PDA

View Full Version : Sundquist Speaks: Draft, Walker and Other Matters


Mediator12
05-05-2006, 10:49 AM
Not my favorite guy, and they of course neglect the 2003 draft massacre in his accomplishments but he addresses a lot of the recent questions the Mane has asked from a Front office perspective


Link: http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=5576


1. I'm curious as to why the Broncos decided not to draft a running back this year. Were there no players in the later rounds that you felt would help the football team or is there just no need for one this year?

Charles
Miami, Fla.

Obviously, our re-signing of Ron Dayne showed our faith in his ability to get the job done. Of course, Tatum Bell had over 900 yards last year. We need to to keep aware of Cedric Cobbs, who we had highly, highly rated coming out as a third-rounder in 2004. Cecil Sapp has the flexibility to play both fullback and running back. We had focused on Laurence Maroney and felt like he was an impact guy, but the opportunity to move up in the first round and get a guy like Jay Cutler was too much to pass up, and the need factor was there at other positions.

2. I was surprised not to see a safety drafted by the team. Can you share your thoughts on this, please?

Daniel Lam
Alpharetta, Ga.

There were a number of safeties we had targeted, but there were needs on the offensive side of the football that warranted going in that direction first. We were very high on Donte Whitner. Had he been available at the 15th pick, we probably would have thought long and hard about selecting him. However, we have a great deal of confidence in some of the guys we have behind our starters. Sam Brandon has started before, and his level of play was very good last year. Curome Cox played quite a bit at safety and corner; he's capable at the position. We like what we see in Hamza Abdullah and Brandon Browner as young prospects at that spot, and we feel like Tyler Everett was a sleeper that went undrafted and we were able to sign him as a college free agent. He was in a situation where he was stuck behind Mike Doss and was lost in the shuffle alongside Whitner.


3. As a Broncos fan in Louisville, I am happy to see the acquisition of Elvis Dumervil; I have seen the wreak havoc on the offensive line of more than a few football teams. What would you say was the biggest factor in deciding to draft him and do you see him making an immediate impact at his position with the likes of Kenard Lang, Ebenezer Ekuban and Courtney Brown who already are established players?

Aaron Bluel
Lousiville, Ky.

The biggest factor is his ability to make and create plays. If he is not making the tackle, he's forcing the quarterback into somebody else. He's been productive at a Division I level that is competitive. He had 20 sacks and 11 forced fumbles as a senior, and he's done it over a consistent period of time. He's also a good person as far as being a team player and for a guy who most people critiqued as being too short for the position, he plays the run extremely well. We drafted him at that spot with the thought of him being a pass-rush specialist, and we'll just have to see if he makes an immediate impact.

4. With the drafting of Cutler and the trade for Javon Walker, we Denver fans have seen a lot of division amongst ourselves. There are those of us whom want Cutler over Plummer or vice versa and others want Ashley Lelie here over Walker and vice versa. How is it you will handle all of this in what seems to be moves that can divide fellow fans and maybe even the locker room?

Tony
Fort Collins, Colo.

This football team is a veteran football team. It will not divide the locker room. Jake Plummer won 14 football games last year. Jay Cutler has yet to step onto an NFL field. There's a tremendous amount of potential with Jay as a quarterback, but potential is only as good as the paper on which it's printed; he's got to go out and prove it. With regards to Lelie and Walker -- both guys are outstanding receivers. Javon brings a dynamic to the position that we felt like we needed. Ashley certainly has the ability to create the big play in his own right, but I don't foresee conflict. You're always wanting to improve your football team; a football team is made of 53 men, not 11. The idea is to get as many good players and create as much competition at each position as you can so you can put the best team on the field on Sunday.


5. After our season was over, I really felt we had two main needs: explosive wide receive pash rush from our D-line. While I think we solved our wide receiver problem with Walker and the draft, I am not so sure about the pash rush. Is Kenard Lang and Elvis Dumervil the answer, or is there something I am missing?

John Robins
Highland, Calif.

My question would be, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" Sacks are the glamour play. Turnovers change football games. It's tougher to recover from a turnover. That, coupled with how much pressure we put on the quarterback to force those turnovers -- you can't necessarily say that we didn't get to the quarterback. That was discussed last season: that we were getting to the quarterback; we were pressuring the quarterback. It's not that we don't have individuals who aren't capable of getting to the quarterback; it's that the scheme predicated playing the run first and rushing the passer second. Thus, we were one of the top run-defense teams in the National Football League. That being said, I think some adjustments will be made in the overall scheme of things that will loosen up some guys that are good enough and athletic enough to get to the quarterback.

Mile High Shack
05-05-2006, 10:59 AM
why don't you like Sundquist?

as far as that damn scheme argument, if that is the case, then the scheme needs to be tweaked then, b/c it sucks

Smiling Assassin27
05-05-2006, 11:08 AM
why settle for either sacks or turnovers? great defenses get both.

Mile High Shack
05-05-2006, 11:12 AM
why settle for either sacks or turnovers? great defenses get both.

I think the system is an excuse...a coverup if you will

like you said, good defenses can get sacks AND turnovers, it's not one or the other

I see what he's saying, play the run first

but damn

on 3rd and 10, I think you can play the pass and rush the QB, no?

ludo21
05-05-2006, 11:13 AM
why settle for either sacks or turnovers? great defenses get both.


and i think thats what he was gettting at.

A ton of time, it wasnt the "Scheme", Pryce and co. (on 3rd and long) flat out couldnt get to the QB. I hope Lang is as good as ive hyped, and Dumervill provides at least some fresh legs from time to time.

4 months, 4 months..........................:strong:

Popps
05-05-2006, 11:20 AM
My question would be, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" Sacks are the glamour play. Turnovers change football games. It's tougher to recover from a turnover. That, coupled with how much pressure we put on the quarterback to force those turnovers -- you can't necessarily say that we didn't get to the quarterback.[/B].

Wow, talk about a ripe pile of festering bull****.

I wonder if he kept a straight face when answering that question. Sacks are the RESULT of pressure. We can't get to the QB, evident by our 30th sack rating. We have to send gimmicky blitzes because our front four can't do it on their own. That leaves us exposed. I wonder if Ted watched the AFC Championship game?

It's not that we don't have individuals who aren't capable of getting to the quarterback; it's that the scheme predicated playing the run first and rushing the passer second. Thus, we were one of the top run-defense teams in the National Football League. That being said, I think some adjustments will be made in the overall scheme of things that will loosen up some guys that are good enough and athletic enough to get to the quarterback.

Good lord.

We have eyes, Ted. It's 3rd and 13 and you're telling me our guys are being coached to stay at home to respect the RUN? Gimmie a ****ing break.

Our DEs suck ass. They're horrible. They're back-up caliber linemen and I don't care how many of them you want to rotate.

A team doesn't go 21 of 26 against you on 3rd downs because you're "protecting against the run." What a joke.

Mediator12
05-05-2006, 11:28 AM
Wow, talk about a ripe pile of festering bull****.

I wonder if he kept a straight face when answering that question. Sacks are the RESULT of pressure. We can't get to the QB, evident by our 30th sack rating. We have to send gimmicky blitzes because our front four can't do it on their own. That leaves us exposed. I wonder if Ted watched the AFC Championship game?



Good lord.

We have eyes, Ted. It's 3rd and 13 and you're telling me our guys are being coached to stay at home to respect the RUN? Gimmie a ****ing break.

Our DEs suck ass. They're horrible. They're back-up caliber linemen and I don't care how many of them you want to rotate.

A team doesn't go 21 of 26 against you on 3rd downs because you're "protecting against the run." What a joke.

Hence, one of the reasons I think he is full of crap sometimes. We have agreed on the quality of the pash rush from day one I Believe ;D

Just for Clarity's sake PIT was 10/16 on third down, not 21 of 26. Denver lost in every aspect of that game from TO margin, third down Percentage, to TOP. The TOP was the Worst disparity all Year from 36:07 to 23:53.

bendog
05-05-2006, 11:36 AM
Smoke on the water
Words & music by Ritchie Blackmore, Ian Gillan, Roger Glover, Jon Lord and Ian Paice
We all came out to Montreux on the Lake Geneva shoreline
To make records with a mobile - We didn't have much time
Frank Zappa & the Mothers were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun burned the place to the ground


Smoke on the water - A fire in the sky
Smoke on the water


They burned down the gambling house - It died with an awful sound
Funky & Claude was running in and out, pulling kids out of the ground
When it all was over, we had to find another place
Swiss time was running out - It seemed that we would lose the race


Smoke on the water - A fire in the sky
Smoke on the water


We ended up at the Grand Hotel - It was empty, cold and bare
But with the Rolling Truck Stones Thing just outside making our music there
With a few red lights an' a few old beds, we made a place to sweat
No matter what we get out of this, I know... I know we'll never forget


Smoke on the water - A fire in the sky
Smoke on the water

bendog
05-05-2006, 11:36 AM
Hence, one of the reasons I think he is full of crap sometimes. We have agreed on the quality of the pash rush from day one I Believe ;D

Just for Clarity's sake PIT was 10/16 on third down, not 21 of 26. Denver lost in every aspect of that game from TO margin, third down Percentage, to TOP. The TOP was the Worst disparity all Year from 36:07 to 23:53.
And the refs didn't even have to give em the game!

rbackfactory80
05-05-2006, 11:41 AM
Ted should really get into politics.

Popps
05-05-2006, 12:00 PM
Hence, one of the reasons I think he is full of crap sometimes. We have agreed on the quality of the pash rush from day one I Believe ;D

Just for Clarity's sake PIT was 10/16 on third down, not 21 of 26. Denver lost in every aspect of that game from TO margin, third down Percentage, to TOP. The TOP was the Worst disparity all Year from 36:07 to 23:53.

I was just re-posting those stats from a poster here... not smart, I suppose.

10/16 is still horrible, especially when you consider that we basically couldn't stop them the whole first half.

As for TOP, the other thing that sucked arse about that game was how we gave up on the run. We actually had some early success, and we just flat out abandoned the running game. We ran something like 14 times the entire game, only 9 in the first half. That's unacceptable, and we quit running BEFORE we were out of it.

I just can't believe this dude can say that **** with a straight face. As if... you only have one choice, stop the run or the pass.

Pathetic.

anthonypacino
05-05-2006, 12:13 PM
ah ha! I knew Shanny like Donte Whitner! I thought if things stayed the same and we picked at 15 we might've taken him. But Tyler Everett is also a good signing. Camp is going to rock this year.

watermock
05-05-2006, 12:19 PM
I stand corrected. I pulled that from somewhere and it was not accurate evidently.

It was 10-16. I know I saw that somewhere or I wouldn't of posted it. 10 of 16 is almost as bad.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/gamebook/NFL_20060122_PIT@DEN

Kaylore
05-05-2006, 12:21 PM
What we saw in Tony was 6-foot-5, 255 pounds, a former wide receiver, runs routes like a wide receiver, outstanding catching radius,
Man that will be a nice change. A crisp route from our tight end. :)

we have a great deal of confidence in some of the guys we have behind our starters. Sam Brandon has started before, and his level of play was very good last year. Curome Cox played quite a bit at safety and corner; he's capable at the position. We like what we see in Hamza Abdullah and Brandon Browner as young prospects at that spot
This confirms what I've been saying about our safeties all year.

bendog
05-05-2006, 12:36 PM
Wesley Duke isn't even starting in the Europe league, but I'm surprised Ted didn't say good things.

Kaylore
05-05-2006, 12:38 PM
Why would you draft Jay Cutler when you have such a great quarterback in Bradlee Van Pelt? He may be a little rough around the edges but he just needs a little work! So does that mean that Van Pelt no longer has a future with the Broncos?

Chris Weber
Denver, Colo.
LOL It's so funny to hear the CSU crowd at games. When Jake misses a pass or when they're struggling to move the ball some Homer will chime in "Put Bradlee in !!!"

bendog
05-05-2006, 12:40 PM
LOL It's so funny to hear the CSU crowd at games. When Jake misses a pass or when they're struggling to move the ball some Homer will chime in "Put Bradlee in !!!"
sounds like a director in a porn film.

Popps
05-05-2006, 12:43 PM
I think BVP still has a future as a #3 guy with us. He's certainly a decent option there. I could even see Shanahan working him into the lineup i.e. the KC game, now and again. He's a local guy, good athlete... knows the system by now.... decent #3.

DBroncos4life
05-05-2006, 12:45 PM
I think the system is an excuse...a coverup if you will

like you said, good defenses can get sacks AND turnovers, it's not one or the other

I see what he's saying, play the run first

but damn

on 3rd and 10, I think you can play the pass and rush the QB, no?
I don't know but I thought I saw a team that wasn't TRYING to get sacks. I've always believed the system was the problem not the players

DomCasual
05-05-2006, 12:47 PM
Dude, you don't like Sundquist?

I feel as if I just don't know you anymore. You're dead to me.

Kaylore
05-05-2006, 12:53 PM
I think BVP still has a future as a #3 guy with us. He's certainly a decent option there. I could even see Shanahan working him into the lineup i.e. the KC game, now and again. He's a local guy, good athlete... knows the system by now.... decent #3. I agree. And if Jake leaves and Cuttler takes over in a few years, BVP would be a nice backup.

2KBack
05-05-2006, 12:58 PM
I don't know but I thought I saw a team that wasn't TRYING to get sacks. I've always believed the system was the problem not the players


I've been pimping that during this offseason, but it's isn't the most popular opinion.

Clockwork Orange
05-05-2006, 01:00 PM
Why would you draft Jay Cutler when you have such a great quarterback in Bradlee Van Pelt? He may be a little rough around the edges but he just needs a little work! So does that mean that Van Pelt no longer has a future with the Broncos?

Chris Weber
Denver, Colo.

Someone needs a timeout.

DBroncos4life
05-05-2006, 01:04 PM
I've been pimping that during this offseason, but it's isn't the most popular opinion.
Well I think its the truth and most people don't like the truth :)

Rascal
05-05-2006, 01:19 PM
Yeah like Nebraska sucks.

Hulamau
05-05-2006, 01:22 PM
I was just re-posting those stats from a poster here... not smart, I suppose.

10/16 is still horrible, especially when you consider that we basically couldn't stop them the whole first half.

As for TOP, the other thing that sucked arse about that game was how we gave up on the run. We actually had some early success, and we just flat out abandoned the running game. We ran something like 14 times the entire game, only 9 in the first half. That's unacceptable, and we quit running BEFORE we were out of it.

I just can't believe this dude can say that **** with a straight face. As if... you only have one choice, stop the run or the pass.

Pathetic.


It also didnt help that Darrent Williams was gimpy and Foxworth played 10 yrds off his WR the whole game either!

But what Sundquist said about the scheme does have some merit too. Just looking at the Pitt game again (and many others throughout the year) we relied WAY too much on saftey and corner blitzes and not enough D-line pressure. You can see on many passing plays the D-lineman were mainly locking up the Oline and TEs to free Lynch, Williams or Gold to go after the QB leaving us short on coverage, and Lynch is a step too slow these days to seal that deal often.

With Pryce gone and all these new DE prospects including Dumervil, Lang and Corey Jackson, I suspect they will tweak obvious passing downs to get after the QB with the front guys more often.

If we just improve a fair bit in that area, no reason we dont make it to the Super Bowl. Barring the injury bug.

DBroncos4life
05-05-2006, 01:22 PM
Yeah like Nebraska sucks.
or like Rascal likes the dick LOL

ColoradoBuff
05-05-2006, 01:30 PM
Yeah like Nebraska sucks.

That's the spirit!LOL