, 09:04 AM
I find it hard to believe the Broncos will be dumb enough the pay Warren $4m only to release or cut him.

Elway: "Hey Ty, here's $4m to rehab and get healthy, now go play somewhere else!"

It's a sunk cost, man. They should not make this decision based on what they have already invested. If they made a mistake, and flushed $4 million down the toilet, correct the mistake, learn from it, and move on. But - please do not hold on to him because we decided to give him $4 million a year ago.

baja
05-25-2012, 09:06 AM
I find it hard to believe the Broncos will be dumb enough the pay Warren $4m only to release or cut him.

Elway: "Hey Ty, here's $4m to rehab and get healthy, now go play somewhere else!"

Then why insult him by asking him to take a 75% pay cut?

bronco militia
05-25-2012, 09:09 AM
Then why insult him by asking him to take a 75% pay cut?

insult him? He just collected $4 million sitting on his fat ass.

baja
05-25-2012, 09:41 AM
insult him? He just collected $4 million sitting on his fat ass.

Is it his fault he got hurt. Maybe we should have let him collect unemployment and apply for food stamps. Last year's money was for last year and should have nothing to do with this year. Poor argument.

bronco militia
05-25-2012, 09:43 AM
Is it his fault he got hurt. Maybe we should have let him collect unemployment and apply for food stamps. Last year's money was for last year and should have nothing to do with this year. Poor argument.

it happens all the time when guys get injured. It's not insulting and is part of the business of the game.

baja
05-25-2012, 09:47 AM
it happens all the time when guys get injured. It's not insulting and is part of the business of the game.

a million dollars for a starting NT is insulting.

bronco militia
05-25-2012, 09:48 AM
a million dollars for a starting NT is insulting.

he hasn't started for anyone in two years.

baja
05-25-2012, 09:55 AM
he hasn't started for anyone in two years.

They didn't pay him 4 mil. to be a back up

bronco militia
05-25-2012, 09:59 AM
They didn't pay him 4 mil. to be a back up

of course not but that's the the risk NFL teams take when they sign free agents. The broncos don't have much levereage other than to cut him.

I just don't think it's insulting to ask him to reduce his salary after he collected starters pay on IR.

baja
05-25-2012, 10:05 AM
of course not but that's the the risk NFL teams take when they sign free agents. The broncos don't have much levereage other than to cut him.

I just don't think it's insulting to ask him to reduce his salary after he collected starters pay on IR.

That's why I think an incentive driven contract is a better option than a flat 75% pay cut. You can't penalize a player because he got injured in a previous year.

Beantown Bronco
05-25-2012, 10:24 AM
That's why I think an incentive driven contract is a better option than a flat 75% pay cut. You can't penalize a player because he got injured in a previous year.

Yup. Keep it simple. You don't even have to make it difficult. Just base it on playing time alone even. $1 mil guaranteed base, with the chance to make back every penny of the $4 mil if he plays X% of snaps this year.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 11:14 AM
Who is the 262 pound FB the Colts have?
That's your opinion that Gronk is going to be a starter, I don't see him being much of anything.

Ryan Mahaffey, big 6-4 262 lb FB, currently #1 on the depth chart.
Trade Reaction (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/indianapolis-colts-trade-fb-chris-gronkowski-denver-broncos-183500625--nfl.html)

Lestat
05-25-2012, 11:18 AM
yeah see it'd be different if they asked him to take a incentive based pay cut or cut his salary in half, but what person either athlete or in real life is going to take a 75% pay cut when they could just move to a new organization and still make the pay cut terms of the contract?

Tombstone RJ
05-25-2012, 11:25 AM
Then why insult him by asking him to take a 75% pay cut?

I agree, just pay him. If he pans out it's huge for the defense if not, who care? The Broncos have the money!

Requiem
05-25-2012, 11:26 AM
Cut him and end his NFL career. Biggest insult you could do.

lonestar
05-25-2012, 11:44 AM
Good Post. I became a fan of Elway and Simon Fletcher as kid in the mid-80's growing up in New Jersey of all places - not that I got to see too much of the Broncos but come playoff time Elway was amazing. As fate would have it when I was 12 my dad got transferred to Denver and I became a dedicated fan of the franchise.

When you are young players sometimes have a much bigger role than being a fan of the franchise itself. That tends to develop with age I think - at least if you aren't bred to be a fan. My parents never watched football when I grew up so I pretty much sat by myself on Sundays.

I'd guess that 80% of the fans not born in Colorado became bronco fans because of a few of the stars.. and since madden and FF has come along well even more of the kiddies have become fans of players and not teams..

Myself I was at the first game played in DEN and had season tickets till 1979 when I moved out-of-state forever..

Was a south stander for much of that time..

so When I say I'm a fan of the team that is what I am..

While I will be a fan of Tebow my Donks come first on following them.. I call them donkeys because for much of those years they were not really Broncos but a poor talent group of players.. I've earned my spurs..

So When I see some of these kiddies that JUST follow a player to the Broncos I have little if any patience with them..

lonestar
05-25-2012, 11:49 AM
Is it his fault he got hurt. Maybe we should have let him collect unemployment and apply for food stamps. Last year's money was for last year and should have nothing to do with this year. Poor argument.

yet they had two choices either to cut him with an injury settlement or pay him full money for him to rehab..

I do not think they will pay him anoter 4 mil for part time pay..

Requiem
05-25-2012, 11:57 AM
Trade him for Rob Gronkowski, then we can say we had the whole family on our team.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 01:01 PM
I'd guess that 80% of the fans not born in Colorado became bronco fans because of a few of the stars.. and since madden and FF has come along well even more of the kiddies have become fans of players and not teams..

Myself I was at the first game played in DEN and had season tickets till 1979 when I moved out-of-state forever..

Was a south stander for much of that time..

so When I say I'm a fan of the team that is what I am..

While I will be a fan of Tebow my Donks come first on following them.. I call them donkeys because for much of those years they were not really Broncos but a poor talent group of players.. I've earned my spurs..

So When I see some of these kiddies that JUST follow a player to the Broncos I have little if any patience with them..

i myself became a Broncos fan in 96. first NFL game i ever watched was Elway and the Broncos against the Jags in the playoffs. i actually initially hated the uniforms but once i saw Elway,TD,Sharpe and Rod i was hooked.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 02:05 PM
Back on the subject of Gronk...

As most of us speculated, many sources are now starting to chime in (Cecil Lammey, IAOFM) that he will have little to no impact on the team, or be cut...

As I stated previously, he may present some value in a situations where picking up a 1st down on the ground is vital (running out the clock, backed up on our own goal line, 4th and inches, occassional I-formation to confuse the Defense). If McCoy uses him any more than that, he is severely limiting the Offense.


The pressure is mounting against McCoy and his coveted "2 RB set".

Lestat
05-25-2012, 02:23 PM
Back on the subject of Gronk...

As most of us speculated, many sources are now starting to chime in (Cecil Lammey, IAOFM) that he will have little to no impact on the team, or be cut...

As I stated previously, he may present some value in a situations where picking up a 1st down on the ground is vital (running out the clock, backed up on our own goal line, 4th and inches, occassional I-formation to confuse the Defense). If McCoy uses him any more than that, he is severely limiting the Offense.


The pressure is mounting against McCoy and his coveted "2 RB set".

not really, you can still leave McGahee and another back in to use for extra protection and to confuse the D.
unless Sylverster is just supremely better than gronk i don't see him not making the team.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 02:29 PM
not really, you can still leave McGahee and another back in to use for extra protection and to confuse the D.
unless Sylverster is just supremely better than gronk i don't see him not making the team.

You don't need a FB for "extra protection". Manning gets rid of the ball very quickly (only sacked 10 times in 2009, with 1 RB protection). Having 2 TE's on the field is MUCH more dangerous. Check out the IAOFM article, they explain it real well.

If Gronk makes the team, we will probably only have 5 WR's. DT, Decker, Caldwell, Stokely, Page.

BroncoBeavis
05-25-2012, 02:34 PM
The pressure is mounting against McCoy and his coveted "2 RB set".

Nobody's had the heart to tell the poor guy that Xanders' sandwich jockey responsibilities are being reassigned to the Offensive Coordinator's office this year.

elsid13
05-25-2012, 02:36 PM
You don't need a FB for "extra protection". Manning gets rid of the ball very quickly (only sacked 10 times in 2009, with 1 RB protection). Having 2 TE's on the field is MUCH more dangerous. Check out the IAOFM article, they explain it real well.

If Gronk makes the team, we will probably only have 5 WR's. DT, Decker, Caldwell, Stokely, Page.

This offense is going to be more balance and have far more power looks then most folks are thinking. Gronk is OK blocker but he has very good hands and will be very nice check down option for Manning when they go into their two back sets

pricejj
05-25-2012, 02:39 PM
This offense is going to be more balance and have far more power looks then most folks are thinking. Gronk is OK blocker but he has very good hands and will be very nice check down option for Manning when they go into their two back sets

Who do you take off the field so Gronk can get on the field?

Tombstone RJ
05-25-2012, 02:49 PM
Who do you take off the field so Gronk can get on the field?

I'm guessing one of the TEs...

elsid13
05-25-2012, 02:53 PM
Who do you take off the field so Gronk can get on the field?

Like every other play it going to depend on down and distance as well as the position on the field. Sometime it will be the second TE, other times it might be either SE/FL. It about the game plan and forcing the defense into a play it not comfortable with.

Gronk would be deadly in the old WCO PA pass to the FB.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 03:33 PM
Okay, which TE?

Dreessen is 2" taller, same speed, is a better blocker, and better pass catcher than Cgronk (and is making $3.5M).

OR

Tamme is 1.5" taller, much faster, is a better blocker, and way better pass catcher than Cgronk (and is making $3M).


I hope you plan on doing this only a couple plays a game. You also realize, you are going to have to huddle to do this, allowing the Defense to adjust as well.

Tombstone RJ
05-25-2012, 03:37 PM
Okay, which TE?

Dreessen is 2" taller, same speed, is a better blocker, and better pass catcher than Cgronk (and is making $3.5M).

OR

Tamme is 1.5" taller, much faster, is a better blocker, and way better pass catcher than Cgronk (and is making $3M).


I hope you plan on doing this only a couple plays a game. You also realize, you are going to have to huddle to do this, allowing the Defense to adjust as well.

Depends on down and distance most likely and what play is being run. Maybe neither Dreesen nor Tamme are in at all. Maybe it's one of the other TEs who line up.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 03:45 PM
You don't need a FB for "extra protection". Manning gets rid of the ball very quickly (only sacked 10 times in 2009, with 1 RB protection). Having 2 TE's on the field is MUCH more dangerous. Check out the IAOFM article, they explain it real well.

If Gronk makes the team, we will probably only have 5 WR's. DT, Decker, Caldwell, Stokely, Page.

this is once again where people fail to see the big picture. getting the ball out quickly isn't the same as not getting hit. just because the QB isn't sacked doesn't mean he's not getting hit.

having the full back in or a extra RB allows for another outlet WR in case a play breaks down or the coverage forces a throw. you leave Dreessen in the set because he's the more complete TE, take Tamme off the field because he's more of a slot and allow the team to protect Manning.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 03:56 PM
having the full back in or a extra RB allows for another outlet WR in case a play breaks down or the coverage forces a throw. you leave Dreessen in the set because he's the more complete TE, take Tamme off the field because he's more of a slot and allow the team to protect Manning.



Okay, then what you're doing is asking both DT and Decker to get open against double-coverage. And you better have an unstoppable rushing attack.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 04:07 PM
Okay, then what you're doing is asking both DT and Decker to get open against double-coverage. And you better have an unstoppable rushing attack.

they're going to be facing double coverage anyways, in most cases even in the two TE set they will leave the TE's to a LB and have one of the safeties come down and take care of the straggler. the extra RB will serve in the same role the 2nd TE will except he will be in the backfield and keeping the extra rusher off Manning. whereas the 2nd TE will meet him at the LOS and potentially get beat early.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 04:26 PM
This image is courtesy of IAOFM.com (http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/fat-camp-undervalued-roles-the-move-te) (I added in the player names).

It's all about mismatches. If the Slot TE splits the deep Safeties, then 1 of the 3 players will only have to beat single-coverage.

1. DT can beat single-coverage (too big, too fast).
2. Tamme can beat single coverage (too big for CB, too fast for LB).
3. If Decker can't beat single-coverage on the #1CB, then we are screwed, and need a new #1WR. In fact, no matter what Offense you run, Decker is going to have to be able to get open against the #1CB in single-coverage, or it's probably not going to work.

* Dreessen (if he runs a pattern) can beat single-coverage (SOLB).

You also have an advantage in the running game, because there are 6 men in the box, and 6 blockers.

$96M Quarterback, with an Offense that utilizes his skills.


.................................................. .................................................. .......


If you have an FB and RB in the backfield, you better have a kick-ass running game, because DT and Decker will both be doubled. If I was the Defense, I would just double-cover DT, single-cover Decker (with the #1CB), and send the SS into the box, thereby placing 8 men in the box, and shutting down the running game, because there are only 7 blockers.

$96M Quarterback, 15 cent Offense.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 05:13 PM
This image is courtesy of IAOFM.com (http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/fat-camp-undervalued-roles-the-move-te) (I added in the player names).

It's all about mismatches. If the Slot TE splits the deep Safeties, then 1 of the 3 players will only have to beat single-coverage.

1. DT can beat single-coverage (too big, too fast).
2. Tamme can beat single coverage (too big for CB, too fast for LB).
3. If Decker can't beat single-coverage on the #1CB, then we are screwed, and need a new #1WR. In fact, no matter what Offense you run, Decker is going to have to be able to get open against the #1CB in single-coverage, or it's probably not going to work.

* Dreessen (if he runs a pattern) can beat single-coverage (SOLB).

You also have an advantage in the running game, because there are 6 men in the box, and 6 blockers.

$96M Quarterback, with an Offense that utilizes his skills.


.................................................. .................................................. .......


If you have an FB and RB in the backfield, you better have a kick-ass running game, because DT and Decker will both be doubled. If I was the Defense, I would just double-cover DT, single-cover Decker (with the #1CB), and send the SS into the box, thereby placing 8 men in the box, and shutting down the running game, because there are only 7 blockers.

$96M Quarterback, 15 cent Offense.

Decker is not the #1 WR and will rarely be covered by the #1 CB unless the coverage rolls that way.
DT is the #1, not really sure why you always use Decker as the example of a #1.

if that 96 mil QB gets his brains scrambled by a LB,S or DE because we're too busy trying to keep a slot on the field rather than make sure Manning is protected it'll be a 1 cent QB and a over-schemed offense.
because what you fail to take into account is that some defenses will allow Tamme to beat them and choose to rush Manning, especially early on to see if he's afraid of contact after his neck injury.

Baltimore,Pitt,SD,Tampa & Houston will definitely blitz the crap out of Manning. they'll sacrifice the potential 10-15 yard gain to get the pressure and or hit on Manning. so while Tamme is out in the slot someone is coming on a blitz either delayed or on a stunt and if they get there it's gonna hurt.

the slot means less when you have a guy like Reed,Polamalu,Berry & Weddle who can cause match up issues for the offense and force them to adjust to the potential rush created from that S.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-25-2012, 05:42 PM
Decker is not the #1 WR and will rarely be covered by the #1 CB unless the coverage rolls that way.
DT is the #1, not really sure why you always use Decker as the example of a #1.

if that 96 mil QB gets his brains scrambled by a LB,S or DE because we're too busy trying to keep a slot on the field rather than make sure Manning is protected it'll be a 1 cent QB and a over-schemed offense.
because what you fail to take into account is that some defenses will allow Tamme to beat them and choose to rush Manning, especially early on to see if he's afraid of contact after his neck injury.

Baltimore,Pitt,SD,Tampa & Houston will definitely blitz the crap out of Manning. they'll sacrifice the potential 10-15 yard gain to get the pressure and or hit on Manning. so while Tamme is out in the slot someone is coming on a blitz either delayed or on a stunt and if they get there it's gonna hurt.

the slot means less when you have a guy like Reed,Polamalu,Berry & Weddle who can cause match up issues for the offense and force them to adjust to the potential rush created from that S.

I'm sorry. What? If you were talking about 95% of the QBs in the NFL I'd agree with you. iIf you said this about Brees I'd agree with you. If you said this about about Tom Brady (example: 2005 playoffs vs. Broncos) I'd agree with you. But we're. talking about Payton Manning here. When in the last 7-8 seasons has PMFM ever been "scared" or shown panic because of the blitz?

In the above scenario the sight adjust slant to the TE, outside hitch to the WR, or checkdown to the RB (which our last QB couldn't do).

Lestat
05-25-2012, 05:53 PM
I'm sorry. What? If you were talking about 95% of the QBs in the NFL I'd agree with you. iIf you said this about Brees I'd agree with you. If you said this about about Tom Brady (example: 2005 playoffs vs. Broncos) I'd agree with you. But we're. talking about Payton Manning here. When in the last 7-8 seasons has PMFM ever been "scared" or shown panic because of the blitz?

In the above scenario the sight adjust slant to the TE, outside hitch to the WR, or checkdown to the RB (which our last QB couldn't do).

i didn't say he'd be afraid. i said the defense will test him to see if he is. where did you get the conclusion you came to out of what i said?

he's coming off a major injury, hasn't played in a year and the defense is gonna come after to see if he's timid due to not having taken hits recently.
that's what any smart defense would do, just like they'll test Peterson on cutting back because of his ACL injury.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 06:09 PM
Decker is not the #1 WR and will rarely be covered by the #1 CB unless the coverage rolls that way.
DT is the #1, not really sure why you always use Decker as the example of a #1.

Here's why:

It is much wiser to play DT against the #2 CB (left side, Porter), where he will consistently get open in single-coverage (and requires a double-team).

If you also run Tamme deep (splitting the Safeties), the Free Safety has to make a choice on who to double-team, DT or Tamme. Whoever doesn't get the double-team will be open...and make the catch.

DT CANNOT consistently get open against the #1 CB (right side, Bailey). Therefore, if you play DT against the #1 CB all day, he will get shut out with single-coverage.

If you place Decker in the #2 WR position (left side), both WR's will get shut out with single-coverage.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-25-2012, 07:17 PM
i didn't say he'd be afraid. i said the defense will test him to see if he is. where did you get the conclusion you came to out of what i said?

he's coming off a major injury, hasn't played in a year and the defense is gonna come after to see if he's timid due to not having taken hits recently.
that's what any smart defense would do, just like they'll test Peterson on cutting back because of his ACL injury.

No doubt. But the blitz has never been the way you beat a Manning team. The only way you beat a Manning team is one way. First, you must only pressure with your base package,no blitzing. Second, running the ball, convert 3rd downs, keep the ball away from ManningManning, shorten the game.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 07:25 PM
No doubt. But the blitz has never been the way you beat a Manning team. The only way you beat a Manning team is one way. First, you must only pressure with your base package,no blitzing. Second, running the ball, convert 3rd downs, keep the ball away from ManningManning, shorten the game.

yeah he excels against the blitz, but people still blitz him and always will.
he gets the ball out so quick that the only way to really hit him is to blitz.
he's insanely hard to sack and always will be but the idea of the blitz is to get hits on him more so than to try to actually sack him.

you want to speed him up and get him out of his comfort zone by making him throw before he wants to. but it's rare for him to make a mistake because his pocket presence, awareness and anticipation is better than most CB's instincts.

Lestat
05-25-2012, 07:29 PM
Here's why:

It is much wiser to play DT against the #2 CB (left side, Porter), where he will consistently get open in single-coverage (and requires a double-team).

If you also run Tamme deep (splitting the Safeties), the Free Safety has to make a choice on who to double-team, DT or Tamme. Whoever doesn't get the double-team will be open...and make the catch.

DT CANNOT consistently get open against the #1 CB (right side, Bailey). Therefore, if you play DT against the #1 CB all day, he will get shut out with single-coverage.

If you place Decker in the #2 WR position (left side), both WR's will get shut out with single-coverage.

the defense is going to line their top CB against whomever the top dog WR is. that is more than likely to be DT. the D will at times roll coverage to get a CB in a more favorable spot for the play called but in most cases if the D has a top dog CB he will match up with the #1 WR all game long. most would rather let the #2 WR get his numbers and keep the dynamic guy in check because most #2's can't beat you over the top and deep on a consistent basis.

also, Tamme is not physically a strong TE. so the SS or nickel can jam him at the line and knock him off his route. force him into a sideline route or to cut underneath which would allow the SS to back pedal and make a choice, to leave Tamme for the FS if the CB's have good coverage on the WR's, come up and blitz the QB, stay with Tamme on his route or allow a LB to cover him and take the RB/FB.

even though Tamme will play the slot he's not a physical go up and get it, fight for the ball type nor a true deep threat.
most of his routes will be short or intermediate in variety more than deep routes.
but nothing that forces the D to not double cover one of the WR's.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 08:26 PM
the defense is going to line their top CB against whomever the top dog WR is. that is more than likely to be DT. the D will at times roll coverage to get a CB in a more favorable spot for the play called but in most cases if the D has a top dog CB he will match up with the #1 WR all game long. most would rather let the #2 WR get his numbers and keep the dynamic guy in check because most #2's can't beat you over the top and deep on a consistent basis.

#1 CB's always line-up on the left side of the Defense (Champ Bailey, Darrelle Revis, Carlos Rogers) Why? Because most people are right-handed, it's easier to throw the ball to the right, and run the ball to the right. That's why it's called the "strong side". The right side of the Offense, is the left side of the Defense. It does not make sense for the CB's to be switching sides all the time. Pick a side, and master it. Champ has always played LCB for the Broncos. Tracy Porter has always played RCB for the Saints.

also, Tamme is not physically a strong TE. so the SS or nickel can jam him at the line and knock him off his route. force him into a sideline route or to cut underneath which would allow the SS to back pedal and make a choice, to leave Tamme for the FS if the CB's have good coverage on the WR's, come up and blitz the QB, stay with Tamme on his route or allow a LB to cover him and take the RB/FB.

even though Tamme will play the slot he's not a physical go up and get it, fight for the ball type nor a true deep threat.
most of his routes will be short or intermediate in variety more than deep routes.
but nothing that forces the D to not double cover one of the WR's.

Tamme is 6'034", 236 lbs., and runs a 4.58 forty. There aren't any CB's who can "jam" Tamme at the LOS (they are too small). And if you decide to put a Safety on Tamme, go ahead do it. That leaves one Safety back deep, and neither DT, nor Tamme, nor Decker will be double-teamed. The best hope you have to guard Tamme is to put your big Nickle player on him.

barryr
05-25-2012, 09:48 PM
#1 CB's always line-up on the left side of the Defense (Champ Bailey, Darrelle Revis, Carlos Rogers) Why? Because most people are right-handed, it's easier to throw the ball to the right, and run the ball to the right. That's why it's called the "strong side". The right side of the Offense, is the left side of the Defense. It does not make sense for the CB's to be switching sides all the time. Pick a side, and master it. Champ has always played LCB for the Broncos. Tracy Porter has always played RCB for the Saints.



Tamme is 6'034", 236 lbs., and runs a 4.58 forty. There aren't any CB's who can "jam" Tamme at the LOS (they are too small). And if you decide to put a Safety on Tamme, go ahead do it. That leaves one Safety back deep, and neither DT, nor Tamme, nor Decker will be double-teamed. The best hope you have to guard Tamme is to put your big Nickle player on him.

I don't know, football, like any sport, is all about matchups and I always have thought always lining up your best WR on one side if the other team's best CB is over there and stays there, is plain stupid. Why wouldn't you want your best WR matched up against the other teams lesser CB's as much as possible, especially if they make no real effort to hide where they are lining up? If your QB can't make throws to the other side of the field, then maybe time for a new QB.

pricejj
05-25-2012, 10:49 PM
Exactly, and that's why they should play DT on the weakside (just like Reggie Wayne).

Decker better be able to get open.

SPORTSWRITER
05-26-2012, 03:09 AM
This is for the people who think the Oline is horrible at blocking and is worried about mannings neck. Now there's a moveable brick wall they can plug in there. He blocks better than Walton and Beadles combined.

You think maybe he should be converted to the OL?? Guard maybe?? J/K!

Boomhauer
05-26-2012, 04:08 AM
3. (Vaughn) was only the #3 CB to start last year because Thompson is slow as death and too small to play outside.

So you're saying if Squid wasn't completley crap at CB, he would have been in front of Vaughn on the depth chart?
Brilliant Drek. Absofuqinlootly brilliant insight you have.

Boomhauer
05-26-2012, 04:14 AM
...unless Sylverster is just supremely better than gronk i don't see (Gronk) not making the team.

I wouldn't count out Austin. He looked as-good/better that Larsen in the backfield and very good on kick coverage last preseason. Kid can play and, after a full season with the team, I'd give him the edge right now over Gronk - in ability, familiarity and contract.

Boomhauer
05-26-2012, 04:23 AM
yeah (Manning) excels against the blitz, but people still blitz him and always will.
he gets the ball out so quick that the only way to really hit him is to blitz.
he's insanely hard to sack and always will be but the idea of the blitz is to
get hits on him more so than to try to actually sack him.
...

Agree with all that, which brings up my concerns about Beadles this season. With Kupe maybe not 100%, Walton will do what almost all others OCs do and slide to help the RG instead of babysitting Beadles like he has the last few years. Of course any time we've been in short yardage, when it's man-on-man up front, Beadles gets plowed - usually pancaked with his helmet knocked off.

Manning is incredibly quick at getting rid of the ball, but unless we improve over Beadles-the-speedbump, I'm not sure if even Manning will have enough time. Here's hoping Blake, Tribue and/or Davis replace Beadles on the depth chart.

Beantown Bronco
05-26-2012, 07:27 AM
#1 CB's always line-up on the left side of the Defense (Champ Bailey, Darrelle Revis, Carlos Rogers) Why? Because most people are right-handed, it's easier to throw the ball to the right, and run the ball to the right. That's why it's called the "strong side".

Not true.

pricejj
05-26-2012, 08:49 AM
Not true.

If that is not the reason that #1 CB's almost always play on the left of the Defense, then what is? It seems logical to me. Plays to the left side of the formation expose the ball to the Defense, and take longer to develop. The QB has to bring his arm all the way across his body to throw it, giving the DB more time to react.

There are very few "shutdown" CB's in the NFL. Most #1 WR's can get open against the Defenses #1 CB, therefore, it gives Offenses (that have a true #1WR) an ability to play this WR all over the field (except in the Manning no-huddle). The most important thing is that whatever WR you are playing on the left or right side, that they can get open consistently against the player who is guarding them.

Any insight would be appreciated. If anybody has anything to add on this subject, please do.

DBroncos4life
05-26-2012, 09:04 AM
#1 CB's always line-up on the left side of the Defense (Champ Bailey, Darrelle Revis, Carlos Rogers) Why? Because most people are right-handed, it's easier to throw the ball to the right, and run the ball to the right. That's why it's called the "strong side". The right side of the Offense, is the left side of the Defense. It does not make sense for the CB's to be switching sides all the time. Pick a side, and master it. Champ has always played LCB for the Broncos. Tracy Porter has always played RCB for the Saints.



Tamme is 6'034", 236 lbs., and runs a 4.58 forty. There aren't any CB's who can "jam" Tamme at the LOS (they are too small). And if you decide to put a Safety on Tamme, go ahead do it. That leaves one Safety back deep, and neither DT, nor Tamme, nor Decker will be double-teamed. The best hope you have to guard Tamme is to put your big Nickle player on him.

. As great as Asomugha is though, his greatness has always come with something of an asterisk, a footnote if you will, illustrating how his role differs to that of Revis, the game’s other great corner. . Revis, as we know, is integral to what the Jets do, because he allows them to take away the opposition’s best receiver, and to concentrate on the other weapons on offense and roll coverages toward them. Revis does that because he tracks receivers from one side of the field to the other, and even to the slot. Asomugha doesn’t. In fact, Asomugha not only doesn’t track receivers, but he lines up on the right hand side of the defense, the ‘easier’ cornerback position. It’s easier because most passers in the league are right handers, and so naturally throw more to their right, to the left cornerback’s coverage. The only right handed quarterback to pass equally to the left as well as the right is Peyton Manning, everybody else attacks the left cornerback more often. . In 2010, Darrelle Revis lined up for 204 snaps at right cornerback, 442 snaps at left cornerback, 116 snaps in the slot, and 77 in the middle of the formation as some variety of safety. Asomugha, by contrast, was on the right for 643 snaps, the left for just 43, slot 73 and 27 at safety. 81.8% of Asomugha’s snaps were at RCB, compared to just 23.4% from Revis, who spent no more than 52.7% of his snaps in any one position last season.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/08/06/asomugha-phillys-charles-woodson/

Beantown Bronco
05-26-2012, 01:10 PM
In addition to that, pricejj, the right side is not the strong side. The strong side is the one with the extra offensive player on it. It can be either the right or left depending on the formation.

lonestar
05-26-2012, 03:57 PM
this is once again where people fail to see the big picture. getting the ball out quickly isn't the same as not getting hit. just because the QB isn't sacked doesn't mean he's not getting hit.

having the full back in or a extra RB allows for another outlet WR in case a play breaks down or the coverage forces a throw. you leave Dreessen in the set because he's the more complete TE, take Tamme off the field because he's more of a slot and allow the team to protect Manning.

Glad to see there are at least two of us that are thinking with more than our little head..

lonestar
05-26-2012, 04:04 PM
Not true.

Ive seen Champ playing more than just the left side of the defense.. I've seen him covering TE's (TG was one example) and on the best WR even if he has to line up on the other side of the field..

Not saying he has done it alot but he has done it..

But he does like "his" side of the field..

ward63
05-28-2012, 05:47 PM
What does everybody feel this move says about our roster? Has Peyton ever had a true fullback?

Drek
05-28-2012, 06:04 PM
What does everybody feel this move says about our roster? Has Peyton ever had a true fullback?

It says we aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because we have Manning at QB.

And by that I mean the commitment to a power running attack that Fox and Magazu have had during their time in Carolina will not simply disappear because we have Manning.

To me that is fantastic. Instead of the 40+ pass attempts a game Manning had become accustomed to in Indy we need to get him down to between 30-35 attempts a game, transferring the extra plays to the running game who will be able to finish short yardage for him unlike in Indy. Then when we get ahead we can turn to a strong running game and finish it off.

I'd like to see something like McGahee and Hillman split work on first and second downs. Then on 3rd if its short (4 yards or less) we go with McGahee, if it's long we go with Hillman. Once we get up by more than 10 points we shift over a McGahee:Hillman ratio of about 3:1, maybe 4:1, and let McGahee pummel the opposition into the ground while chewing up clock.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
05-28-2012, 10:54 PM
It says we aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because we have Manning at QB.

And by that I mean the commitment to a power running attack that Fox and Magazu have had during their time in Carolina will not simply disappear because we have Manning.

To me that is fantastic. Instead of the 40+ pass attempts a game Manning had become accustomed to in Indy we need to get him down to between 30-35 attempts a game, transferring the extra plays to the running game who will be able to finish short yardage for him unlike in Indy. Then when we get ahead we can turn to a strong running game and finish it off.


I'd like to see something like McGahee and Hillman split work on first and second downs. Then on 3rd if its short (4 yards or less) we go with McGahee, if it's long we go with Hillman. Once we get up by more than 10 points we shift over a McGahee:Hillman ratio of about 3:1, maybe 4:1, and let McGahee pummel the opposition into the ground while chewing up clock.
^This :)

Kaylore
05-28-2012, 11:48 PM
Decker is not the #1 WR and will rarely be covered by the #1 CB unless the coverage rolls that way.
DT is the #1, not really sure why you always use Decker as the example of a #1.

if that 96 mil QB gets his brains scrambled by a LB,S or DE because we're too busy trying to keep a slot on the field rather than make sure Manning is protected it'll be a 1 cent QB and a over-schemed offense.
because what you fail to take into account is that some defenses will allow Tamme to beat them and choose to rush Manning, especially early on to see if he's afraid of contact after his neck injury.

Baltimore,Pitt,SD,Tampa & Houston will definitely blitz the crap out of Manning. they'll sacrifice the potential 10-15 yard gain to get the pressure and or hit on Manning. so while Tamme is out in the slot someone is coming on a blitz either delayed or on a stunt and if they get there it's gonna hurt.

the slot means less when you have a guy like Reed,Polamalu,Berry & Weddle who can cause match up issues for the offense and force them to adjust to the potential rush created from that S.

NFL defenses aren't basketball. You can't just say "this guy is better so cover him all game!" No one does that. You're argument assumes every team plays man and will play man exclusively when they play Broncos on every down. That's not how any team is.

SoCalBronco
05-29-2012, 12:05 AM
NFL defenses aren't basketball. You can't just say "this guy is better so cover him all game!" No one does that. You're argument assumes every team plays man and will play man exclusively when they play Broncos on every down. That's not how any team is.

Good point. There are many defenses out there. Virtually no one plays man to man defense entirely throughout the game. Anytime you develop some pretty significant tendencies, you'll get torn apart, no matter the coverage.

There are many ways to rip apart a man-underneath defense regardless of how good the cornerbacks are. Usually you don't attack man with the WR's anyway. At least that's not the first option. LBs are generally much worse cover men on RBs than CBs are on WRs, so you start with the LBs. If you have a good pass reciever like Moreno for instance, you can run option routes with the RB against a slow LB, or a wheel route, or have both backs check thru the OL and then cross, picking off the LBs and leaving one back completely open. You can also work TE option routes breaking away at 8-10 yds from the man closest to him. I would always start with the Backs and TE against M-M first because they are playing weaker defenders. I'm sure with our TEs and Moreno/Hillman, we won't need to go out of our way to create plays to ensure the WRs beat good CBs...we don't have to.

If you don't have great WRs or a great WR-CB matchup, there are many ways to still involve the WR against man-underneath coverage. The best way is through a series of pick plays. This is probably the biggest staple of the 49ers attack in the 80s and 90s. Lots and lots of crossing routes with built in picks to create artificial seperation for the WR. You can also use motion and counter motion to shake a tight CB. You can bunch 2 or 3 WRs all tight next to each other to make it impossible for CBs to jam them. You can run WR screens so the aggressive CB will get blown up by the blocker he never sees. You can attack the CB's technique aggressively. If he's playing tight and with inside leverage, you can run a comeback route to use his leverage against him, etc.

That said, I'm not willing to say that our WRs aren't good. I like our WRs. We have very promising young WRs. I like our young WRs very much. Decker is going to be a very good No. 2 possession WR. He's a good route runner, he knows how to find the window against zone. He doesn't have great speed, but he has sufficient football speed and is becoming a refined route runner. He is also developing chemistry with Manning which is real important. He made really good improvment from year 1 to year 2 and I expect more of the same. He did have some drops last year, but I expect him to be very reliable in the future. Thomas has the potential to be a tremendous No. 1. Literally everything you would want would be there. Size, speed, strength, explosive big play ability. Its simply a matter of more reps and avoiding stupid injuries. It's all right there in front of him. He can be a dominant No. 1 WR. He's shown many flashes of greatness, its all right there in front of him. I think Manning will love the many ways Thomas absolutely threatens a defense. Thomas should be a perennial Pro Bowl player and Decker a great complimentary 2. I'm not seeing anything to hate on our WRs for. They are young, but improving rapidly. This will be a great tandem, especially now since there are TEs capable of screaming down the middle of the field, so the half-field safeties can't overplay the outside WR routes.

HAT
05-29-2012, 12:33 AM
Anyone else look at SoCal's sig and think...."How many interceptions today?"

That's right....5.

Shananahan
05-29-2012, 12:41 AM
Right before I adblocked it like all his others I thought, "Poor, poor SoCal."

CEH
05-29-2012, 06:24 AM
NFL defenses aren't basketball. You can't just say "this guy is better so cover him all game!" No one does that. You're argument assumes every team plays man and will play man exclusively when they play Broncos on every down. That's not how any team is.

Only one guy comes to mind when you think "this guy is better so cover him all game!" Randy Moss in his prime . Every week defenses devised specific gameplans for Moss. No way you could leave him one on one

Denver had one in the year they played Minny at Mile High called Moss 22. Double Moss whereever he goes. Dale Carter was a prettty good man to man CB and he needed help

R-Mac
05-29-2012, 01:04 PM
The Colts waived FB Ryan Mahaffey today. According to Colts fans he is better than Chris Gronkowski. Mahaffey is 6'4, 262.

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/8210-colts-trade-gronkowski-to-broncos-for-vaughn-merge/

Gronkowski was probably going to be cut anyway. Carter is now at 238lbs abd Mahaffey was said to block better than Gronk.

I think Mahaffey should be the starting FB if we use one because he played really well when given the opportunity last year.

I had Gronkowski cut anyway and Mahaffey as our fullback

I liked Mahaffey better than Gronkowkski anyhow.

We didn't need Gronkowski because we have Mahaffey (who is a lot better imo)

Would rather have CB depth than FB depth. We have Mahaffey for FB anyways.

lolcopter
05-29-2012, 01:28 PM
NFL defenses aren't basketball. You can't just say "this guy is better so cover him all game!" No one does that. You're argument assumes every team plays man and will play man exclusively when they play Broncos on every down. That's not how any team is.

Asomugha did that almost exclusively during his time in oakland

TonyR
05-29-2012, 01:46 PM
The Colts waived FB Ryan Mahaffey today. According to Colts fans he is better than Chris Gronkowski.

Interesting, but I wonder if there would have been a similar number of posts going the other way if they had done the exact opposite...

Bmore Manning
05-29-2012, 02:27 PM
The Colts waived FB Ryan Mahaffey today. According to Colts fans he is better than Chris Gronkowski. Mahaffey is 6'4, 262.

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/8210-colts-trade-gronkowski-to-broncos-for-vaughn-merge/

Does Bmore Manning have to go back into third person and tell everyone yet again that he said the Colts made out on the deal, Vaughn was better value than Gronkowski, and that he was an average at best run blocker! What do I know..

Bmore Manning
05-29-2012, 02:28 PM
Interesting, but I wonder if there would have been a similar number of posts going the other way if they had done the exact opposite...

Nobody thought Gronkowski was anything other than a kid with a known name.

DBroncos4life
05-29-2012, 03:58 PM
I can't wait to see this bumped when Vaughn gets cut.

Lestat
05-29-2012, 04:38 PM
NFL defenses aren't basketball. You can't just say "this guy is better so cover him all game!" No one does that. You're argument assumes every team plays man and will play man exclusively when they play Broncos on every down. That's not how any team is.

no it doesn't. it assumes that he will be covered by the #1 CB a majority of the time unless the coverage calls for a roll over to Decker's side or whomever the #2 or slot is that the coverage demands. which is what i said in the post you quoted

if you have a true #1 CB(Revis,Bailey,Asomugha & etc top tier CB's)and the WR has to be game planned for then they will shade the coverage to the #1 a good majority of the time to cut down on his opportunities.
that being said, it's rarely done unless the WR is named Calvin Johnson,Randy Moss in his prime and etc.
the league uses a lot of cover 2 and zone coverage due to the WR's being so fast, so big and the rules favoring the offense. add to that the fact that most skilled CB's are a lot smaller than the better WR's and it makes more sense to match up less in man and more with zone,cover 2 or doubling over the top with a S.

even in basketball the teams best defender doesn't always cover the opposing team's best player because the energy needed to do so cuts down significantly on the effectiveness for the defender on offense.

Lestat
05-29-2012, 04:46 PM
The Colts waived FB Ryan Mahaffey today. According to Colts fans he is better than Chris Gronkowski. Mahaffey is 6'4, 262.

http://forums.colts.com/index.php?/topic/8210-colts-trade-gronkowski-to-broncos-for-vaughn-merge/

i guess they really are going to play with Luck like Manning. i know Colts fans were excited about Mahaffey in a potential power run game at times in the offense but i guess they want the two TE set and to allow Allen to be the blocker.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 06:58 AM
I can't wait to see this bumped when Vaughn gets cut.

Vaughn is a more valuable player with a better skill set than Gronkowski.. Regardless if Denver didn't have the room and would have cut him. Stop being a damn douche. I didn't rub your face in that Sapp burn, so why don't you ease up on me guy.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 07:11 AM
Vaughn is a more valuable player with a better skill set than Gronkowski..

His value/skill set (kick returning) was neutralized in Denver.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 07:15 AM
Vaughn is a more valuable player with a better skill set than Gronkowski.. Regardless if Denver didn't have the room and would have cut him. Stop being a damn douche. I didn't rub your face in that Sapp burn, so why don't you ease up on me guy.

Was that Sapp played in a 3-4? Big ****ing deal. He rebounded the second year he was in Oakland in the 3-4 getting 5 sacks and 28 tackles in 10 games. I'm capable of being wrong unlike your pretentious ass. As is Warren Sapp struggling to adjust to the 3-4 at his age has nothing to do with us being able to trade Ty Warren who has the trade value of a bubble player by the way to Indy for a guy you don't feel fits.

I'm sorry we traded your man crush but if he was that great I doubt Denver would have brought in as many DBs as they did this off season.

GreatBronco16
05-30-2012, 07:21 AM
I'm sorry we traded your man crush but if he was that great I doubt Denver would have brought in as many DBs as they did this off season.

Well now wait, I thought we brought in all those DBs because the Manning offense is going to generate 25+ points a game and teams will be doing nothing but passing on us. I heard it right here on the mane, so I know it must be true.:giggle:

TheReverend
05-30-2012, 07:25 AM
Good point. There are many defenses out there. Virtually no one plays man to man defense entirely throughout the game. Anytime you develop some pretty significant tendencies, you'll get torn apart, no matter the coverage.

There are many ways to rip apart a man-underneath defense regardless of how good the cornerbacks are. Usually you don't attack man with the WR's anyway. At least that's not the first option. LBs are generally much worse cover men on RBs than CBs are on WRs, so you start with the LBs. If you have a good pass reciever like Moreno for instance, you can run option routes with the RB against a slow LB, or a wheel route, or have both backs check thru the OL and then cross, picking off the LBs and leaving one back completely open. You can also work TE option routes breaking away at 8-10 yds from the man closest to him. I would always start with the Backs and TE against M-M first because they are playing weaker defenders. I'm sure with our TEs and Moreno/Hillman, we won't need to go out of our way to create plays to ensure the WRs beat good CBs...we don't have to.

If you don't have great WRs or a great WR-CB matchup, there are many ways to still involve the WR against man-underneath coverage. The best way is through a series of pick plays. This is probably the biggest staple of the 49ers attack in the 80s and 90s. Lots and lots of crossing routes with built in picks to create artificial seperation for the WR. You can also use motion and counter motion to shake a tight CB. You can bunch 2 or 3 WRs all tight next to each other to make it impossible for CBs to jam them. You can run WR screens so the aggressive CB will get blown up by the blocker he never sees. You can attack the CB's technique aggressively. If he's playing tight and with inside leverage, you can run a comeback route to use his leverage against him, etc.

That said, I'm not willing to say that our WRs aren't good. I like our WRs. We have very promising young WRs. I like our young WRs very much. Decker is going to be a very good No. 2 possession WR. He's a good route runner, he knows how to find the window against zone. He doesn't have great speed, but he has sufficient football speed and is becoming a refined route runner. He is also developing chemistry with Manning which is real important. He made really good improvment from year 1 to year 2 and I expect more of the same. He did have some drops last year, but I expect him to be very reliable in the future. Thomas has the potential to be a tremendous No. 1. Literally everything you would want would be there. Size, speed, strength, explosive big play ability. Its simply a matter of more reps and avoiding stupid injuries. It's all right there in front of him. He can be a dominant No. 1 WR. He's shown many flashes of greatness, its all right there in front of him. I think Manning will love the many ways Thomas absolutely threatens a defense. Thomas should be a perennial Pro Bowl player and Decker a great complimentary 2. I'm not seeing anything to hate on our WRs for. They are young, but improving rapidly. This will be a great tandem, especially now since there are TEs capable of screaming down the middle of the field, so the half-field safeties can't overplay the outside WR routes.

I hope people read those first three paragraphs several times over until they learn it instead of tunnel visioning and taking shots at the sig pic.

...too late :(

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 07:39 AM
Well now wait, I thought we brought in all those DBs because the Manning offense is going to generate 25+ points a game and teams will be doing nothing but passing on us. I heard it right here on the mane, so I know it must be true.:giggle:

Denver will be scoring 25+ points per game but, outside of Bailey and Harris I doubt Denver was all that pleased with its secondary play.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 07:44 AM
What that Sapp played in a 3-4? Big ****ing deal. He rebounded the second year he was in Oakland in the 3-4 getting 5 sacks and 28 tackles in 10 games. I'm capable of being wrong unlike your pretentious ass. As is Warren Sapp struggling to adjust to the 3-4 at his age has nothing to do with us being able to trade Ty Warren who has the trade value of a bubble player by the way to Indy for a guy you don't feel fits.

I'm sorry we traded your man crush but if he was that great I doubt Denver would have brought in as many DBs as they did this off season.

Vaughn can play DB and be a returner and make a direct influence on a game. I don't even like Vaughn. But Gronkowski sucks and everyone thought gee I'd rather have a ****ty FB than competition and depth at one of the most important positions on defense since this is a passing league. Or maybe being
Critical of the FO is not allowed around here, I mean in some crazy scheme or conspiracy now that I am here, I want Denver to win... Go figure

R-Mac
05-30-2012, 08:02 AM
His value/skill set (kick returning) was neutralized in Denver.

There are 8 games on the road + playoffs + punt return.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 08:06 AM
Vaughn can play DB and be a returner and make a direct influence on a game. I don't even like Vaughn. But Gronkowski sucks and everyone thought gee I'd rather have a ****ty FB than competition and depth at one of the most important positions on defense since this is a passing league. Or maybe being
Critical of the FO is not allowed around here, I mean in some crazy scheme or conspiracy now that I am here, I want Denver to win... Go figure

What CBs would Vaughn beat out on our roster right now vs the amount we will keep. Lots of people bitch about the FO around here. Crying about not getting the max out of ****ing Vaughn is the least of our issues dude.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 08:07 AM
There are 8 games on the road + playoffs + punt return.

We have other that can return a kick. Hilarious!

Lestat
05-30-2012, 08:07 AM
Vaughn can play DB and be a returner and make a direct influence on a game. I don't even like Vaughn. But Gronkowski sucks and everyone thought gee I'd rather have a ****ty FB than competition and depth at one of the most important positions on defense since this is a passing league. Or maybe being
Critical of the FO is not allowed around here, I mean in some crazy scheme or conspiracy now that I am here, I want Denver to win... Go figure

once again, we have depth at CB, he was likely to end up 7th or 8th on the depth chart(which is basically first on the cut line). Bailey,Porter & Florence are your top 3. after that you had Bolden,Harris,Thompson and Carter ahead of him. then you add in Judie,Moore and Robinson. he wasn't going to be the return man as those duties will likely go to Page,Willis and Decker.
Gronkowski is already the #1 FB and likely to stick on the roster.

so the argument about value is null and void. there is no value for a cut player unless you deal said player for someone who will make the roster and play a key role for your team. which is exactly what Denver did in this trade.

why people are obsessed with the notion that Vaughn was somehow going to be a factor on this team i do not understand. the secondary play was horrible last season and the FO invested heavily in upgrading it. then they used an excess trade chip to fill a need that's going to have more impact on the team than cutting the trade chip.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:09 AM
There are 8 games on the road + playoffs + punt return.

He only had SEVEN returns all last year. SEVEN. Moving the kickoff to the 35 means touchbacks are a common occurrence even on the road. It's not limited to just Denver.

He doesn't do punt returns.

Ray Finkle
05-30-2012, 08:12 AM
Vaughn can play DB and be a returner and make a direct influence on a game. I don't even like Vaughn. But Gronkowski sucks and everyone thought gee I'd rather have a ****ty FB than competition and depth at one of the most important positions on defense since this is a passing league. Or maybe being
Critical of the FO is not allowed around here, I mean in some crazy scheme or conspiracy now that I am here, I want Denver to win... Go figure

Chris Harris last year and Boldin this year ended CV's tenure here. It's not like they gave him away with a gapping hole in the secondary.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 08:12 AM
There are 8 games on the road + playoffs + punt return.

Vaughn has zero punt returns in his NFL career and 9 career kick returns.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:15 AM
once again, we have depth at CB, he was likely to end up 7th or 8th on the depth chart(which is basically first on the cut line). Bailey,Porter & Florence are your top 3. after that you had Bolden,Harris,Thompson and Carter ahead of him. then you add in Judie,Moore and Robinson. he wasn't going to be the return man as those duties will likely go to Page,Willis and Decker.
Gronkowski is already the #1 FB and likely to stick on the roster.

so the argument about value is null and void. there is no value for a cut player unless you deal said player for someone who will make the roster and play a key role for your team. which is exactly what Denver did in this trade.

why people are obsessed with the notion that Vaughn was somehow going to be a factor on this team i do not understand. the secondary play was horrible last season and the FO invested heavily in upgrading it. then they used an excess trade chip to fill a need that's going to have more impact on the team than cutting the trade chip.

Your missing it.. I never said Vaughn would make any type of an impact with what Denver has. Gronkowski is probably not making this team, and if he does it's taking a valuable roster spot from another player. He can't do anything for ****.. Period! Just because there is no FB does not mean this was a good trade. It is about value, that's not null and void. Peyton's offense doesn't really need nor use a FB I'd rather keep the two young TEs than lose one for Gronkowski. Reports are this is going to be similar to the Indy offense as I knew it would. Why would Peyton say oh I'm gonna do my own thing and be a problem before taking a snap. They would be smart to let him do what he does best. Otherwise he would have went to San Fran with that control freak!

R-Mac
05-30-2012, 08:20 AM
Bailey,Porter & Florence are your top 3. after that you had Bolden,Harris,Thompson and Carter ahead of him. then you add in Judie,Moore and Robinson. he wasn't going to be the return man as those duties will likely go to Page,Willis and Decker.


Why would Tony Carter be ahead of Vaughn? why would even Bolden (unproven rookie) and Thompson be ahead of Vaughn? And why would Vaughn lose return duties to Page (a small kid with 4.6 speed, will probably be cut), Willis and Decker?

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:26 AM
Peyton's offense doesn't really need nor use a FB

The Broncos are not going to run a "Peyton offense" as you like to call it.

Reports are this is going to be similar to the Indy offense as I knew it would.

Evidence? Every quote I've seen from Manning states the polar opposite.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:28 AM
The Broncos are not going to run a "Peyton offense" as you like to call it.



Evidence? Every quote I've seen from Manning states the polar opposite.

Price just posted the article in a thread! You can't be serious to think they won't do what Peyton does best.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:28 AM
Why would Tony Carter be ahead of Vaughn? why would even Bolden (unproven rookie) and Thompson be ahead of Vaughn?

Even if none of those three were ahead of him, that still leaves him, AT BEST, at #5.

And why would Vaughn lose return duties to Page (a small kid with 4.6 speed, will probably be cut), Willis and Decker?

You can't lose something you never had. He has never returned a punt and has never been our #1 kick returner.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:29 AM
Price just posted the article in a thread! You can't be serious to think they won't do what Peyton does best.

Personnel and offensive system/scheme is FAR different from letting Peyton "do what he does best". He can very easily "do what he does best" within a new offense system that employs different personnel groups than he has used in the past.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:32 AM
Personnel and offensive system/scheme is FAR different from letting Peyton "do what he does best". He can very easily "do what he does best" within a new offense system that employs different personnel groups than he has used in the past.

Peyton will not be operating a conventional FB implemented offense, don't be niave.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/story/permalink/33035

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:33 AM
Peyton will not be operating a conventional FB implemented offense, don't be niave.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/story/permalink/33035

Learn to read, please. I never said they would.

I talked about specific personnel groupings. It's ok if you don't understand how those fit into an offense. Just ask.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:39 AM
Manning also finds himself asking questions of his fellow quarterbacks because he is learning a new system. Although his new offense will feature elements of his former one, Manning and the offensive coordinator Mike McCoy (http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/coaches/Mike-McCoy/d0f303a8-afba-4f0d-926a-f19dc6731bce) have said Denver’s system is not what Indianapolis used.
"I’m certainly new to this offense as well, so I’m not afraid to ask questions myself," Manning said. "There’s no question it’s different."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/sports/football/peyton-manning-shows-off-arm-at-broncos-camp.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/sports/football/peyton-manning-shows-off-arm-at-broncos-camp.html)

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:41 AM
Learn to read, please. I never said they would.

I talked about specific personnel groupings. It's ok if you don't understand how those fit into an offense. Just ask.

Lol.. Please, let's not get ahead of yourself naive guy. Not running a very similar system to what Manning had would be an atrocity. The personnel is very similar, just with some bigger sized WRs. Very similar TEs in fact one was with Manning and an even better plethora of RB options, none of which will need a FB.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:43 AM
Manning also finds himself asking questions of his fellow quarterbacks because he is learning a new system. Although his new offense will feature elements of his former one, Manning and the offensive coordinator Mike McCoy (http://www.denverbroncos.com/team/coaches/Mike-McCoy/d0f303a8-afba-4f0d-926a-f19dc6731bce) have said Denver’s system is not what Indianapolis used.
"I’m certainly new to this offense as well, so I’m not afraid to ask questions myself," Manning said. "There’s no question it’s different."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/sports/football/peyton-manning-shows-off-arm-at-broncos-camp.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/sports/football/peyton-manning-shows-off-arm-at-broncos-camp.html)

Manning is the number one student of the game of course he wants to know what Denver ran, he can then tweak that and know how to put in particular pieces in the best chance to win, with the help of McCoy. Don't get it twisted this will be Peyton's run and controlled offense.

lolcopter
05-30-2012, 08:46 AM
Turncoat colts fans trying to tell it like it is itt

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:49 AM
Manning is the number one student of the game of course he wants to know what Denver ran, he can then tweak that and know how to put in particular pieces in the best chance to win, with the help of McCoy. Don't get it twisted this will be Peyton's run and controlled offense.

It will be different from what he ran in Indy. It will feature a fullback in some packages. The head coach, offensive coordinator and quarterback have all made this clear. Please try to learn to live with it.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:50 AM
Turncoat colts fans trying to tell it like it is itt

Your weak commentary and general lack of thoughtful input probably isn't necessary. Everytime you give your punch line one sentence response I don't remind you of how much of a moron you are.

GreatBronco16
05-30-2012, 08:51 AM
Denver will be scoring 25+ points per game but, outside of Bailey and Harris I doubt Denver was all that pleased with its secondary play.

You know, you can say 25+ points a game over and over, and no matter how turned on that gets me, I still won't believe till I see it.:sunshine:

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 08:51 AM
It will be different from what he ran in Indy. It will feature a fullback in some packages. The head coach, offensive coordinator and quarterback have all made this clear. Please try to learn to live with it.

I can live with it, I don't like the idea of losing a valuable roster spot to a bum FB. What you can educate me on is how the other TEs blocking skills are please.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 08:55 AM
What you can educate me on is how the other TEs blocking skills are please.

I don't pretend to follow other team's TEs that closely in the run game. Especially when they played for Indy and Houston, two teams who had next to no games televised locally here in Mass last year.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 08:59 AM
You know, you can say 25+ points a game over and over, and no matter how turned on that gets me, I still won't believe till I see it.:sunshine:

We averaged 19 points per game last year. Manning is good for at the very lease one more TD per game the way the "new" NFL is set up.

pricejj
05-30-2012, 09:04 AM
The funny thing is, 3 of the 4 teams playing in AFC/NFC Championship games used different versions of the single-back set Manning used in Indy. Here's a brief rundown of the NFL's top 3 scoring Offenses, and the Superbowl champs.

1. New York Giants - Instead of using 2 TE's, the Giants used 3 WR's (Nicks, Cruz, Manningham), and 1 TE, with a single back. Late in the NFC Championship game (against Green Bay), the Giants went to a traditional 2 back set (with Henry Hynosky 265 lb. FB) to kill the clock when they had the lead. The Giants have no-huddle ability (but I have no idea how much they use it, if at all).

2. New England Patriots - The Patriots Offense most closely resembles the personnel that the Colts Offense had with Indy (2 TE's, 2 WR's, 1 RB). Although, the Patriots line up in a wide variety of formations, and move their skill position players around the field (unlike the Colts). With the offseason acquisition of Spencer Larson (FB), you would think the Patriots will sprinkle him in throughout the 2012 campaign. The Patriots ran the no-huddle more than any other team in the NFL last year.

3. Green Bay Packers - The Packers ran half the season starting 2 TE's, and half the season starting 3 WR's...their FB (250 lbs. John Kuhn) started a few games as well. Green Bay has the most dynamic Offense in the NFL (35.0 ppg), with one of the most efficient passers. The Offense is truly integrated, and can succeed out of any formation (but they couldn't catch a ball during the NFC Championship game). Aaron Rodgers complained that the Giants faked injuries slowing down the Packers no-huddle.

4. New Orleans Saints - One thing is clear, the Saints will kill you with formations. Usually starting 2 WR's, 1 TE, an RB, and a FB (255 lbs. Jed Collins), the Saints began to utilize the no-huddle more last year (out of 3 WR sets), which Drew Brees loved. In the Superbowl against the Colts (in 2010), the Saints ran the go-ahead TD out of the I-formation.


All four teams have a capable FB on the roster. All four teams run the no-huddle at various times. It remains to be seen if the Broncos will operate primarily out of the no-huddle, an early report says that they will (which would indicate a lesser role for the FB). However, we also now have a viable FB (like the top 3 NFL scoring Offenses). McCoy was also quoted in saying that he was going to include elements of the Packers and Saints Offensive attacks. Can't wait.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 09:06 AM
I don't pretend to follow other team's TEs that closely in the run game. Especially when they played for Indy and Houston, two teams who had next to no games televised locally here in Mass last year.

No Denver's young TEs Thomas and Green. Now are you taking a shot at me by saying I pretend to follow other teams?

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 09:08 AM
I can live with it, I don't like the idea of losing a valuable roster spot to a bum FB. What you can educate me on is how the other TEs blocking skills are please.

Julius Thomas was a Basketball player in college and is raw. His blocking skills are very limited. Virgil Green played in a pistol offense in college and had every scouting report says he isn't very good at blocking or limited.

Our two best TE's from last year are no longer on the roster and outside of Joel Dreessen we have no blocking TE's. I think you know enough about Tamme.

Tombstone RJ
05-30-2012, 09:09 AM
The funny thing is, 3 of the 4 teams playing in AFC/NFC Championship games used different versions of the single-back set Manning used in Indy. Here's a brief rundown of the NFL's top 3 scoring Offenses, and the Superbowl champs.

1. New York Giants - Instead of using 2 TE's, the Giants used 3 WR's (Nicks, Cruz, Manningham), with a single back. Late in the NFC Championship game (against Green Bay), the Giants went to a traditional 2 back set (with Henry Hynosky 265 lb. FB) to kill the clock when they had the lead. The Giants have no-huddle ability (but I have no idea how much they use it, if at all).

2. New England Patriots - The Patriots Offense most closely resembles the personnel that the Colts Offense had with Indy (2 TE's, 2 WR's, 1 RB). Although, the Patriots line up in a wide variety of formations, and move their skill position players around the field (unlike the Colts). With the offseason acquisition of Spencer Larson (FB), you would think the Patriots will sprinkle him in throughout the 2012 campaign. The Patriots ran the no-huddle more than any other team in the NFL last year.

3. Green Bay Packers - The Packers ran half the season starting 2 TE's, and half the season starting 3 WR's...their FB (250 lbs. John Kuhn) started a few games as well. Green Bay has the most dynamic Offense in the NFL (35.0 ppg), with one of the most efficient passers. The Offense is truly integrated, and can succeed out of any formation (but they couldn't catch a ball during the NFC Championship game). Aaron Rodgers complained that the Giants faked injuries slowing down the Packers no-huddle.

4. New Orleans Saints - One thing is clear, the Saints will kill you with formations. Usually starting 2 WR's, 1 TE, an RB, and a FB (255 lbs. John Kuhn), the Saints began to utilize the no-huddle more last year (out of 3 WR sets), which Drew Brees loved. In the Superbowl against the Colts (in 2010), the Saints ran the go-ahead TD out of the I-formation.


All four teams have a capable FB on the roster. All four teams run the no-huddle at various times. It remains to be seen if the Broncos will operate primarily out of the no-huddle, an early report says that they will. However, we also now have a viable FB (like the top 3 NFL scoring Offenses). McCoy was also quoted in saying that he was going to include elements of the Packers and Saints Offensive attacks.

^5 all 4 teams have a capable FB and 2 of these teams share the same guy!

pricejj
05-30-2012, 09:10 AM
^5 all 4 teams have a capable FB and 2 of these teams share the same guy!
Fixed it. Saints FB is Jed Collins, who started 11 games. Sorry about that.


I think the Broncos will only carry 5 WR's, so that they can carry the FB, and not cut the back-up TE's (Thomas and Green).

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 09:15 AM
Now are you taking a shot at me by saying I pretend to follow other teams?

Just pointing out a common occurence. It's not limited to any one poster.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 09:20 AM
Julius Thomas was a Basketball player in college and is raw. His blocking skills are very limited. Virgil Green played in a pistol offense in college and had every scouting report says he isn't very good at blocking or limited.

Our two best TE's from last year are no longer on the roster and outside of Joel Dreessen we have no blocking TE's. I think you know enough about Tamme.

Thank you, so what's Greens upside? Obviously Thomas is an athletic specimen.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 09:23 AM
Just pointing out a common occurence. It's not limited to any one poster.

Being a fan of football I follow every game and watch sickening amounts of football, since I enjoy the game so much and am not limited to one team. You can be a smart ass, and to think I felt bad when you got your two week ban, looks like your smart ass ways were every bit deserving.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 09:26 AM
Your missing it.. I never said Vaughn would make any type of an impact with what Denver has. Gronkowski is probably not making this team, and if he does it's taking a valuable roster spot from another player. He can't do anything for ****.. Period! Just because there is no FB does not mean this was a good trade. It is about value, that's not null and void. Peyton's offense doesn't really need nor use a FB I'd rather keep the two young TEs than lose one for Gronkowski. Reports are this is going to be similar to the Indy offense as I knew it would. Why would Peyton say oh I'm gonna do my own thing and be a problem before taking a snap. They would be smart to let him do what he does best. Otherwise he would have went to San Fran with that control freak!

once again, Peyton has said he fine with them having a two back set and running more, McCoy has said he intends to do a 2 back set and have a running game. the FB is a part of that game plan and will be used as such.
Peyton's past in Indy doesn't reflect his current stanza in Denver. he wants to lessen the hits he takes, so do we, running the ball does that and using a two back set helps keep his jersey clean.

there was no value if you cut the player, none, none....

Lestat
05-30-2012, 09:28 AM
Thank you, so what's Greens upside? Obviously Thomas is an athletic specimen.

Green was one of the most athletic TE's at the combine but so far he's more of a blocker than receiving threat. so currently he's what Fells brought to us last year.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 09:29 AM
Thank you, so what's Greens upside? Obviously Thomas is an athletic specimen.

He is fast 4.64 40. I believe he ran the third fastest time for TE's at the combine and he is very athletic for his size as well. He is a pretty good pass catching TE I guess.

pricejj
05-30-2012, 09:35 AM
once again, Peyton has said he fine with them having a two back set and running more, McCoy has said he intends to do a 2 back set and have a running game. the FB is a part of that game plan and will be used as such.
Peyton's past in Indy doesn't reflect his current stanza in Denver. he wants to lessen the hits he takes, so do we, running the ball does that and using a two back set helps keep his jersey clean.

there was no value if you cut the player, none, none....

Manning never said that. McCoy said he "hopes" Manning will integrate some 2-back sets. To be accurate, the 2006 Colts did not utilize an FB. Manning averaged 34.81 passing attempts per game, and the Colts had the 18th rushing Offense, on the way to a Superbowl win.

The last few years, the Colts started running with 3 WR's (instead of 2 TE's). Mannings pass attempts went way up (40+), as the Colts became the NFL's worst rushing team. Quite a departure from 2006.

Adding an FB merely adds versatility. There has been no indication that the Broncos will use him much. In fact, there have been several reports to the contrary. We find out more today.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 09:35 AM
Being a fan of football I follow every game and watch sickening amounts of football, since I enjoy the game so much and am not limited to one team. You can be a smart ass, and to think I felt bad when you got your two week ban, looks like your smart ass ways were every bit deserving.

Wow.

When I had Sunday Ticket, I would watch games non-stop as well. All teams. As much as I could. Still didn't make me an authority on the blocking skills of backup players on teams in different divisions from my team. It's not "being a smart ass" to point out that people make claims here about guys they don't follow. It happens all the time. Usually it doesn't last long because someone eventually enters the thread who in fact DOES know what they're talking about with regard to a player and they proceed to prove the original poster wrong with specific examples.

But I'm glad you are flinging insults and getting personal. True signs of a winning argument there.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 09:40 AM
Why would Tony Carter be ahead of Vaughn? why would even Bolden (unproven rookie) and Thompson be ahead of Vaughn? And why would Vaughn lose return duties to Page (a small kid with 4.6 speed, will probably be cut), Willis and Decker?

ok i'll give you Carter but Bolden was impressing in camp and they felt he was a top 2 round talent,Thompson & Vaughn are basically the same player and Thompson was kept ahead of him and there have been no rumors as of yet that Thompson is getting cut or on the bubble so far.

Vaughn only returns kicks not punts, Decker does both, Willis can do both and so can Page. Page is a small school guy but he's got a lot of wiggle and can offer a lot on ST's. Vaughn is limited in what he offers outside of coverage.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 09:41 AM
Wow.

When I had Sunday Ticket, I would watch games non-stop as well. All teams. As much as I could. Still didn't make me an authority on the blocking skills of backup players on teams in different divisions from my team. It's not "being a smart ass" to point out that people make claims here about guys they don't follow. It happens all the time. Usually it doesn't last long because someone eventually enters the thread who in fact DOES know what they're talking about with regard to a player and they proceed to prove the original poster wrong with specific examples.

But I'm glad you are flinging insults and getting personal. True signs of a winning argument there.

Dude, I asked you to tell me about Denver's young TEs (Green and Thomas) and how they block. Then you insulted me with a know it all comment, when I really asked for Denver insight. I was curious can one of them block better than Gronkowski cause I don't think he's worth a roster spot for his average at best blocking.

pricejj
05-30-2012, 09:41 AM
Judie > Vaughn

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 09:47 AM
Dude, I asked you to tell me about Denver's young TEs (Green and Thomas) and how they block. Then you insulted me with a know it all comment

I did no such thing. I actually went out of my way to clarify that I was NOT referring to you.

CEH
05-30-2012, 09:49 AM
Dude, I asked you to tell me about Denver's young TEs (Green and Thomas) and how they block. Then you insulted me with a know it all comment, when I really asked for Denver insight. I was curious can one of them block better than Gronkowski cause I don't think he's worth a roster spot for his average at best blocking.

I don't know either Thomas or Green are anywhere close to a two tool TE that can catch and block. These guys were drafted to be a move TE , very raw for JT and many think Green has reached his ceiling coming out of college

Who knows what they worked on during the off season. At this point I don't think either one you can count on to produce in the run game

Lestat
05-30-2012, 09:52 AM
Manning never said that. McCoy said he "hopes" Manning will integrate some 2-back sets. To be accurate, the 2006 Colts did not utilize an FB. Manning averaged 34.81 passing attempts per game, and the Colts had the 18th rushing Offense, on the way to a Superbowl win.

The last few years, the Colts started running with 3 WR's (instead of 2 TE's). Mannings pass attempts went way up (40+), as the Colts became the NFL's worst rushing team. Quite a departure from 2006.

Adding an FB merely adds versatility. There has been no indication that the Broncos will use him much. In fact, there have been several reports to the contrary. We find out more today.

he says he's fine with it in this article right here. Manning Takes Charge (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20677098/peyton-manning-takes-charge-first-broncos-offseason-session)

Between Manning's passes, the Broncos mixed in their share of running plays. Given the neck issue and his year away from the game, Manning said he would welcome a heavier percentage of run plays in his game plans this season.

"Sure. Absolutely I would," he said. "We were the No. 1 rushing team in the NFL last year. That's the goal this year. If you look back, I've always believed in the run game. I can't tell you how many times I've had pass plays called inside the 5-yard line and I've checked out of it to a run play."

even back in some of the earlier articles when Manning first talked about McCoy and the offense he said he'd welcome the heavier running load McCoy had planned.

found another one Manning the conductor (http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_20452378/woody-paige-manning-getting-tune-be-conductor-not)
"We haven't gotten to that point," Manning said before he departed for a fundraising weekend in Knoxville, Tenn. "What we are going to do (offensively) here depends on what (coordinator) Mike McCoy decides, based on the players we have, and I'm open to whatever direction that takes."

The Fox-McCoy emphasis, historically, on the run "excites" Manning. "People think I'm all about the pass, but if I throw five passes in a game, it means we're running the football well. You play to your strength."

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 10:06 AM
I don't know either Thomas or Green are anywhere close to a two tool TE that can catch and block. These guys were drafted to be a move TE , very raw for JT and many think Green has reached his ceiling coming out of college

Who knows what they worked on during the off season. At this point I don't think either one you can count on to produce in the run game

Thank you, was hoping to hear one could block well..

lolcopter
05-30-2012, 10:10 AM
Your weak commentary and general lack of thoughtful input probably isn't necessary. Everytime you give your punch line one sentence response I don't remind you of how much of a moron you are.

Your ease at which you dump your former team shows an extreme lack of character

Aka I don't give a **** what you think, you are a sucky sports fan


But keep telling us how our offense is going to work next season, coach

R-Mac
05-30-2012, 10:14 AM
Judie > Vaughn

Derek Wolfe had a better 3-cone drill than Coryell Judie. 7.33 definitely is not a good number for a CB. This kid won't make the roster anyway. The competition is over and the 6 CBs will be Bailey, Porter, Florence, Harris, Thompson and Bolden. The other guys are out.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 10:16 AM
Derek Wolfe had a better 3-cone drill than Coryell Judie. 7.33 definitely is not a good number for a CB. This kid won't make the roster anyway. The competition is over and the 6 CBs will be Bailey, Porter, Florence, Harris, Thompson and Bolden. The other guys are out.

i can't say i disagree with those 6. it sounds about right where it should be barring injury.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 10:21 AM
Your ease at which you dump your former team shows an extreme lack of character

Aka I don't give a **** what you think, you are a sucky sports fan


But keep telling us how our offense is going to work next season, coach

Lack of character for not liking the way an organization left my city and then just dumped the greatest QB to ever play the game. Lack of character? Lol now that's funny.

lolcopter
05-30-2012, 10:21 AM
Manning never played in Baltimore bruv

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 10:23 AM
Manning never played in Baltimore bruv

Really? Damn I had noooo idea!

lolcopter
05-30-2012, 10:26 AM
Really? Damn I had noooo idea!

You stayed a fan of the team when they gave your city the proverbial finger, but you jump ship after they draft the best QB prospect in decades? Yeah they let manning go, which probably hurt... but once you connect the dots the move makes sense. I guess you can be a broncos fans for the next few years, but where to go after that?

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 10:33 AM
You stayed a fan of the team when they gave your city the proverbial finger, but you jump ship after they draft the best QB prospect in decades? Yeah they let manning go, which probably hurt... but once you connect the dots the move makes sense. I guess you can be a broncos fans for the next few years, but where to go after that?

I'm talking merely character here. I cheered for Peyton's success despite how classless the Irsays and Colts organization is. To say I have a lack of character for not liking the way they handled things again is comical.

lolcopter
05-30-2012, 10:37 AM
I fail to see how they acted classless throughout the whole ordeal. I personally hope Andrew luck tanks and bombs out of the league, but they played the hand that was dealt to them as best they could and Peyton was given a fair shake to try out the FA market

Sure it sucks he didn't end his career as a colt (not really, for us bronco fans), but in today's NFL these things should come as no surprise

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 10:42 AM
I fail to see how they acted classless throughout the whole ordeal. I personally hope Andrew luck tanks and bombs out of the league, but they played the hand that was dealt to them as best they could and Peyton was given a fair shake to try out the FA market

Sure it sucks he didn't end his career as a colt (not really, for us bronco fans), but in today's NFL these things should come as no surprise

I am more than fine with Peyton being a Bronco.
In regards to the Peyton Saga Jim Irsay claimed it wasn't about money it was all about health. Then it changed to being about money and the future. Scumbag like his father the apple didn't fal to far from the tree.

But I am happy Peyton is a Bronco, I do think that Peyton makes any team championship good, and Denver will do big things with the Sherrif in town.

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 10:48 AM
Why am I subject to be an Indy fan because I followed Peyton? Why can't people enjoy the astounding play of an individual and root for his success? Why would that show lack of character? How am I bonded to Indy?

cutthemdown
05-30-2012, 11:05 AM
Colts may have been better off trading luck for a ton of picks and players, retooling and trying to win another Superbowl with Manning. Time will tell.

lolcopter
05-30-2012, 11:07 AM
Why am I subject to be an Indy fan because I followed Peyton? Why can't people enjoy the astounding play of an individual and root for his success? Why would that show lack of character? How am I bonded to Indy?

Primarily because football is the ultimate TEAM sport and people are typically "bonded" to a team through geographical or familial reasons

(IMO)

But there is plenty of room to root for a team because you like a certain player or jersey colors I guess. I do watch other players from afar but consider it blasphemous to cheer for any other team *cues up rod smith blackjack pizza commercials*

Lestat
05-30-2012, 11:20 AM
Colts may have been better off trading luck for a ton of picks and players, retooling and trying to win another Superbowl with Manning. Time will tell.

bad idea, they had to secure the next 10-15 years of their franchise or try to run with Peyton for another 4-5 and still completely retool the roster.
plus, it helped us end up with Manning so i'm good with that :~ohyah!:

Bmore Manning
05-30-2012, 11:24 AM
Colts may have been better off trading luck for a ton of picks and players, retooling and trying to win another Superbowl with Manning. Time will tell.

Which I suggested no less than ten times per week on their forum, that would be how they stood the best chance to win. The ironic thing is I was big on Osweiler and I think the kid will be a stud. And I suggested Indy get the bounty and draft Osweiler as the replacement. But.. I can't lie, I was upset when Denver took him, because I want to win now, and the scenario changed here, where I wanted all useable players now. In Indy it would have been two players picked and then Brock, but the bounty would have made it worthwhile to select Brock early.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 11:27 AM
Primarily because football is the ultimate TEAM sport and people are typically "bonded" to a team through geographical or familial reasons

(IMO)

But there is plenty of room to root for a team because you like a certain player or jersey colors I guess. I do watch other players from afar but consider it blasphemous to cheer for any other team *cues up rod smith blackjack pizza commercials*

lol i buck all those trends. i don't like a single regional team in my area and my family hates all the teams i love with a passion.

in fact almost every team i like is northern or midwest. Broncos,Bulls,Avalanche,Yankees & Wolverines. in soccer Man U in EPL and L.A. Galaxy in MLS.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 11:39 AM
Virgil Green is gone for at least 4 games due to the suspension.

I think we keep just two QB's with Weber back to the BS. I think we will see 5 RB's (Moreno, Hillman, McGahee, Gronkowski and the winner of the Fannin, Ball, and Johnson battle). I think we keep 8 to 9 OL players again. I see 4 TE's as well.

My major issue with the WR's is who to keep because of SP teams play. I just don't see how Stokley can stick. Thomas and Decker are locks. I like Hill but he has no return experience. Andre Caldwell, Matt Willis and Eric Page do though.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 11:42 AM
Virgil Green is gone for at least 4 games due to the suspension.

I think we keep just two QB's with Weber back to the BS. I think we will see 5 RB's (Moreno, Hillman, McGahee, Gronkowski and the winner of the Fannin, Ball, and Johnson battle). I think we keep 8 to 9 OL players again. I see 4 TE's as well.

My major issue with the WR's is who to keep because of SP teams play. I just don't see how Stokley can stick. Thomas and Decker are locks. I like Hill but he has no return experience. Andre Caldwell, Matt Willis and Eric Page do though.

two QB's? no we definitely keep 3. Manning is a lock, Hanie will be the back up and Brock the developing QB.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 11:46 AM
two QB's? no we definitely keep 3. Manning is a lock, Hanie will be the back up and Brock the developing QB.

I don't see it. I think Oz and Manning will show enough in preseason to justify only keeping two.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 11:48 AM
I don't see it. I think Oz and Manning will show enough in preseason to justify only keeping two.

i don't think the Broncos want Oz to see the field even if Manning were to get hurt. just don't see us not keeping 3 and allowing Hanie to be the official back up.
you may be right but i just don't see us keeping less than Manning,Hanie and Brock.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 11:52 AM
lol i buck all those trends. i don't like a single regional team in my area and my family hates all the teams i love with a passion.

in fact almost every team i like is northern or midwest. Broncos,Bulls,Avalanche,Yankees & Wolverines. in soccer Man U in EPL and L.A. Galaxy in MLS.

Jesus, you're a bigger 90s frontrunner than SoCal!?!

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 11:55 AM
i don't think the Broncos want Oz to see the field even if Manning were to get hurt. just don't see us not keeping 3 and allowing Hanie to be the official back up.
you may be right but i just don't see us keeping less than Manning,Hanie and Brock.

What I am thinking is if Manning shows no signs of problems and there is no reason to keep Hanie going into the season. Should Manning go down at the early stages of the season even with Hanie Denver would be in Landry Jones or Matt Barkley range. Denver would be hard pressed not to see what Oz can do IMO.

Irish Stout
05-30-2012, 11:55 AM
i don't think the Broncos want Oz to see the field even if Manning were to get hurt. just don't see us not keeping 3 and allowing Hanie to be the official back up.
you may be right but i just don't see us keeping less than Manning,Hanie and Brock.

I tend to agree with you, which is why I wonder if Oz might get placed on the PS this year. As I understand it, he'd still get to practice with the team and he would be able to be on sidelines during games, right?

Maybe I'm way off base her.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 11:57 AM
I tend to agree with you, which is why I wonder if Oz might get placed on the PS this year. As I understand it, he'd still get to practice with the team and he would be able to be on sidelines during games, right?

Maybe I'm way off base her.

He would be grabbed off in a second if we placed him on the PS.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 12:11 PM
Jesus, you're a bigger 90s frontrunner than SoCal!?!

lol, all those teams where the first i saw play. Broncos facing the Jags in the playoffs, the Avs facing the Panthers in the finals, Jordan making the half court shot vs the Jazz, Jeter's rookie year for the Yanks in the playoffs, Charles Woodson returning the INT for a TD vs OSU. i've only recently gotten into soccer after the last world cup so Man U and L.A. Galaxy are brand new ones.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 12:14 PM
I tend to agree with you, which is why I wonder if Oz might get placed on the PS this year. As I understand it, he'd still get to practice with the team and he would be able to be on sidelines during games, right?

Maybe I'm way off base her.

he wouldn't make it through waivers to go to the PS. not a chance.
Brock is as much of a lock to make the team as Manning is.

What I am thinking is if Manning shows no signs of problems and there is no reason to keep Hanie going into the season. Should Manning go down at the early stages of the season even with Hanie Denver would be in Landry Jones or Matt Barkley range. Denver would be hard pressed not to see what Oz can do IMO.
while i agree with the premise i just don't see Elway taking that gamble.
Oz has dynamic potential but it's the same thing as with our former QB. he needs to sit, develop and then play later on into his career when he's honed his skills.

Oz is too raw to depend on this season or next. he has to develop like Rodgers or Young before he plays.

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 12:16 PM
he wouldn't make it through waivers to go to the PS. not a chance.
Brock is as much of a lock to make the team as Manning is.


while i agree with the premise i just don't see Elway taking that gamble.
Oz has dynamic potential but it's the same thing as with our former QB. he needs to sit, develop and then play later on into his career when he's honed his skills.

Oz is too raw to depend on this season or next. he has to develop like Rodgers or Young before he plays.

We can just move Adam Weber from PS to starter then.

Is Hanie number 16? I saw number 16 throwing some nice looking passes in the Manning video.

Bacchus
05-30-2012, 12:20 PM
I'm talking merely character here. I cheered for Peyton's success despite how classless the Irsays and Colts organization is. To say I have a lack of character for not liking the way they handled things again is comical.

I admire your loyalty to Manning. I would have been really pissed if Dan Reeves would have traded Elway in 1992 like he wanted to for Mark Rypien and a #1 pick. I'm sure I would have followed Elway to the Skins if that would have happened.

Irish Stout
05-30-2012, 12:23 PM
He would be grabbed off in a second if we placed him on the PS.

Knew there was something I was missing. Yeah, no reason to risk him going through the waiver process.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 12:28 PM
We can just move Adam Weber from PS to starter then.

Is Hanie number 16? I saw number 16 throwing some nice looking passes in the Manning video.

yep, Hanie is #16

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 12:31 PM
lol, all those teams where the first i saw play. Broncos facing the Jags in the playoffs, the Avs facing the Panthers in the finals, Jordan making the half court shot vs the Jazz, Jeter's rookie year for the Yanks in the playoffs, Charles Woodson returning the INT for a TD vs OSU. i've only recently gotten into soccer after the last world cup so Man U and L.A. Galaxy are brand new ones.

You sir have no shame. :)

pricejj
05-30-2012, 12:36 PM
he says he's fine with it in this article right here. Manning Takes Charge (http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20677098/peyton-manning-takes-charge-first-broncos-offseason-session)

even back in some of the earlier articles when Manning first talked about McCoy and the offense he said he'd welcome the heavier running load McCoy had planned.

found another one Manning the conductor (http://www.denverpost.com/paige/ci_20452378/woody-paige-manning-getting-tune-be-conductor-not)

Manning never mentioned the use of a Fullback in either article. He did mention, however, how he would check into run plays inside the 5 with the Colts (who didn't use a Fullback).

Lestat
05-30-2012, 01:01 PM
Manning never mentioned the use of a Fullback in either article. He did mention, however, how he would check into run plays inside the 5 with the Colts (who didn't use a Fullback).

he said in both articles that he was fine with what McCoy wanted to run, would welcome the run game alleviating his workload on offense and McCoy has said he likes a two back set.
which in turn means that if he's ok with what McCoy wants to run and McCoy wanting to run a 2 back set that Manning is ok with that.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 01:02 PM
You sir have no shame. :)

what does have to do with the teams i like though? :yayaya:
and i've said this many times. i hated the Broncos jersey's when i first saw them.
but once i saw TD,Sharpe,Elway and Smith play i was hooked. got used to the uni's and love the old colors now.

but those horrible yellow and maroon colored ones with the striped socks i will never get over. those things are hideous.

Kaylore
05-30-2012, 02:39 PM
what does have to do with the teams i like though? :yayaya:
and i've said this many times. i hated the Broncos jersey's when i first saw them.
but once i saw TD,Sharpe,Elway and Smith play i was hooked. got used to the uni's and love the old colors now.

but those horrible sock colored ones i will never get over. those things are hideous.

What color is "sock" exactly?

baja
05-30-2012, 03:05 PM
What color is "sock" exactly?

Usually black and blue.

Beantown Bronco
05-30-2012, 03:07 PM
What color is "sock" exactly?

Is semen a color?

DBroncos4life
05-30-2012, 03:10 PM
Is semen a color?

I'll go check.

pricejj
05-30-2012, 03:32 PM
he said in both articles that he was fine with what McCoy wanted to run, would welcome the run game alleviating his workload on offense and McCoy has said he likes a two back set.
which in turn means that if he's ok with what McCoy wants to run and McCoy wanting to run a 2 back set that Manning is ok with that.

Put me on record as saying, if Manning primarily runs McCoy's "vaunted" 2-back Offense, that the Broncos won't get anywhere close to the SB and Manning will retire after the 2012 season. Not only that, but Elway should fire himself for hiring two $3M TE's who would never be on the field at the same time.

Shananahan
05-30-2012, 03:40 PM
I'm alright with the team keeping the running game a large part of the offense, but nobody should be worrying that Manning won't be the dictating hand in everything. McCoy will gladly bow to Manning and whatever else is working, I think, and in the end we'll see something like a 65-35 split. If there's one good thing about McCoy, it's that he's shown a willingness to be very flexible and take a backseat.

The Niners made a serious run at the Super Bowl with a ball-control, conservative offense focused on the ground, albeit with a much better defense. I'd be very happy if Denver could somewhat emulate their success using Manning's ability to offset the defensive weaknesses against the run.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 03:55 PM
What color is "sock" exactly?

lol i meant the horrible yellow and maroon jersey's with the striped socks. my bad Hilarious!

Shananahan
05-30-2012, 03:59 PM
I thought those uniforms were awesome.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 04:02 PM
Put me on record as saying, if Manning primarily runs McCoy's "vaunted" 2-back Offense, that the Broncos won't get anywhere close to the SB and Manning will retire after the 2012 season. Not only that, but Elway should fire himself for hiring two $3M TE's who would never be on the field at the same time.

Manning is way too cerebral and cunning to have that happen. unless he suffers another horrific injury(please God don't let that happen) he'll be the Manning of old in terms of guiding the offense and producing prolific results.

he just simply realizes that he took too much punishment with the Colts and doesn't have enough time left to continue to take those types of hits if he wants to win another SB or two.

it's smarter and better for both parties to have the running game being his friend and ally. a one back two TE set doesn't allow for a power running game in crunch time(unless you have a all world RB) and doesn't provide enough protection for Manning to avoid all the hits.

this is about saving Manning and extending his career so that he can be elite one more and go out on his terms and allow the Broncos to win some big games.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 04:03 PM
I thought those uniforms were awesome.

it's probably more the socks than the overall uniform that i hate so much. but the socks just make the uniform too busy and clown looking.

cutthemdown
05-30-2012, 04:51 PM
A two back set will be good for any games we have a lead in, but Broncos will be throwing the ball this yr. They will be spreading the field, going into the shotgun, and attacking the 3rd and 4th corners teams will be forced to put into the game.

Really that is what Manning loves to do. We have seen it first hand. He will say fine you put your best guy on DT, 2nd best on Decker, a safety deep to help them, your 3rd corner on Stokely, now I send Tamme out into the slot hmmm what do you have left? A scrub that is who, Now he throws to that guy all game and kills you for 300 yrds and 4 tds. Once you move the last safety up you have 1 on 1 with his elite players and he will kill you there also.

It's going to be a fun yr to watch Broncos football. Last yr was incredible for its high end drama, this one will be fun because of high end offensive football.

pricejj
05-30-2012, 05:00 PM
it's smarter and better for both parties to have the running game being his friend and ally. a one back two TE set doesn't allow for a power running game in crunch time(unless you have a all world RB) and doesn't provide enough protection for Manning to avoid all the hits.



So basically, you think we will run the similar Offense to the Giants/Packers/Saints, and not an Offense similar to the 2011 Patriots. It may be a good idea, but would eliminate much of the no-huddle Offense that Manning has ran his entire career.

Lestat
05-30-2012, 06:06 PM
So basically, you think we will run the similar Offense to the Giants/Packers/Saints, and not an Offense similar to the 2011 Patriots. It may be a good idea, but would eliminate much of the no-huddle Offense that Manning has ran his entire career.

well McCoy did say he was going to implement things from those offenses so it's not far fetched.
i look at this as us saving our guy until we have to unleash him in the playoffs.
kinda like the Spurs did this season with their big players.

we know Peyton Manning can get it done, we know he can make defenses look like he's playing 22 on 11. but he needs what Elway needed in his later years.
a strong running game that takes pressure off and allows him to excel when he has to and not excel the entire game and have to carry the whole load.

i don't think Manning will completely abandon what he did in Indy.
but i think he realizes that he can't take the abuse he did previously with so little time left.
if you make it a option of Manning passing when he wants to vs him having to dictate the entire offense around it, that makes him the most dangerous form of Peyton Manning ever.
people forget that when he had James as his RB their offense was one of the most dynamic in football and rivaled that of the Rams. i think he goes back to that old school Colts offense this season but with more two back sets and even the TE in the back field playing a H-Back role.

cutthemdown
05-30-2012, 06:18 PM
Peyton would be wise to maybe take some of John Elways late career playbook and hand off to Davis......err wait we don't have him anymore...better just throw it.

Boomhauer
05-31-2012, 01:01 AM
What CBs would Vaughn beat out on our roster right now vs the amount we will keep...

I mentioned earlier Vaughn would have been competing for the 5th spot against Carter and Moore. To rate 'em by ability --

Locks: Bailey(CB), Florence(CB), Porter(CB), Harris(DB)
Competition: Vaughn(CB), Carter(CB-KR), Moore(CB-KR) -- with Vaughn gone, I'll be watching these two for the 5th spot.
Out: Judie(DB), Bolden(DB), Robinson(DB), Squid(CB) -- there might be a minimal chance Judie is 5th, but I doubt it.

Jetmeck
05-31-2012, 01:15 AM
Manning is way too cerebral and cunning to have that happen. unless he suffers another horrific injury(please God don't let that happen) he'll be the Manning of old in terms of guiding the offense and producing prolific results.

he just simply realizes that he took too much punishment with the Colts and doesn't have enough time left to continue to take those types of hits if he wants to win another SB or two.

it's smarter and better for both parties to have the running game being his friend and ally. a one back two TE set doesn't allow for a power running game in crunch time(unless you have a all world RB) and doesn't provide enough protection for Manning to avoid all the hits.

this is about saving Manning and extending his career so that he can be elite one more and go out on his terms and allow the Broncos to win some big games.


You seem to have a great grasp of things.............lol
Yes as Elway learned a great running game can extend
and heighten your career....................

Shananahan
05-31-2012, 01:33 AM
Locks: Bailey(CB), Florence(CB), Porter(CB), Harris(DB)
Competition: Vaughn(CB), Carter(CB-KR), Moore(CB-KR) -- with Vaughn gone, I'll be watching these two for the 5th spot.
Out: Judie(DB), Bolden(DB), Robinson(DB), Squid(CB) -- there might be a minimal chance Judie is 5th, but I doubt it.
Both draft picks, huh?

Then again, you're the one who would have cut Dawkins and started McCarthy.

TheReverend
05-31-2012, 05:47 AM
I'll go check.

...and?

It doesn't take THAT long to spit it out and look.

TheReverend
05-31-2012, 05:50 AM
I mentioned earlier Vaughn would have been competing for the 5th spot against Carter and Moore. To rate 'em by ability --

Locks: Bailey(CB), Florence(CB), Porter(CB), Harris(DB)
Competition: Vaughn(CB), Carter(CB-KR), Moore(CB-KR) -- with Vaughn gone, I'll be watching these two for the 5th spot.
Out: Judie(DB), Bolden(DB), Robinson(DB), Squid(CB) -- there might be a minimal chance Judie is 5th, but I doubt it.

I think I just really enjoy how you have the position down so well that you have Carter and Moore battling for 5th CB duty...

lolcopter
05-31-2012, 07:32 AM
When has Moore or carter ever returned any kicks?!?!?

Lestat
05-31-2012, 10:39 AM
When has Moore or carter ever returned any kicks?!?!?

i think both returned kicks in school but outside of that i don't know. maybe pre-season?

Boomhauer
05-31-2012, 02:42 PM
I think I just really enjoy how you have the position down so well that you have Carter and Moore battling for 5th CB duty...

I really enjoy how your panties are so tight any comment of mine makes your azhol hemorrhage.:giggle:

cutthemdown
05-31-2012, 10:13 PM
Yeah Carter and Adams will start at safety unless Moore really comes on. Also Boldin makes the team IMO.

Br0nc0Buster
05-31-2012, 10:17 PM
That 5th corner spot should be an interesting battle between Rahim Moore, Lance Ball, and Brock Osweiler

Mogulseeker
05-31-2012, 10:45 PM
Is semen a color?

I believe it's called Pearl Jam.

SoCalBronco
05-31-2012, 10:50 PM
So basically, you think we will run the similar Offense to the Giants/Packers/Saints, and not an Offense similar to the 2011 Patriots. It may be a good idea, but would eliminate much of the no-huddle Offense that Manning has ran his entire career.

It doesnt take much to have a good offense. Look at the Colts....very little actual offense, but alot of production. Texas Tech/Leach...again very little actual offense...alot of production. BYU 1980s/90s under Lavell Edwards/Norm Chow, exact same deal.

cutthemdown
06-01-2012, 10:16 AM
That 5th corner spot should be an interesting battle between Rahim Moore, Lance Ball, and Brock Osweiler

Yeah but Brock can return punts so he has inside track.

ward63
06-16-2012, 06:26 PM
Any change in anybodies opinion after first OTA's? I doubt it, but its worth asking.

TheReverend
06-16-2012, 08:25 PM
I really enjoy how your panties are so tight any comment of mine makes your azhol hemorrhage.:giggle:

Fortunately, none of that is side effect of laughing at you

R-Mac
08-08-2012, 11:35 AM
Any change in anybodies opinion after first OTA's? I doubt it, but its worth asking.

Update: Cassius Vaughn is the 1st team LCB for the Colts.

http://www.colts.com/team/depth-chart.html

DENVERDUI55
08-08-2012, 11:47 AM
Update: Cassius Vaughn is the 1st team LCB for the Colts.

http://www.colts.com/team/depth-chart.html

That tells you how bad that Colts team is.

Stagger Lee
08-08-2012, 12:09 PM
Update: Cassius Vaughn is the 1st team LCB for the Colts.

http://www.colts.com/team/depth-chart.html

Ouch.

DivineLegion
08-08-2012, 12:14 PM
He was our starting nickel corner going into 2011, and he filled in for Champ/Andre whenever they were dinged up. He wasn't spectacular, but our coaching staff had high hopes for him until he hit the field too.

Lestat
08-08-2012, 12:23 PM
wow, the colts really need to upgrade their secondary. this will be one of those rare trades that both teams get what they needed.

phibacka31
08-08-2012, 12:35 PM
Update: Cassius Vaughn is the 1st team LCB for the Colts.

http://www.colts.com/team/depth-chart.html

Like others have said... you fail to mention they have ZERO talent at CB...