PDA

View Full Version : hillis for permanent starter


tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 06:18 PM
its been a long, long time ive seen a bronco RB run like he does. hits whoever is in his way, and usually wins. its awesome to watch and i love to see him get the ball to see how many people he is gonna carry for 3-4 yards. scratch that off our day 1 picks next year!

KS Bronco
11-30-2008, 06:25 PM
he should be our number one going in to camp next year

DeusExManning
11-30-2008, 06:25 PM
Yes give him the number one. He is more than just a power runner, he should just enough elusiveness and spin to impress me.

lazarus4444
11-30-2008, 06:29 PM
I would rather have a physical back that pounds the defense than a home run back anytime. Hillis as our #1 from here on out and into next year if he continues to deserve it. We also need to find out who recruited mcfadden, hillis and f. jones at Arkansas and hire him to evaluate talent.

Paladin
11-30-2008, 06:30 PM
I think he pulled a groin late....

Hamrob
11-30-2008, 06:32 PM
No groin...I think he got whacked in the gonads!

Paladin
11-30-2008, 06:32 PM
Did it wake him up?

The slouch.

Broncomutt
11-30-2008, 06:34 PM
Hillis played lights out!!

I send my thanks out to him through the internet void......:thumbs:

brncs_fan
11-30-2008, 06:34 PM
Rather have him back at FB myself. I think he has been servicable but is far from full time.

lex
11-30-2008, 06:37 PM
Ive been doting on him for awhile now as a RB. When I see what people want out of a RB, its apparent that this is exactly what he is providing. I saw someone compare him to a John Riggins. I dont think this is so outrageous. Id like us to get our version of a Joe Washington by drafting DeMarco Murray or CJ Spiller.

Majik
11-30-2008, 06:37 PM
I have no problem with Hillis being permanent starter but i still dont think that should stop us from looking for a RB early in the draft, can never have too many impact players, give Chris Wells.

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 06:39 PM
you also got to lack at need, and we need a safety 10x more then we need a RB. definitely no RB in the first round, hell no offensive player at all.

lex
11-30-2008, 06:39 PM
I have no problem with Hillis being permanent starter but i still dont think that should stop us from looking for a RB early in the draft, can never have too many impact players, give Chris Wells.

Indeed. We could have a thunder and lightening with Hillis and Spiller or Murray.

lazarus4444
11-30-2008, 06:40 PM
We really are hurting for an impact safety and Hillis is taking away the Broncos need to draft a RB early.

80smith
11-30-2008, 06:42 PM
I like him too. He runs hard and keeps our D off the field. I just want to see Denver run more........

elsid13
11-30-2008, 06:43 PM
Let calm down. Hillis had nice game but he doesn't have enough speed to to cut back or run the stretch plays that is 90% of the Denver run offense.

snowspot66
11-30-2008, 06:49 PM
I'd like us to draft a higher round RB to complement him. Somebody we can put on the field at the same time as well as give him a rest. I'm all for getting him 10-20 touches a game though (run AND pass).

spdirty
11-30-2008, 06:51 PM
Id like to see him get the ball about 5-10 times a game, being an alstott type fullback, with Torain getting the bulk of the load. Torain can't stay healthy though, so. :(

long beach bronco
11-30-2008, 06:52 PM
How come Bell isn't getting any carries? I'm sure he was good for about 10 carries, he might have broke a long one like Jones did for the Jets.

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 06:53 PM
Let calm down. Hillis had nice game but he doesn't have enough speed to to cut back or run the stretch plays that is 90% of the Denver run offense.

if hes getting 5-6 ypc up the gut, whats the point of running the stretch? offenses should suit the players, not the other way around.

Dr. Broncenstein
11-30-2008, 06:54 PM
I think he is an excellent starter in this system... provided we preferentially run a spread / pass based offense, and pass to set up the run. He doesn't need a lead blocker, he is decent in pass pro, and he is an outright weapon as a reciever. It certainly isn't orthodox, but it works.

Doggcow
11-30-2008, 06:54 PM
I think he pulled a groin late....

Wrong. You could tell it was definately a nutshot that brought him down. You can always tell because he went directly for the squat. You have like 15 seconds after getting hit in the nuts that youre like "Ahh owe" and then it hits you "Holy **** I'm gonna die/puke" and in comes the squat.

Cito Pelon
11-30-2008, 06:55 PM
Hillis = VanEeghen.

cutthemdown
11-30-2008, 06:57 PM
I disagree. IMO Hillis isn't a full time tailback. I love him but Broncos should still look for more talent at the RB spot. It's great Hillis can play both FB/RB though he's a great player, physical, and brings a lot to the table.

A 2 TE set with Graham and Scheff, Hillis in the single back, if very physical and still keeps a lot of passing options though so I do see that as something Broncos should do like 15 times a game. Really Hillis big enough to go it without a FB and can catch, Scheff can either stay on LOS or go to the slot leaving Graham as the single TE. It really has tons of potential.

Rulon Velvet Jones
11-30-2008, 06:58 PM
Wrong. You could tell it was definately a nutshot that brought him down. You can always tell because he went directly for the squat. You have like 15 seconds after getting hit in the nuts that youre like "Ahh owe" and then it hits you "Holy **** I'm gonna die/puke" and in comes the squat.

Every guy knows it's the worst feeling in the world. You feel as though your eyeballs are rolling back into your head while this slow, creeping pain snakes its way through every nerve in your body.

elsid13
11-30-2008, 06:58 PM
if hes getting 5-6 ypc up the gut, whats the point of running the stretch? offenses should suit the players, not the other way around.

At some point team are going to figure out that he can only run the dives and stack the defence according. Plus without the stretch that removes the PA and rollout which are the basis of the Denver passing game.

Hillis had great game, but let not get carried away.

cutthemdown
11-30-2008, 06:59 PM
How come Bell isn't getting any carries? I'm sure he was good for about 10 carries, he might have broke a long one like Jones did for the Jets.

I think because Hillis did so well, why risk the fumbleitis that is Bell. Plus Bell not physical and Jet's are.

Rulon Velvet Jones
11-30-2008, 07:00 PM
Has he passed McFadden in yardage yet?

summerdenver
11-30-2008, 07:01 PM
Hillis lacks speed and vision. He is very good at breaking tackles and has safe hands. Most of the runs today were against the nickle D of NYJ.

IMO, denver should draft Moreno type RB and pair him up Hillis. This will make offense dynamic. BTW, i don't think Selvin, Hall or Torrain will ever be healthy for all 16 games.

watermock
11-30-2008, 07:02 PM
We still need a feature back, as much as I was excited for the late pick, I was afraid he was gong to get cut when he pulled that hammy.

He can play power back, but we are thin thin thin at feature back.

Popps
11-30-2008, 07:02 PM
I think he is an excellent starter in this system... provided we preferentially run a spread / pass based offense, and pass to set up the run. He doesn't need a lead blocker, he is decent in pass pro, and he is an outright weapon as a reciever. It certainly isn't orthodox, but it works.

Exactly. I can't understand why people are so unconfident if we trot him out there as a #1 back. He's 10x more useful than Selvin Young. I'll take a guy who can gut out those 4-7 yard runs after contact any day over a guy who gets...... 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 25.

Yes, we could use a "2" for a 1-2 punch, but I love having him in there pounding on people.

Plus, it's only his third game as a starter. He's got a chance to get much better as he learns the position. He can also be depended on to BLOCK when he's in there.

You watch, Shanahan is going to stick with this kid.

cutthemdown
11-30-2008, 07:02 PM
Hillis = VanEeghen.

I think Mark VanEeghen was a little faster, but wow you are going back back in time with that one.

By the way here is Van Eeghens daughter, a patriot cheerleader

yerner
11-30-2008, 07:07 PM
Reuben Droughns disagrees.

lazarus4444
11-30-2008, 07:12 PM
Running hillis setup that play action TD to stokely beautifully. I want to see more of that.

Play2win
11-30-2008, 07:15 PM
Pay "Ton and a Half" Hillis... ;D

DenVa BroncHoos
11-30-2008, 07:23 PM
damn I wanted that 2nd td for him that was called back for the hold. (ok fantasy pts, sorry :)) he still rocked with a monster game and the only way the jets could get him out was punch him in the doo-dads. Way to go HILLIS!

Dr. Broncenstein
11-30-2008, 07:27 PM
First of all, the game has changed since the days of the dominant Bronco stretch/zone running attack. The rules are completely biased towards a high-scoring pass-based offenses. Doesn't matter how well you run the ball, the league wants high scoring shootouts and the rules reflect that. It's obvious that Shanny has decided to embrace this philosophy... and thankfully we have an elite quarterback that (when playing well) can deliver in this setting.

Peyton Hillis is a perfect running back in this scenario. Hand the ball off to him against a nickel or dime defense, and he is his own lead blocker. His pass protection abilities are better that anyone except Pittman, who is probably finished. He is the best reciever out of the backfield, and arguably has the best hands on the team. Hillis is neither a dominant lead-blocker or I formation tailback. He is an excellent hybrid and perfect match in the 3 and 4-wide offense. I suspect he becomes the feature back, and we look to augment him with a reliable change-of-pacer... possibly Aldrige.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 07:34 PM
Hey, I totally believe in Hillis AND the rest of the youth movement; Barret, Larsen (especially Larsen, different D with him at mike), Woodyard (YES), Moss is even coming on. We have some hungry, hunter-killer types that want to play. Hell, even Manuel took a hard shot at a receiver today, inspired no doubt, by the young guys.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 07:34 PM
I'll be suprised if we don't draft a runningback in the first round and use Hillis as a super competent lead blocker/third down option.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 07:37 PM
First of all, the game has changed since the days of the dominant Bronco stretch/zone running attack. The rules are completely biased towards a high-scoring pass-based offenses. Doesn't matter how well you run the ball, the league wants high scoring shootouts and the rules reflect that. It's obvious that Shanny has decided to embrace this philosophy... and thankfully we have an elite quarterback that (when playing well) can deliver in this setting.

Peyton Hillis is a perfect running back in this scenario. Hand the ball off to him against a nickel or dime defense, and he is his own lead blocker. His pass protection abilities are better that anyone except Pittman, who is probably finished. He is the best reciever out of the backfield, and arguably has the best hands on the team. Hillis is neither a dominant lead-blocker or I formation tailback. He is an excellent hybrid and perfect match in the 3 and 4-wide offense. I suspect he becomes the feature back, and we look to augment him with a reliable change-of-pacer... possibly Aldrige.
The old nail on the head.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 07:43 PM
I'm getting tired of beating this point into the turf. We have a LOT of young talent on this roster, geeze, even the D-line is coming on. We only need about 3 newcomers on defense and 1 more receiver (like Jackson was today) and this will be a very tough outfit.

Cito Pelon
11-30-2008, 07:43 PM
I think Mark VanEeghen was a little faster, but wow you are going back back in time with that one.

By the way here is Van Eeghens daughter, a patriot cheerleader

Good to see someone that recognized that. Hillis is a chain mover like VanEeghen was. If Hillis can have a career like VanEeghen, he'll have done well for himself.

enjolras
11-30-2008, 07:48 PM
I think he's a good tailback, but a possible pro-bowler at FB. I absolutely love the way he plays football tho. It's amazing how much tougher this offense is than it was last year.

socalorado
11-30-2008, 07:48 PM
Hillis is a good FB. Limited vision, and really not alot of speed as a RB.
I would like to see him untilzed more as a HB/FB "X"factor guy. Much like TE Chris Cooley is used in WASH. Hillis has great hands, and could create mismatches.
DEN needs to draft a fulltime RB early in next years draft. Or go get a Ahmad Bradshaw type of RB, and get CJ Spiller in the draft to mix it up.

BigPlayShay
11-30-2008, 07:57 PM
Not the antiperspirant, but Peyton Hillis. He brings balance to this offense. Is he a burner, no. Does he make yards after contact and punish defenders, absolutely. He also seemed to be the player most cognizant of ball security today keeping both hands on the rock. He gets nothing but positive yardage. He can carry the ball 20+ times if needed.

He should be the #1 the rest of this season, and next season should be in an Alstott type role. There is no reason that he shouldn't continue to get carries and a fair amount of them as his season goes.

elsid13
11-30-2008, 08:00 PM
First of all, the game has changed since the days of the dominant Bronco stretch/zone running attack. The rules are completely biased towards a high-scoring pass-based offenses. Doesn't matter how well you run the ball, the league wants high scoring shootouts and the rules reflect that. It's obvious that Shanny has decided to embrace this philosophy... and thankfully we have an elite quarterback that (when playing well) can deliver in this setting.

Peyton Hillis is a perfect running back in this scenario. Hand the ball off to him against a nickel or dime defense, and he is his own lead blocker. His pass protection abilities are better that anyone except Pittman, who is probably finished. He is the best reciever out of the backfield, and arguably has the best hands on the team. Hillis is neither a dominant lead-blocker or I formation tailback. He is an excellent hybrid and perfect match in the 3 and 4-wide offense. I suspect he becomes the feature back, and we look to augment him with a reliable change-of-pacer... possibly Aldrige.

That why Tenn, Pitt and NYG have been successful throwing the ball and playing in alot of shootouts. I like Hillis and he had good game, but if Young come back I think that board better be prepared to see Hillis back in his FB role.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 08:02 PM
Hillis is a good FB. Limited vision, and really not alot of speed as a RB.
I would like to see him untilzed more as a HB/FB "X"factor guy. Much like TE Chris Cooley is used in WASH. Hillis has great hands, and could create mismatches.
DEN needs to draft a fulltime RB early in next years draft. Or go get a Ahmad Bradshaw type of RB, and get CJ Spiller in the draft to mix it up.

You may be right socal, I don't care, I want a 'Kickass" guy. Was TD the fastest, best vision, best able to cut guy? No. TD was a move the chains, demoralize the opponent by getting 18 when there really were only about 3 there, make that great block for Elway and lead by action guy. I think Hillis might be the same with a little less outright speed and quickness. Cripes, I,m making Hillis sound slow, NOT.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:04 PM
I'll be suprised if we don't draft a runningback in the first round and use Hillis as a super competent lead blocker/third down option.

Well, you said we couldn't run the ball last week... so I'm not sure why we'd be listening to your predictions, at this point. You talked down Hillis as some kind of sore thumb to the offense in efforts to explain away Cutler's bad game.

Meanwhile, Hillis comes out and (again) has a huge YPC average, and helps Cutler and the offense rack up a huge day.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:06 PM
Hillis is a good FB. Limited vision, and really not alot of speed as a RB.
I would like to see him untilzed more as a HB/FB "X"factor guy. Much like TE Chris Cooley is used in WASH. Hillis has great hands, and could create mismatches.
DEN needs to draft a fulltime RB early in next years draft. Or go get a Ahmad Bradshaw type of RB, and get CJ Spiller in the draft to mix it up.

Again, the need to get cute with Hillis is just a product of a message board's active imagination.

We lined Hillis right up against a top run D today and smashed him right down their throat. Shanahan gave him ALL of the carries today. We don't need to line him up as a tight end or have him throw passes. We can hand him the ball... block, and he runs over people.

Obviously, Shanahan didn't think we needed to get cute with him. The dude can play. The dude can move the chains... and that will keep him in good graces with Mike Shanahan.

Dr. Broncenstein
11-30-2008, 08:06 PM
That why Tenn, Pitt and NYG have been successful throwing the ball and playing in alot of shootouts. I like Hillis and he had good game, but if Young come back I think that board better be prepared to see Hillis back in his FB role.

Tenn, Pitt, and NYG can pressure the quarterback with their front 4 (or 3+1). That is the only answer to teams with elite passing attacks. A dominant running game in the mold of the 96-98 Broncos is nice but obsolete.

SoCalBronco
11-30-2008, 08:11 PM
I'll be suprised if we don't draft a runningback in the first round and use Hillis as a super competent lead blocker/third down option.

I agree. That's the sole thing that is preventing our offense from being the undisputed No. 1 offense in the NFL: a true stud buffalo talent. If Moreno somehow fell to Denver, it would be a no brainer despite our defensive needs.

There are talented bruisers that will be there in the 2nd too like Davis or Greene, but we gotta address this and address it early. If one of the super studs falls, address it at 1. Otherwise, it has to be addressed at 2. This is the last missing piece (well, besides another interior OL to compete with Lichtensteiger for the C position, as Weigmann is also aging).

Hillis provides power and actually has some decent vision, too. He can cutback. He can find creases, but he's still best as a pass catching FB that can be a reliable jackhammer as a ballcarrier in short yardage and in "4 minute offense" situations. Just give me a stud back and I'll show you an offense that can average 28 points a game.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:12 PM
Tenn, Pitt, and NYG can pressure the quarterback with their front 4 (or 3+1). That is the only answer to teams with elite passing attacks. A dominant running game in the mold of the 96-98 Broncos is nice but obsolete.

Great point, man. Was just pondering that today. The only "running teams" in the league right now are definitely tandem-situations. Absolutely no powerhouse, dominant run-games.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:13 PM
I agree. That's the sole thing that is preventing our offense from being the undisputed No. 1 offense in the NFL: a true stud buffalo talent. If Moreno somehow fell to Denver, it would be a no brainer despite our defensive needs.

There are talented bruisers that will be there in the 2nd too like Davis or Greene, but we gotta address this and address it early. If one of the super studs falls, address it at 1. Otherwise, it has to be addressed at 2. This is the last missing piece.

Hillis provides power and actually has some decent vision, too. He can cutback. He can find creases, but he's still best as a pass catching FB that can be a reliable jackhammer as a ballcarrier in short yardage and in "4 minute offense" situations. Just give me a stud back and I'll show you an offense that can average 28 points a game.

Again, the dude has a huge YPC average, and excels on first down carries.

I think we'll bring in other backs, because we always do... but Hillis' success will make it LESS likely that we draft one early, not more likely, as some have incorrectly assessed.

BigPlayShay
11-30-2008, 08:15 PM
I'm serious, any of you Denver fish wrap writers that lurk on the board feel free to steal my headline: PH Balanced.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 08:15 PM
Sounds like a good a good guy to have in the 1 back set popps. Heck he won't even cost much, for a whike anyway.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:17 PM
He averaged 5.8 yards a carry today, with 1 TD and should have had 2.

Again, he's not TD... but you guys are underselling him as some sort of 1 yard and a cloud of dust runner.

Like I said, he got ALL the carries today. Shanahan clearly doesn't see him as a novelty back.

rastaman
11-30-2008, 08:21 PM
its been a long, long time ive seen a bronco RB run like he does. hits whoever is in his way, and usually wins. its awesome to watch and i love to see him get the ball to see how many people he is gonna carry for 3-4 yards. scratch that off our day 1 picks next year!

Its great to see Hillis giving the Broncos and Cutler the running attack the team so badly needs at this time in the season, however, next year I want to see running back by committee (like the NYG) so Hillis doesn't get worn down/out before his time and more susceptible to injuries; perhaps even career ending injuries.

A Hillis-Torain tandem would be excellent duo next season.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 08:22 PM
I agree. That's the sole thing that is preventing our offense from being the undisputed No. 1 offense in the NFL: a true stud buffalo talent. If Moreno somehow fell to Denver, it would be a no brainer despite our defensive needs.

There are talented bruisers that will be there in the 2nd too like Davis or Greene, but we gotta address this and address it early. If one of the super studs falls, address it at 1. Otherwise, it has to be addressed at 2. This is the last missing piece (well, besides another interior OL to compete with Lichtensteiger for the C position, as Weigmann is also aging).

Hillis provides power and actually has some decent vision, too. He can cutback. He can find creases, but he's still best as a pass catching FB that can be a reliable jackhammer as a ballcarrier in short yardage and in "4 minute offense" situations. Just give me a stud back and I'll show you an offense that can average 28 points a game.


What the hell is wrong with a guy that gets positive yards every play (even when the play breaks down Hillis is losing only 1 when he should have lost 3). Come on, we need safeties and other D talent. The O looks pretty good, I wouldn't turn down a stud RB though.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:25 PM
Its great to see Hillis giving the Broncos and Cutler the running attack the team so badly needs at this time in the season, however, next year I want to see running back by committee (like the NYG) so Hillis doesn't get worn down/out before his time and more susceptible to injuries; perhaps even career ending injuries.

A Hillis-Torain tandem would be excellent duo next season.

I think we'll see a tandem from here out. It's just sort of the NFL-way, now days.

We'll take a stab at RB somewhere in the draft, but if Shanahan continues to have success with Hillis and co., he'll be less inclined to spend an early pick.

azbroncfan
11-30-2008, 08:27 PM
I like Hillis as the 3rd down back with his hands and pass protection and short yardage runner. RB is still a priority in my opinion this next draft.

SoCalBronco
11-30-2008, 08:28 PM
What the hell is wrong with a guy that gets positive yards every play (even when the play breaks down Hillis is losing only 1 when he should have lost 3). Come on, we need safeties and other D talent. The O looks pretty good, I wouldn't turn down a stud RB though.

Nothing's wrong with Peyton. He's multidimensional, tough and is a flat out football player. But I want a stud buffalo at RB. I want my 28 ppg offense. Hillis can play the position and do it in a workmanlike fashion. He can grind out of the tough yards, but I'd prefer James Davis or maybe Shonn Greene in the 2nd round (unless Wells or Moreno fall in Rd 1) with Hillis getting 5-8 carries a game and 5-6 passes a game.

We'll be able to address our defensive needs, although we do need a few more picks.

lex
11-30-2008, 08:30 PM
He averaged 5.8 yards a carry today, with 1 TD and should have had 2.

Again, he's not TD... but you guys are underselling him as some sort of 1 yard and a cloud of dust runner.

Like I said, he got ALL the carries today. Shanahan clearly doesn't see him as a novelty back.


He had three 19 yard runs...THREE!

snowspot66
11-30-2008, 08:30 PM
I don't see first round pick unless we get a shot at the best RB in the draft whoever the coaches feel that is. But I will be surprised if one isn't taken in the second and shocked if one isn't taken by the third.

lex
11-30-2008, 08:32 PM
Nothing's wrong with Peyton. He's multidimensional, tough and is a flat out football player. But I want a stud buffalo at RB. I want my 28 ppg offense. Hillis can play the position and do it in a workmanlike fashion. He can grind out of the tough yards, but I'd prefer James Davis or maybe Shonn Greene in the 2nd round (unless Wells or Moreno fall in Rd 1) with Hillis getting 5-8 carries a game and 5-6 passes a game.

We'll be able to address our defensive needs, although we do need a few more picks.

Greene is too similar to Hillis and actually, Hillis is the better WR. Getting Greene is like getting what we already have...plus we still have Torain, who everyone hoped would be what Hillis has been.

We need another fullback and someone like Murray or Spiller.

footstepsfrom#27
11-30-2008, 08:32 PM
Let calm down. Hillis had nice game but he doesn't have enough speed to to cut back or run the stretch plays that is 90% of the Denver run offense.
Agreed. So far he's caught teams unprepared but once defenses game plan for him it's going to be much tougher. I love the guy's heart and grit but he is probably not the long term answer. I don't know if this draft has one or not but the guy I want getting 25 carries a game should be a guy more suited to that role. Keep Hillis in there as the starting FB and give him 12 carries and 4-5 passes a game. We'd have a balanced running attack plus all the weapons through the air.

SoCalBronco
11-30-2008, 08:33 PM
Greene is too similar to Hillis and actually, Hillis is the better WR. Getting Greene is like getting what we already have...plus we still have Torain, who everyone hoped would be what Hillis has been.

We need another fullback and someone like Murray or Spiller.

Spiller is just a rich man's Tatum. I don't want that. I'd rather have his teammate, even though Spiller has more explosiveness for sure.

lex
11-30-2008, 08:34 PM
Agreed. So far he's caught teams unprepared but once defenses game plan for him it's going to be much tougher. I love the guy's heart and grit but he is probably not the long term answer. I don't know if this draft has one or not but the guy I want getting 25 carries a game should be a guy more suited to that role. Keep Hillis in there as the starting FB and give him 12 carries and 4-5 passes a game. We'd have a balanced running attack plus all the weapons through the air.

Time out! How is that different from any other RB? If teams start gameplanning, then it will open up other opportunities in the passing game.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:34 PM
I don't see first round pick unless we get a shot at the best RB in the draft whoever the coaches feel that is. But I will be surprised if one isn't taken in the second and shocked if one isn't taken by the third.

The last time we took a RB in the 2nd was Tatum Bell. Shanahan has never take one in the first.

He took a team to the Superbow's doorstep with Mike Anderson running the ball and now seems to have found success with Hillis. I wouldn't hold my breath for Shanahan to spend a top pick on a back.

It could happen, but history and circumstantial evidence isn't pointing to it.

lex
11-30-2008, 08:37 PM
Spiller is just a rich man's Tatum. I don't want that. I'd rather have his teammate, even though Spiller has more explosiveness for sure.

Hillis can be what youre wanting out of Davis though. Spiller could be our version of Joe Washington to compliment John Riggins. And Spiller gives us more ways of hurting teams in a variety of ways than, say, Murray but I wouldnt be averse to drafting someone explosive like Murray, who isnt the all around thread Spiller is but is someone who brings a higher level of assurance that he could be an inside runner.

elsid13
11-30-2008, 08:38 PM
Tenn, Pitt, and NYG can pressure the quarterback with their front 4 (or 3+1). That is the only answer to teams with elite passing attacks. A dominant running game in the mold of the 96-98 Broncos is nice but obsolete.

Yes, those team can pressure the passer, but the all those team pound the ball down your throat first and work thier offense off effectively running the ball. And you can both Atlanta and Baltimore that are also using that approach to be successfully this year. The only team that actually running the spread and being success if Arizona.

I not taking anything away from Hillis today, but he isn't the feature back for this team.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 08:42 PM
He averaged 5.8 yards a carry today, with 1 TD and should have had 2.

Again, he's not TD... but you guys are underselling him as some sort of 1 yard and a cloud of dust runner.
Agree 100%. And Hillis has proven his ypc pretty regular the past three weeks.

Plus .... anybody talking about drafting for offense in the 1st round - or even on Day 1 - has not been watching this team closely. We should go ALL defense in the next draft. I mean 6, 7, 8 picks on defense. We are lo-ho-hoaded on offense. Young and deep.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:43 PM
"The thing that really got me going was the ESPN analysis and they were all saying we shouldn't get off the plane," Hillis said. "That really got me fired up."

LOL

I love it.

lex
11-30-2008, 08:44 PM
Agree 100%.

And anybody talking about drafting offense in the 1st round - even on Day 1 - has not been watching closely.

Bleh. It depends on what has value at where we pick in Rd 1.

elsid13
11-30-2008, 08:44 PM
Time out! How is that different from any other RB? If teams start gameplanning, then it will open up other opportunities in the passing game.

When the other DC know that he can not run the stretch or outside then all the PA that Denver depend on goes away. Every other back we had since Shanahan has been here has had that ability to run the play and it is the foundation of the offense. So may different passing attacks are based upon the defense over committing to one side of the field to stop that play.

Popps
11-30-2008, 08:45 PM
Rookie Peyton Hillis rushed for a career-high 129 yards and a score, becoming the first to gain 100 or more yards against New York's third-ranked run defense.

lex
11-30-2008, 08:48 PM
When the other DC know that he can not run the stretch or outside then all the PA that Denver depend on goes away. Every other back we had since Shanahan has been here has had that ability to run the play and it is the foundation of the offense. So may different passing attacks are based upon the defense over committing to one side of the field to stop that play.


I realize that the stretch play has been a big part of our offense. But regardless, anytime you talk about loading up to stop something, that leaves something else open. Jays arm should keep the field open in theory.

BTW, its hard to even make the case that we're a team that is run first anymore when you look at different personnel acquisitions.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 08:50 PM
Bleh. It depends on what has value at where we pick in Rd 1.
DISAGREE. We should draft ALL defense. Then more defense, and more defense. 1 or 2 offensive players tops out of 7 picks.

I cannot believe anybody can argue with this. We are SICK LOADED on offense, especially if Lichtensteiger and Chad Jackson can play. Loaded with youth. L O A D E D.

And yet ... we're playing six street free agents on defense today. Anybody not seeing all this ???

lex
11-30-2008, 08:51 PM
Disagree. We should draft defense. Then defense. Then defense. Maybe 1 or 2 offensive players out of 7 picks.

I cannot believe anybody can argue with this. We are SICK LOADED on offense, especially if Lichtensteiger and Chad Jackson can play. Loaded with youth. L O A D E D.

And yet ... we're playing six street free agents on defense today. Anybody not seeing all this ???

Why would you do that when you dont even know to what degree we need to draft defense, given that Slowik is so bad. If you have a DC who is as awful as Slowik does...someone who is always going to get less out of the defense than what is the sum of its parts, then how does it make sense to throw draft picks at the problem? It makes no sense. Until we get a competent DC, using draft picks as you say is excessive.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 08:53 PM
Running backs are a dime a dozen. Stud safeties are rare. Stud DT's-rare. Stud backers-rare.

lostknight
11-30-2008, 08:53 PM
Hillis is here to stay. It's as simple as that. The dude can catch, can block and can run. Not only that, he is damn near impossible to bring down with a upper body tackle making it much easier to get out to the safeties.

We do need a second running back - the days of a workhorse back are dead and gone - but Hillis is money.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 08:53 PM
BTW, its hard to even make the case that we're a team that is run first anymore when you look at different personnel acquisitions.
Exactly. Another good reason why the search for the Holy Grail - for a "New Terrel Davis" - is an illusion, a fools' errand. 2009 should see Torain/Hillis/Pittman compete for workhorse, Hall/Young/Bell for 3rd down specialist.

lostknight
11-30-2008, 08:55 PM
Exactly. Another good reason why the search for the Holy Grail - for a "New Terrel Davis" - is an illusion, a fools' errand. 2009 should see Torain/Hillis/Pittman compete for workhorse, Hall/Youn/Bell for 3rd down specialist.

I view Hillis as the first and third down back. Someone like Bell or Torian should be in there for a second down threat, with Hillis in there to make more tricky plays possible.

broncosteven
11-30-2008, 08:58 PM
At some point team are going to figure out that he can only run the dives and stack the defence according. Plus without the stretch that removes the PA and rollout which are the basis of the Denver passing game.

Hillis had great game, but let not get carried away.

I concur.

Love his motor and effort but he runs like a FB, check out his stride it is not fluid, looks like he is shuffling his feet.

I like how he lays out the wood though and punishes tacklers. I would like to see him more involved catching passes in the flat or screens.

He had a great game and deserved every yard.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 09:00 PM
Why would you do that when you dont even know to what degree we need to draft defense, given that Slowik is so bad. If you have a DC who is as awful as Slowik does...someone who is always going to get less out of the defense than what is the sum of its parts, then how does it make sense to throw draft picks at the problem? It makes no sense. Until we get a competent DC, using draft picks as you say is excessive.

I feel like Slowik's D has played very well the last several games. Good night, what did you want versus Atlanta? How about today? The faiders were lucky, our D played them extremely well until we threw in the towel. I really like what he's done with these newbies/young kids. You can't deny that it was fun to watch our D stuff the Jets time after time.

Drek
11-30-2008, 09:02 PM
That why Tenn, Pitt and NYG have been successful throwing the ball and playing in alot of shootouts. I like Hillis and he had good game, but if Young come back I think that board better be prepared to see Hillis back in his FB role.

Funny that you mentioned Tennessee and NYG.

I was a huge Brandon Jacobs fan and was quite pissed when we drafted Clarrett instead of him a few years ago. He is not faster or more agile than Peyton Hillis and he's the Jets primary back.

Lendale White gets a good amount of touches in Tennessee, again not faster than Hillis and you could make an argument that Hillis has more wiggle.

So the two teams with only one loss right now both feature a big, straight line speed bulldozer in their running stable.

Also, we're playing a 250 pound Peyton Hillis who was focused on FB responsibilities through camp. A 240 pound Hillis who spends the off-season focusing on improving his agility and lateral movement would be a ball carrier I'd be very interested in seeing in our backfield.

Should Hillis be the only back? Some traditional 25-30 carries a game guy? No, but no one should, even a first round pick. We need to build a stable at RB, the more playmakers the better. Hillis is a playmaker. Team him up with whoever can stay healthy out of Torain, Young, Hall, and Aldrige, throw in another mid round back, and let Jay find how he wants to use his weapons.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 09:04 PM
Exactly. Another good reason why the search for the Holy Grail - for a "New Terrel Davis" - is an illusion, a fools' errand. 2009 should see Torain/Hillis/Pittman compete for workhorse, Hall/Young/Bell for 3rd down specialist.

We have not been a run first team since Cutler got hold of the throttle.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 09:04 PM
Running backs are a dime a dozen. Stud safeties are rare. Stud DT's-rare. Stud backers-rare.
I'm satisfied with our LBs actually ... but safeties and DTs are a major problem. Remember, Dewayne Roertson has a very limited future because of bone on bone.

We need 2 DTs and 2 Safeties. Maybe ... maybe Carlton Powell is one. But for the other three we got nothing. So let's say we sign one free agent, that leaves two empty spots that require 4 draft picks to address. Immediately. And I didn't even mention DE ... Moss is iffy, Engleberger is average and Dumevil is becoming marginalized more and more every week.

But on offense, we're deep as a an ocean, especially if Lichtensteiger and Chad Jackson pan out.

BTW - looks to me on that one play that Chad has sick sick speed. Fasetst guy on the team maybe.

Kaylore
11-30-2008, 09:04 PM
I think Hillis would be best as a fullback that we allow to run and catch the ball. I would love a complete half back in this system. Hopefully next year when everyone's healthy and few new faces we can find someone.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 09:05 PM
We have not been a run first team since Cutler got hold of the throttle.
Right ... that's my point. I am saying NO to drafting a RB in the first round.

SoCalBronco
11-30-2008, 09:05 PM
Exactly. Another good reason why the search for the Holy Grail - for a "New Terrel Davis" - is an illusion, a fools' errand. 2009 should see Torain/Hillis/Pittman compete for workhorse, Hall/Young/Bell for 3rd down specialist.

I like Torain, but he's about as reliable as Boss Bailey.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 09:07 PM
I like Torain, but he's about as reliable as Boss Bailey.
Yeah, but it's too early to give up yet.

Maybe we could draft a RB, but not on Day 1. My opinion.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 09:08 PM
Funny that you mentioned Tennessee and NYG.

I was a huge Brandon Jacobs fan and was quite pissed when we drafted Clarrett instead of him a few years ago. He is not faster or more agile than Peyton Hillis and he's the Jets primary back.

Lendale White gets a good amount of touches in Tennessee, again not faster than Hillis and you could make an argument that Hillis has more wiggle.

So the two teams with only one loss right now both feature a big, straight line speed bulldozer in their running stable.

Also, we're playing a 250 pound Peyton Hillis who was focused on FB responsibilities through camp. A 240 pound Hillis who spends the off-season focusing on improving his agility and lateral movement would be a ball carrier I'd be very interested in seeing in our backfield.

Should Hillis be the only back? Some traditional 25-30 carries a game guy? No, but no one should, even a first round pick. We need to build a stable at RB, the more playmakers the better. Hillis is a playmaker. Team him up with whoever can stay healthy out of Torain, Young, Hall, and Aldrige, throw in another mid round back, and let Jay find how he wants to use his weapons.

Great post drek. We have the O in place (I'm not saying it can't be added to), what the Broncos need are safeties, corners, backers, and D-Linemen.

broncosteven
11-30-2008, 09:12 PM
I'm satisfied with our LBs actually ... but safeties and DTs are a major problem. Remember, Dewayne Roertson has a very limited future because of bone on bone.

We need 2 DTs and 2 Safeties. Maybe ... maybe Carlton Powell is one. But for the other three we got nothing. So let's say we sign one free agent, that leaves two empty spots that require 4 draft picks to address. Immediately. And I didn't even mention DE ... Moss is iffy, Engleberger is average and Dumevil is becoming marginalized more and more every week.

But on offense, we're deep as a an ocean, especially if Lichtensteiger and Chad Jackson pan out.

BTW - looks to me on that one play that Chad has sick sick speed. Fasetst guy on the team maybe.


I thought M Thomas and Robertson did well in the middle. We need Safetys 1st and then maybe DE.

I still think Royal is the fastest and quickest guy on the team.

lex
11-30-2008, 09:12 PM
Right ... that's my point. I am saying NO to drafting a RB in the first round.

No but youre advocating trying to fix the defense in a way that doesnt necessarily address whats wrong with the defense, meanwhile, turning our back on opportunities to make the offense better.

If Spikes (assuming we are even looking for a Mike)and Moore/Mays are gone, then instead of reaching on defense, it makes sense to improve the running game or add dimension to the offense. Someone like Alex Mack makse sense in such cases. Its better than reaching.

lex
11-30-2008, 09:13 PM
I thought M Thomas and Robertson did well in the middle. We need Safetys 1st and then maybe DE.

I still think Royal is the fastest and quickest guy on the team.

If Moore or Mays are gone by the time we pick, who is worth taking as a safety that isnt a massive reach?

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:14 PM
DISAGREE. We should draft ALL defense. Then more defense, and more defense. 1 or 2 offensive players tops out of 7 picks.

I cannot believe anybody can argue with this. We are SICK LOADED on offense, especially if Lichtensteiger and Chad Jackson can play. Loaded with youth. L O A D E D.

And yet ... we're playing six street free agents on defense today. Anybody not seeing all this ???

Well, if the DEN FO can somehow aquire another 2nd rounder, i as well as many here would hope that they would go after a RB with oneof those 2nd's.
But yes, Defense should make up the bulk of the draft.
DEN does have 2 5ths and 2 7ths, so it isnt crazy if the FO took 2 offensive players at some point, and the rest were defense. I think if the foxworth deal plays out, then DEN would get a 6th too!
AND! take into consideration the compensatory picks this year!
I think DEN will have a pick(s) pretty high considering they lost 2 players to deaths recently if i am not mistaken. Please correct me if i am wrong. ( i am not trying to dis-respect the players, just saying....)

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:18 PM
No but youre advocating trying to fix the defense in a way that doesnt necessarily address whats wrong with the defense, meanwhile, turning our back on opportunities to make the offense better.

If Spikes (assuming we are even looking for a Mike)and Moore/Mays are gone, then instead of reaching on defense, it makes sense to improve the running game or add dimension to the offense. Someone like Alex Mack makse sense in such cases. Its better than reaching.

Well if Spikes is gone, then more than likely Laurintius or Maualuga could still be there. Or Curry. Only so many LBS can go by the 21st pick ,man.
DEN could also trade back into the 2nd and aquire some really solid players.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 09:19 PM
But yes, Defense should make up the bulk of the draft.

DEN does have 2 5ths and 2 7ths, so it isnt crazy if the FO took 2 offensive players at some point, and the rest were defense. I think if the foxworth deal plays out, then DEN would get a 6th too!
Wow, we have another butt-load of picks ... I had forgotten that. If we draft trade a package to move up, we can land an impact defensive player or two.

We have sick cap room next year, too ...


I think DEN will have a pick(s) pretty high considering they lost 2 players to deaths recently if i am not mistaken. Please correct me if i am wrong. ( i am not trying to dis-respect the players, just saying....)
No comp picks for those guys. Good idea, though.

lex
11-30-2008, 09:19 PM
I feel like Slowik's D has played very well the last several games. Good night, what did you want versus Atlanta? How about today? The faiders were lucky, our D played them extremely well until we threw in the towel. I really like what he's done with these newbies/young kids. You can't deny that it was fun to watch our D stuff the Jets time after time.


One of the reasons it has done better is because of the younger guys. And speaking of which, what does that say about Slowik that he would totally ignore Woodyard and Larsen for so long when the starters were struggling?

Slowik cant scheme pressure and part of it is because of his insistence on giving enormous cushions. We actually lucked out today. On a 3 and 4, Slowik had Bell playing off 8 yards but Farve threw it short of the wide open WR out to his left. And then the Jets had some drops. And we still gave up a lot of yardage on the ground. And Slowik really had no answer for their screen passes even knowing that the Jets relied on it a lot. And the 10 yard cushions totally sets Bly up for failure. Bly isnt a great man on man guy but he is a lot better at that than he is at a pseudo zone (because he plays so deep).

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:21 PM
Wow, we have another butt-load of picks ... I had forgotten that. If we draft trade a package to move up, we can land an impact defensive player or two.

We have sick cap room next year, too ...



No comp picks for those guys. Good idea, though.

I think DEN does have a compensatory pick this year though. Just remember everyone saying we get one this year, in last years draft. Who knows.

summerdenver
11-30-2008, 09:21 PM
IMHO the best help for defense would be a stud RB. For all the yardage racked up by denver, they are ranked 21st in 5 min+ drives.

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:24 PM
One of the reasons it has done better is because of the younger guys. And speaking of which, what does that say about Slowik that he would totally ignore Woodyard and Larsen for so long when the starters were struggling?

Slowik cant scheme pressure and part of it is because of his insistence on giving enormous cushions. We actually lucked out today. On a 3 and 4, Slowik had Bell playing off 8 yards but Farve threw it short of the wide open WR out to his left. And then the Jets had some drops. And we still gave up a lot of yardage on the ground. And Slowik really had no answer for their screen passes even knowing that the Jets relied on it a lot. And the 10 yard cushions totally sets Bly up for failure. Bly isnt a great man on man guy but he is a lot better at that than he is at a pseudo zone (because he plays so deep).

8 yards?!?!? JEEZ! it looked like 10 yards!!
it was a 3rd and 3!!! Un-f'n-believable!
Made me stand up and literally walk up to the screen on the wall, and actually point it out for all to see!
I couldnt believe Favre didnt see it.

BroncoBuff
11-30-2008, 09:24 PM
No but youre advocating trying to fix the defense in a way that doesnt necessarily address whats wrong with the defense, meanwhile, turning our back on opportunities to make the offense better.

If Spikes (assuming we are even looking for a Mike)and Moore/Mays are gone, then instead of reaching on defense, it makes sense to improve the running game or add dimension to the offense. Someone like Alex Mack makse sense in such cases. Its better than reaching.
You're reading too much into my points ... I never advocated reaching for a guy, no way. But defense is definitely our problem, no two ways about that. And we're deep-loaded with youth all over on offense, no two ways about that either. I'm basically just disagreeing with the Holy-Grail like queest for a new Terrell Davis. It's not happening.

Rey Maualuga would be freaking amazing ... but let's watch Spencer at Mike for a few more games first. He could actually be the guy, especially if our Mike goes off on passing downs. And with DJ and Boss/Woodyard at OLBs, I think Mike going off the field is the right move.

lex
11-30-2008, 09:25 PM
Well if Spikes is gone, then more than likely Laurintius or Maualuga could still be there. Or Curry. Only so many LBS can go by the 21st pick ,man.
DEN could also trade back into the 2nd and aquire some really solid players.

... the point being that depending on how the draft unfolds, its conceivable that drafting OLB, MLB, or S in Rd 1 doesnt make sense due to it requiring us to reach.

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:27 PM
You're reading too much into my points ... I never advocated reaching for a guy, no way. But defense is definitely our problem, no two ways about that. And we're deep-loaded with youth all over on offense, no two ways about that either. I'm basically just disagreeing with the Holy-Grail like queest for a new Terrell Davis. It's not happening.

Rey Maualuga would be freaking amazing ... but let's watch Spencer at Mike for a few more games first. He could actually be the guy, especially if our Mike goes off on passing downs. And with DJ and Boss/Woodyard at OLBs, I think Mike going off the field is the right move.

Who knows, those picks could be used to move up and grab a Moore or a Mays or a Maualuga. Also, theres PLENTY of solid Safety players in the 2nd round. P.Chung, R.Johnson, C.Chancellor. Shoot, Lets not only watcg Larsen, but lets continue to hope that Barrett starts to come into his own! SS really is his job to lose!

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:29 PM
... the point being that depending on how the draft unfolds, its conceivable that drafting OLB, MLB, or S in Rd 1 doesnt make sense due to it requiring us to reach.

Ihear what your saying, but i think it will be hard to concieve all those solid players being gone by #21. Thats alot od defensive talent gone in 20 picks.
Last i checked there were some solid offensive players and a couple teams in need there as well. Were just saying, theres a good chance that a Moore or a Mays will be there.

lex
11-30-2008, 09:34 PM
You're reading too much into my points ... I never advocated reaching for a guy, no way.
No, thats what youre saying in being so adamant about defense. Its possible that drafting a position that makes sense on defense requires a reach.
But defense is definitely our problem, no two ways about that.
Again, until we get a competent DC, you dont know that.

And we're deep-loaded with youth all over on offense, no two ways about that either. I'm basically just disagreeing with the Holy-Grail like queest for a new Terrell Davis. It's not happening.
Much of our acquisitions have been geared toward enhancing the passing game. We take a WR in the 2nd. We take the best pass blocking OT in Clady. We sign several WRs in FA. Its obvious we were trying to load up on the passing game. And Im not complaining about Royal and especially not Clady except to say that had we loaded up on the running game, that could have smoothed out some of the inconsistencies that plagued our offense with Cutler being so streaky. The running game is where the acumen of our coach is. The running game is how we won SBs in the past. We havent really had balance. Yeah, we have talent on offense, but its more slanted toward the passing game and to pretend that running the ball isnt important is foolhardy.




Rey Maualuga would be freaking amazing ... but let's watch Spencer at Mike for a few more games first. He could actually be the guy, especially if our Mike goes off on passing downs. And with DJ and Boss/Woodyard at OLBs, I think Mike going off the field is the right move.

Again, its hard to know how much they will like Larsen going into next year. If they draft a Mike, there are only a couple worth taking that high but if both are gone, its not worth reaching.

lex
11-30-2008, 09:37 PM
Ihear what your saying, but i think it will be hard to concieve all those solid players being gone by #21. Thats alot od defensive talent gone in 20 picks.
Last i checked there were some solid offensive players and a couple teams in need there as well. Were just saying, theres a good chance that a Moore or a Mays will be there.

Spikes, Moore, Mays, Maualuga, and Curry. Those are the 5 guys worth taking in Rd 1. Its conceivable that all will be gone.

socalorado
11-30-2008, 09:46 PM
Spikes, Moore, Mays, Maualuga, and Curry. Those are the 5 guys worth taking in Rd 1. Its conceivable that all will be gone.

Laurintius would be picked and apparently you would go ballistic!! LO!L!!!

And those players are not on all of the teams top priority of needs in RD1.
Theres
Cushing OLB
Orakpo DE
MJohnsom DE
Selvie DE
Jenkins CB
Davis CB
Mickens CB
Marks DT
Cody ( if he declares) DT
Rolle FS/SS ( yes, even Rolle could go in the 1st)
Theres 11 guys right there. Not to mention all the offensive players that will be taken. Oh imagine if beanie Wells just "free fell" right into the #21 spot. never know, man.
Ive seen a couple mocks that have Moore or Mays selected by DEN at #24!
Who knows.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 09:47 PM
Well, you said we couldn't run the ball last week... so I'm not sure why we'd be listening to your predictions, at this point. You talked down Hillis as some kind of sore thumb to the offense in efforts to explain away Cutler's bad game.

Meanwhile, Hillis comes out and (again) has a huge YPC average, and helps Cutler and the offense rack up a huge day.


What are you talking about? I didn't say we couldn't run the ball last week. I certainly made no predictions about it. I've had nothing but praise for how well Hillis has filled in. I certainly never talked down Hillis. You are crazy dishonest to even insinuate such a thing.

If I did say something about Hillis that could possibly be construed as negative - which apparently is your only aim here, to irrationally make me look negative on Hillis (that explains your really odd thread about "Hillis Haters"), it was that he doesn't have the breakaway speed of a feature back - and that regardless of how well Hillis does, we're going to miss that speed.

You've got some sort of sickness over me man. To completely fabricate that I have some sort of angst against Hillis just shows how irrational and off-pivot you really are. I have been high on Hillis since he was first drafted, saying on draft day that he was my favorite pick. I've been looking for a Full Back with his ability since Howard Griffith left. I couldn't be any happier that we found him.

Why in the world would you just flat out lie like that? It makes no sense. You realize that this is a message board and people can check up on the things that you're lying about, right?

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 09:48 PM
No but youre advocating trying to fix the defense in a way that doesnt necessarily address whats wrong with the defense, meanwhile, turning our back on opportunities to make the offense better.

If Spikes (assuming we are even looking for a Mike)and Moore/Mays are gone, then instead of reaching on defense, it makes sense to improve the running game or add dimension to the offense. Someone like Alex Mack makse sense in such cases. Its better than reaching.

Just what is wrong with the defense? It's a lack of leadership and "hunter/killers". We have some very good pieces in place. Champ (I'm an old corner) might be the best I've ever seen, don't freak about his age, he has a little left in the tank. Bly has played very well in Champ's absence. I'm concerned about J. Williams, is he not good enough? Is he like Tory James (a guy the coaches apparently didn't like), we've all been in that position. I'm old school I guess, but I like Larsen. Take him out and watch what happens-the end of the faider game! Bring DJ back, forget Nate, groom Woodyard, upgrade over Winborn (forget Boss), and for Christ's sake draft some safeties to help Barret.

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 09:57 PM
What are you talking about? I didn't say we couldn't run the ball last week. I certainly made no predictions about it. I've had nothing but praise for how well Hillis has filled in. I certainly never talked down Hillis. You are crazy dishonest to even insinuate such a thing.

If I did say something about Hillis that could possibly be construed as negative - which apparently is your only aim here, to irrationally make me look negative on Hillis (that explains your really odd thread about "Hillis Haters"), it was that he doesn't have the breakaway speed of a feature back - and that regardless of how well Hillis does, we're going to miss that speed.

You've got some sort of sickness over me man. To completely fabricate that I have some sort of angst against Hillis just shows how irrational and off-pivot you really are. I have been high on Hillis since he was first drafted, saying on draft day that he was my favorite pick.

Why in the world would you just flat out lie like that? It makes no sense. You realize that this is a message board and people can check up on the things that you're lying about, right?

hillis had 3 19 yard runs today and has a sick ypc average and no fumbles (that are his fault anyway). he is pounding the rock right down the middle and base sets are not stopping it. hillis is that inside threat that makes people have to watch the box. you do not need breakaway speed if you are averaging 5+ yards per carry, ALWAYS dragging defenders for extra yards and punishing the defense every play.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:00 PM
hillis had 3 19 yard runs today and has a sick ypc average and no fumbles (that are his fault anyway). he is pounding the rock right down the middle and base sets are not stopping it. hillis is that inside threat that makes people have to watch the box. you do not need breakaway speed if you are averaging 5+ yards per carry, ALWAYS dragging defenders for extra yards and punishing the defense every play.

No Fullback needs break away speed. Mike Alstott didn't have breakaway speed either, and he had a fine career. That didn't keep the Bucs from using Warrick Dunn.

bpc
11-30-2008, 10:01 PM
Looks like he had a great game but if I'm Denver, i'm fortifying our team against injuries and inconsistent play no matter what this offseason.

I love that Hillis is 250 lbs of pissed off HB running down hill on that ass.

Double up with Shonn Greene in round 2 and we'll be knocking defenses in the teeth forcing them to play an extra man in the box... then Cutler drops it in over the top of them.

The future is looking great in Denver.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:04 PM
Keep in mind, folks... we don't have an NFL-caliber starting DE on our roster.

If we draft a ****ing running back over a DE, I'm going ape-****.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:05 PM
Keep in mind, folks... we don't have an NFL-caliber starting DE on our roster.

If we draft a ****ing running back over a DE, I'm going ape-****.



More than usual? ;)

Br0nc0Buster
11-30-2008, 10:05 PM
Hillis is a stud, that is all there is to it.
Maybe we can get someone to compliment him, kinda what Tennessee has going on with White and Johnson. I am more than fine with him being a runningback for us though, and using him to get the tough yards. I did not get to see the game, but I saw the highlights, and heard the game from Jets commentators, and they were very impressed with Hillis

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:10 PM
I haven't looked carefully at the draft class yet to have an educated opinion on where we should be drafting what this year - but I suspect that we're going to be aggressive looking for D-line via free agency, and then draft a Runningback early - maybe even #1 - along with some D-line help in the second and third rounds.

I'm not concerned about what position we draft first - at least at the moment - I just want to see us grab the best athlete on the board - whether it's a runningback, linebacker, safety, or Dlineman. I think the mistake that we make is to draft for needs and make reaches when we should instead be taking the best player off the board -- to an extent anyways. We shouldn't be completely blind to our needs. It's pretty easy this year though. Between runningback and every position on the defense, we have a lot of needs.

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 10:13 PM
Hillis is a stud, that is all there is to it.
Maybe we can get someone to compliment him, kinda what Tennessee has going on with White and Johnson. I am more than fine with him being a runningback for us though, and using him to get the tough yards. I did not get to see the game, but I saw the highlights, and heard the game from Jets commentators, and they were very impressed with Hillis

exactly. get him some speed help, but he is sick and should be getting 15+ carries per game. you dont give the man whos getting 5+ ypc less carries. that doesnt make sense?

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 10:14 PM
I haven't looked carefully at the draft class yet to have an educated opinion on where we should be drafting what this year - but I suspect that we're going to be aggressive looking for D-line via free agency, and then draft a Runningback early - maybe even #1 - along with some D-line help in the second and third rounds.

I'm not concerned about what position we draft first - at least at the moment - I just want to see us grab the best athlete on the board - whether it's a runningback, linebacker, safety, or Dlineman. I think the mistake that we make is to draft for needs and make reaches when we should instead be taking the best player off the board -- to an extent anyways. We shouldn't be completely blind to our needs. It's pretty easy this year though. Between runningback and every position on the defense, we have a lot of needs.

i dont think you understand. why do you need a 1st round running back when youre best RB is averaging over 5 ypc including multiple semi-breakaway runs per game?

lex
11-30-2008, 10:14 PM
Keep in mind, folks... we don't have an NFL-caliber starting DE on our roster.

If we draft a ****ing running back over a DE, I'm going ape-****.

F*ck that! If we need a DE, we should sign a FA. Its as simple as that. DEs take too long to materialize. And since Slowik likes playing with ridiculous cushions, its questionable how much a DE could be utilized. We need to get rid of Slowik, and then if we need a DE, we should sign one.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:15 PM
What are you talking about? I didn't say we couldn't run the ball last week.

Oh yea, that's right... I forgot...

(Your words)

"Well, duh, Krieger. With no runningback, and no defense to speak of, how else would it be? The only thing this team has going for it right now is the passing game"

Wow, a weird show of support for a back that ran for 4.3 a carry last week.

Oh, and you said our line "constantly broke down, too..."

"he could have complained about the constant breakdown of the right side of his line."

... and more praise for the running game and Hillis...

"Yeah, everything with our offense is hunky dory. It all looks good on paper.

Four point two! Hard to argue with four point two!"

Pffft!



Well, it was hard for the Jets to argue with it this week, huh boss?

Yea, you were just heaping praise on Hillis last week. But, you had to have some excuse for Cutler's poor game and it couldn't just be that Jay had a bad game.

You realize that this is a message board and people can check up on the things that I'M lying about, right?

Fixed it for you.

lostknight
11-30-2008, 10:17 PM
No question that this draft is all about defensive players unless there are some huge steals in it. I would actually rather see a TE drafted high (if we have to draft O at all) then a running back. I really honestly believe that we are two players (A d-line equivalent of Clady and a stud safety) away from having a moderate to strong defense, which is all we need with our current offense.

Why do I say TE? We have two home run threats - Marshall and Royal. We have two solid 3-8 yard threats - Stokley and Hillis. What I want is a 10-15 yard threat, and Tony S, love him as a I do, is massively brittle.

lex
11-30-2008, 10:17 PM
Just what is wrong with the defense? It's a lack of leadership and "hunter/killers". We have some very good pieces in place. Champ (I'm an old corner) might be the best I've ever seen, don't freak about his age, he has a little left in the tank. Bly has played very well in Champ's absence. I'm concerned about J. Williams, is he not good enough? Is he like Tory James (a guy the coaches apparently didn't like), we've all been in that position. I'm old school I guess, but I like Larsen. Take him out and watch what happens-the end of the faider game! Bring DJ back, forget Nate, groom Woodyard, upgrade over Winborn (forget Boss), and for Christ's sake draft some safeties to help Barret.


Thats kind of what Im saying. The bigger problem is Slowik. There are actually pieces on the defense to work with.

theAPAOps5
11-30-2008, 10:18 PM
More than usual? ;)

He will complain they didn't take a DE in the 7th. Thats where value is. Engleberger sure did have a great back side persuit today to tackle Jones for a loss. But I am sure it was none of his doing, right Popps. :twokisses

God I love stirring the pot!

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:22 PM
More than usual? ;)

Absolutely. I've got a decade of D-line frustration built up that's only going to be solved by taking a friggin' top-flight DE prospect.

lex
11-30-2008, 10:22 PM
Laurintius would be picked and apparently you would go ballistic!! LO!L!!!

And those players are not on all of the teams top priority of needs in RD1.
Theres
Cushing OLB
Orakpo DE
MJohnsom DE
Selvie DE
Jenkins CB
Davis CB
Mickens CB
Marks DT
Cody ( if he declares) DT
Rolle FS/SS ( yes, even Rolle could go in the 1st)
Theres 11 guys right there. Not to mention all the offensive players that will be taken. Oh imagine if beanie Wells just "free fell" right into the #21 spot. never know, man.
Ive seen a couple mocks that have Moore or Mays selected by DEN at #24!
Who knows.

Well, if we're playing man on man, we already have champ. If were playing zones or with 10 yard cushions, its nonsensical to draft a CB so high, since thats essentially a waste.

And DEs take too long to develop. It makes more sense to sign a FA.

Rolle is probably moving to England...and even at that, drafting him 15-25 is reaching.

And no thanks on Cushing. I know he is a USC guy and therefore is bustproof like Leinart and Jarrett but Im not sold.

MLB and S is what makes the most sense and yes, I have a problem with drafting Laurinaitis in 1.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:23 PM
i dont think you understand. why do you need a 1st round running back when youre best RB is averaging over 5 ypc including multiple semi-breakaway runs per game?


To complete the offense. We're one feature back away from having the complete package. Whether Shanahan does it in the first round or sixth-round is immaterial to me. I won't be suprised if we draft one fairly high. But I don't personally have a preference (at the moment) what we do with our first round pick.

As far as using Hillis as a feature back, it's a nice thought, but unlikely. Games like today are great. Games like we had last week, however, highlight why we need a feature back. Hillis is going to be good at moving the chains, but he's not the kind of back who has the ability to take the game into his own hands if that's what's needed. Regardless of how well Hillis is doing, or what his average per carry is, it does us no good when we're down by two scores and the coaches are abandoning the running game because they're not getting the juice out of it that they need. That's what a feature back is for.

Yards per carry means absolutely nothing when you're down by two scores.

Williams
11-30-2008, 10:25 PM
I agree. Hillis proved he is worthy to be the starting HB... and I cant believe there are still so many seeing otherwise. He's the answer folks. The beautiful thing is we're only just beginning to see what he's capable of. There's no reason in hell for a day one HB in next years draft.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:29 PM
Yea, you were just heaping praise on Hillis last week. But, you had to have some excuse for Cutler's poor game and it couldn't just be that Jay had a bad game.



Actually, that's exactly what I said. Jay had a bad game, and there was no other aspect of the offense that could pick up the pieces for him. Hillis is great, but like I said in my last post, down by two scores our coaches abandon the running game because there's no homerun hitter there.

There's no doubt Hillis is a grinder. He's exactly what we need - a fullback who can carry the rock for big chunks, catch out of the back field, and deliver protection through the holes. He's the best fullback we've had since Howard Griffith. But he's not the feature back that this offense needs. All you have to do is look at what happens when this team gets down by two scores to see the coaches opinions on this.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:30 PM
As far as using Hillis as a feature back, it's a nice thought,.

Shanahan thought so, too. 22 carries for him... zero for anyone else.

Regardless of how well Hillis is doing, or what his average per carry is, it does us no good when we're down by two scores and the coaches are abandoning the running game because they're not getting the juice out of it that they need. That's what a feature back is for.

Yards per carry means absolutely nothing when you're down by two scores.

Shanahan abandoned the running game last week despite excellent production. He had his mind set on blowing Oakland out by throwing every down and it simply didn't work.

He came out this week and committed to the run, and it worked.

It had zero to do with getting "juice" out of anyone.

As for backs that can "take over a game," there's one in the leauge... Adrian Peterson. Outside of that, you've got a bunch of decent backs that run in balanced offenses and generally share carries with other backs.

If you know where to get another Adrian Peterson, I'm sure Shanahan will listen. Outside of that, the increased production from Hillis will make him less likely to bet the farm on a first round RB.

yerner
11-30-2008, 10:30 PM
This board is totally gay for hillis. Probably cause he's a white dude. Its like nobody in a bronco uniform has run for 100 yards before. I like the guy, but he isn't any better right now than any of the other backs that have put up similiar numbers. In fact, he's a less talented runner than most of them. Right now he deserves to carry the ball next week. Thats about it. Hopefully he'll do it again.

And in my opinion, if you think shanny is not still looking for a way more dynamic playmaker at the running back position you're crazy. He always is.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:31 PM
A All you have to do is look at what happens when this team gets down by two scores to see the coaches opinions on this.

Dude, so if we had Marion Barber, for instance... you think that down two scores, Shanahan is going to go into run-mode because he's got Marion Barber?

Have you watched us play at all the last two years?

watermock
11-30-2008, 10:32 PM
Hillis will be a FB after this season, but still get 15 touches. All our other backs suck.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:36 PM
This board is totally gay for hillis. Probably cause he's a white dude.

Ultra-solid take, man... because none of the black players on the team ever get any love around here. This place should be called the White Mane.

Great job!

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:37 PM
Dude, so if we had Marion Barber, for instance... you think that down two scores, Shanahan is going to go into run-mode because he's got Marion Barber?

Have you watched us play at all the last two years?

I'm not a big Marion Barber fan, so no.

But if we were down two scores, and we still had Portis (or even TD) in our back field, I think Shanahan would have more courage to stick with the running game, knowing that there's a play or two in there where if he can get to the second level, he could be gone.

Yes, I've watched us play for the last two years, but that's not where my opinion comes from. It's the last 13 years of Mike Shanahan football where I get this opinion. We've always been more patient with the running game when we had a homerun hitter back there. It should come as no suprise to anyone that in the last two years, we've been more willing to abandon the running game when we got down.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:43 PM
Shanahan abandoned the running game last week despite excellent production. He had his mind set on blowing Oakland out by throwing every down and it simply didn't work.

I suspect that you haven't really examined the play-by-play for the Oakland game. We were running a balanced offense until about the third quarter. Shanahan didn't have his mind set on blowing Oakland out by throwing every down until Lelie took the Raiders up by two scores. It was only after that we abandonded the running game and went into hyper pass mode. See for yourself. (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29699&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2008&week=REG12&override=true)


He came out this week and committed to the run, and it worked.


We didn't come out any more committed than we did last week. The difference is, we maintained a lead and were never in a situation to even consider abandoning the running game. There was never a need to.


As for backs that can "take over a game," there's one in the leauge... Adrian Peterson. Outside of that, you've got a bunch of decent backs that run in balanced offenses and generally share carries with other backs.

Maurice Jones Drew can take over a game if you let him. Portis. Michael Turner. Frank Gore. Ronnie Brown. There are a handful of guys who are big difference makers.


If you know where to get another Adrian Peterson, I'm sure Shanahan will listen. Outside of that, the increased production from Hillis will make him less likely to bet the farm on a first round RB.

"Shanahan will never draft a quarterback in the first round - we have Plummer and we're set for years." -Paraphrasing Popps.

We'll see. The place to get another Adrian Peterson is in New York in April.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:46 PM
I think Shanahan would have more courage to stick with the running game.

Fine, Portis... whoever.

You're missing the point. Shanahan doesn't abandon the running game because it's not working. He abandons it because he wants to abandon it. He's a highly structured guy and brings a game plan in and sticks with it.

Dude, we were down 4 friggin' points at the HALF against Oakland, and he basically stopped running the ball around half-time, despite getting nice production when we DID run the ball.

Yes, if we had an ultra-stud... I'm sure we'd use him more. I'm not OPPOSED to a top-flight back, but they're incredibly difficult to find... cost a lot and Shanahan hasn't shown a preference for using top picks in that capacity.

Again, the emergence of Hillis makes it even less likely that he will, because I'd speculate that now Shanahan is probably thinking he just needs a home-run back to compliment him.

Popps
11-30-2008, 10:48 PM
Maurice Jones Drew can take over a game if you let him. Portis. Michael Turner. Frank Gore. Ronnie Brown. There are a handful of guys who are big difference makers.


Drew breaks big runs, though they've made every effort in Jville to keep him a tandem back.

Brown has barely been on the field and has only taken over one game this year.

Gore has been spotty as hell.

Turner is probably the best on that list, and I was a big proponent of bringing him in as a free agent.

lazarus4444
11-30-2008, 10:51 PM
1. @Taco John - This feature back you want so bad, Adrian Peterson ala Vikings?? I think there are 31 other teams who want one too, lol. Lets be realistic here though....(No offense to you)

2. @yerner - Yes, i like hillis because he is white, white power! ;) The guy who said we like him because he's white is an idiot. WTF ever.

3. @Taco John again - I'm not sold on the 2-3 back system either. The feature back system worked fine for a long long time. There are still some feature backs playing out there, LJ, S. Jackson, Forte, A. Peterson (Vikings) is mostly a feature back. We shall see what happens though. It was good to see Hillis get 20+ carries (it was good to see any broncos rb get that these days).

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:53 PM
Fine, Portis... whoever.

You're missing the point. Shanahan doesn't abandon the running game because it's not working. He abandons it because he wants to abandon it. He's a highly structured guy and brings a game plan in and sticks with it.

Dude, we were down 4 friggin' points at the HALF against Oakland, and he basically stopped running the ball around half-time, despite getting nice production when we DID run the ball.

I don't think I missed the point at all.

Shanahan abandons the running game because things aren't going his way, and we get down a couple of scores. Against Oakland, he abandoned the running game with 5:26 left in the third quarter (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29699&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2008&week=REG12&override=true) - not because it wasn't working - but because Oakland took advantage of our defense and Shanahan felt like he needed to go to the air to keep up.


Yes, if we had an ultra-stud... I'm sure we'd use him more. I'm not OPPOSED to a top-flight back, but they're incredibly difficult to find... cost a lot and Shanahan hasn't shown a preference for using top picks in that capacity.

Again, the emergence of Hillis makes it even less likely that he will, because I'd speculate that now Shanahan is probably thinking he just needs a home-run back to compliment him.

It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself here. I think we both agree that Shanahan is probably thinking he just needs a home run back to compliment Hillis. That's pretty much exactly what I think Shanahan is thinking right now, and why I wouldn't be surprised to see us go for one uncharacteristically early.

lostknight
11-30-2008, 10:53 PM
Holy cow. I just hit the Hillis highlight videos (I listened to the game today instead of watching it). Hillis is a beast. Great acceleration out of the line, almost impossible to accidently tackle (as in a breeze can sometime tackle Young, Hall and Bell) and even when he does something stupid like run between two linebackers, he still drags them for eight yards.

I liked what I saw five weeks ago and drafted him into my fantasy team. Let's just say that this decision has paid off radically,and even if Young, Hall and company were healthy - I think at this point Hillis would be the starter.

Don't believe me? Think about what will happen the first time that Shanny remembers Hillis's week 9 performance in the air against Miami with this performance every single week since on the ground.

Ladies and gentleman, I honestly believe that the RB question has been solved, at least for the rest of the season.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 10:55 PM
1. @Taco John - This feature back you want so bad, Adrian Peterson ala Vikings?? I think there are 31 other teams who want one too, lol. Lets be realistic here though....(No offense to you)

We drafted Portis in the second round. That means there were 30 other teams that didn't draft Portis.


3. @Taco John again - I'm not sold on the 2-3 back system either. The feature back system worked fine for a long long time. There are still some feature backs playing out there, LJ, S. Jackson, Forte, A. Peterson (Vikings) is mostly a feature back. We shall see what happens though. It was good to see Hillis get 20+ carries (it was good to see any broncos rb get that these days).

I personally am sold on the 2 back system where Hillis is the Fullback with a feature back behind him. I don't understand why anyone would be against having a home run hitter behind Hillis, regardless of where they are drafted.

kjdhr6
11-30-2008, 11:00 PM
No question that this draft is all about defensive players unless there are some huge steals in it. I would actually rather see a TE drafted high (if we have to draft O at all) then a running back. I really honestly believe that we are two players (A d-line equivalent of Clady and a stud safety) away from having a moderate to strong defense, which is all we need with our current offense.

Why do I say TE? We have two home run threats - Marshall and Royal. We have two solid 3-8 yard threats - Stokley and Hillis. What I want is a 10-15 yard threat, and Tony S, love him as a I do, is massively brittle.

I agree BUT, Clady is a one in 1000. Find that D-line guy at 22 or wherever we pick and I'll invite you to our summer blow out (all the crab & lobster you can eat). Plus besides safeties, we do need some help at mike & strongside backer.

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 11:03 PM
hillis should be getting the bulk of the carries. getting 5-8 yards per carry is a good thing for a feature back (not ypc, but each time he touches the ball hes getting yards)

aldridge or something as secondary back is a good thing.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 11:07 PM
No question that this draft is all about defensive players unless there are some huge steals in it. I would actually rather see a TE drafted high (if we have to draft O at all) then a running back. I really honestly believe that we are two players (A d-line equivalent of Clady and a stud safety) away from having a moderate to strong defense, which is all we need with our current offense.

Why do I say TE? We have two home run threats - Marshall and Royal. We have two solid 3-8 yard threats - Stokley and Hillis. What I want is a 10-15 yard threat, and Tony S, love him as a I do, is massively brittle.


There is no way in hell we're drafting a Tight End in this upcoming draft.

Popps
11-30-2008, 11:07 PM
I don't think I missed the point at all.

Shanahan abandons the running game because things aren't going his way, and we get down a couple of scores. Against Oakland, he abandoned the running game with 5:26 left in the third quarter (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/playbyplay?game_id=29699&displayPage=tab_play_by_play&season=2008&week=REG12&override=true) - not because it wasn't working - but because Oakland took advantage of our defense and Shanahan felt like he needed to go to the air to keep up.

We came out in the 2nd half and tied the game up with a balanced drive. Oakland scored, and it looks to me like we basically only ran it one time in the next two series. Now, Shanahan's success in the game had come from a balanced attack. If he chose to abandon it, it was likely less because of Hillis and more because he didn't trust the defense, imo. Or... he's just stubborn.

Popps
11-30-2008, 11:10 PM
Holy cow. I just hit the Hillis highlight videos (I listened to the game today instead of watching it). Hillis is a beast. Great acceleration out of the line, almost impossible to accidently tackle (as in a breeze can sometime tackle Young, Hall and Bell) and even when he does something stupid like run between two linebackers, he still drags them for eight yards.

I liked what I saw five weeks ago and drafted him into my fantasy team. Let's just say that this decision has paid off radically,and even if Young, Hall and company were healthy - I think at this point Hillis would be the starter.

Don't believe me? Think about what will happen the first time that Shanny remembers Hillis's week 9 performance in the air against Miami with this performance every single week since on the ground.

Ladies and gentleman, I honestly believe that the RB question has been solved, at least for the rest of the season.

Shanahan doesn't think Hillis is a plodding, novelty-back. He thinks he's a starter and is feeding him carries accordingly.

To me, he's the new Mike Anderson. Get a back to compliment him and move on to more pressing needs... like a DE or S deserving of a starting job in the NFL.

Br0nc0Buster
11-30-2008, 11:11 PM
Lets not forget about Torain, who I thought looked awesome before he got hurt.
Granted he is made of glass, but he might be able to stay healthy for spot duty.

Taco John
11-30-2008, 11:14 PM
We came out in the 2nd half and tied the game up with a balanced drive. Oakland scored, and it looks to me like we basically only ran it one time in the next two series. Now, Shanahan's success in the game had come from a balanced attack. If he chose to abandon it, it was likely less because of Hillis and more because he didn't trust the defense, imo. Or... he's just stubborn.


I think it was a combination of several factors. But the bottom line is at that point the decision was made that the current gameplan wasn't going to get it done. Up to that point, the game plan was (apparently) to use a balanced attack to draw in the linebackers and get our receivers in favorable match-ups.

I think Hillis is a great option for us, but I think it would be a mistake to make him our permanent primary option. Further, I think that it's pretty much a moot point. We've never done it unless we absolutely needed to. We're not going into next season with a fullback as our feature back. One way or another, we're going to find a feature back to compliment Hillis.

Popps
11-30-2008, 11:17 PM
I think it was a combination of several factors. But the bottom line is at that point the decision was made that the current gameplan wasn't going to get it done. Up to that point, the game plan was (apparently) to use a balanced attack to draw in the linebackers and get our receivers in favorable match-ups.

I think Hillis is a great option for us, but I think it would be a mistake to make him our permanent primary option. Further, I think that it's pretty much a moot point. We've never done it unless we absolutely needed to. We're not going into next season with a fullback as our feature back. One way or another, we're going to find a feature back to compliment Hillis.

We'll see. If Hillis keeps running over people and racking up yards the rest of the year, Shanahan is going to have a hard time justifying sticking a rookie in his place and moving him back to FB. But, it's possible.

A likely scenario is that he remains HB, but they work in someone else next season and simply see who gives the most bang for buck at HB. I also DO expect Hillis to get some carries and catches as a FB, simply because... why not.

lex
11-30-2008, 11:18 PM
We drafted Portis in the second round. That means there were 30 other teams that didn't draft Portis.




I personally am sold on the 2 back system where Hillis is the Fullback with a feature back behind him. I don't understand why anyone would be against having a home run hitter behind Hillis, regardless of where they are drafted.

In that case, Im in the same camp as you except, Im not totally saying the "feature back" absolutely has to have more carries than, say, Hillis. The two 2nd round guys I like that are actually explosive are C.J. Spiller and DeMarco Murray(assuming they turn pro).

Taco John
11-30-2008, 11:26 PM
In that case, Im in the same camp as you except, Im not totally saying the "feature back" absolutely has to have more carries than, say, Hillis.

Let the game plan and the match-ups dictate who gets what carries. I'm not concerned about distribution. I'm just personally a big fan of the type of offense that uses an athlete at Fullback in the mold of Howard Griffith and Lorenzo Neal - and now Hillis. When you have a fullback who can provide your offense with a full compliment of tools (rushing, blocking, catching), you can approach invincibility. We'd have had a hell of a time winning a single Superbowl without the extraordinary amount of help we got from Howard Griffith. I think Hillis is a key piece to the Superbowl puzzle - but I think we need to put him in the spot where he best fits, and IMO feature back is not that spot.

lex
11-30-2008, 11:34 PM
Let the game plan and the match-ups dictate who gets what carries. I'm not concerned about distribution. I'm just personally a big fan of the type of offense that uses an athlete at Fullback in the mold of Howard Griffith and Lorenzo Neal - and now Hillis. When you have a fullback who can provide your offense with a full compliment of tools (rushing, blocking, catching), you can approach invincibility. We'd have had a hell of a time winning a single Superbowl without the extraordinary amount of help we got from Howard Griffith. I think Hillis is a key piece to the Superbowl puzzle - but I think we need to put him in the spot where he best fits, and IMO feature back is not that spot.


I dont think there is a clearly defined spot. And I dont think there needs to be a clearly defined spot. If the situation dictates, his running takes priority over his blocking. Im not averse to getting another FB...unless were dead set on Larsen still. But I definitely think we need to draft a RB that adds more dimension to the offense.

tsiguy96
11-30-2008, 11:34 PM
Let the game plan and the match-ups dictate who gets what carries. I'm not concerned about distribution. I'm just personally a big fan of the type of offense that uses an athlete at Fullback in the mold of Howard Griffith and Lorenzo Neal - and now Hillis. When you have a fullback who can provide your offense with a full compliment of tools (rushing, blocking, catching), you can approach invincibility. We'd have had a hell of a time winning a single Superbowl without the extraordinary amount of help we got from Howard Griffith. I think Hillis is a key piece to the Superbowl puzzle - but I think we need to put him in the spot where he best fits, and IMO feature back is not that spot.

you keep saying hes not a feature back. his production on the field, especially in the wake of increased carries, says otherwise. ill believe production, not your theory on how to become invincible. if you have a back who is being extremely, extremely productive, you replace him? it will never make sense to me. you find someone to run like chris johnson to take a few carries and try to explode, not replace your productive back with a rookie.

lex
11-30-2008, 11:37 PM
you keep saying hes not a feature back. his production on the field, especially in the wake of increased carries, says otherwise. ill believe production, not your theory on how to become invincible. if you have a back who is being extremely, extremely productive, you replace him? it will never make sense to me. you find someone to run like chris johnson to take a few carries and try to explode, not replace your productive back with a rookie.

I agree with him in the sense that we need somone who is more explosive...but Im not deadset on that RB getting more carries than Hillis if it makes more sense for Hillis to carry more. Im also not dead set on limiting Hillis to fullback. I think his emergence gives us flexibility in the type of RB we go after.

ward63
11-30-2008, 11:59 PM
If we can get a solid RB in the 2nd or 3rd round I'm all for it. I mean look at some 2nd/3rd rounders in some recent years that are putting up #'s. I'm all for a lot of defensive draft picks, but give me a RB that can pair up with Hillis, somewhere in the 2nd/3rd round.

watermock
12-01-2008, 12:01 AM
We'll be able to address our defensive needs, although we do need a few more picks.

SoCal never saw a pick he didn't lust upon.

SoCalBronco
12-01-2008, 12:09 AM
SoCal never saw a pick he didn't lust upon.

I don't deny that. :)

lostknight
12-01-2008, 12:33 AM
I agree BUT, Clady is a one in 1000. Find that D-line guy at 22 or wherever we pick and I'll invite you to our summer blow out (all the crab & lobster you can eat). Plus besides safeties, we do need some help at mike & strongside backer.

I think this is the key. We need to package some picks and move up to the 10th through 15th pick in the draft - hereafter known as the butter zone.

lostknight
12-01-2008, 12:35 AM
There is no way in hell we're drafting a Tight End in this upcoming draft.

One would think that the last three years of drafts would have convinced people to be less assertive in what they predict. Given the outcome of the last three years, perhaps that's a good thing.

Then again, maybe we will steal Tony G from the chiefs.

Jason in LA
12-01-2008, 12:41 AM
I'm liking the way that he's running, and he's pretty much won the starters job for the rest of the season. But as for long term, I'd say no. Sure, give him a chance to win the job in training camp, but I don't see him as a long term solution at the position. I'd like to see him as part of the offense for years to come, but not as the feature back.

its been a long, long time ive seen a bronco RB run like he does. hits whoever is in his way, and usually wins. its awesome to watch and i love to see him get the ball to see how many people he is gonna carry for 3-4 yards.

Reuben Droughns and Mike Anderson. Looks similar. Very hard to take down. Always getting extra yards after the first contact. I really liked what they gave to the offense, but they didn't have the big play factor at all.

lostknight
12-01-2008, 01:33 AM
I think the entire idea of a home run running back is dated at best. The reality still is that the teams that are truly dominate in the NFL For the last decade are focused on one thing only offensively - Quarterback. In fact, as a Bronco fan the next question is easy - when was the last time that a running back was the super bowl MVP?

The days of a feature back are dead and gone. The days of a system back, who is dependable in the run, and spectacular in the pass is here. That is what Hillis appears to offer. A safety valve for Jay, so he doesn't make stupid plays down the field, and a solid 1st and third down runner to make 3rd downs more manageable.

It's far more valuable to have a four yard per carry running back that is durable (which none of our running backs the last few years have been) and can fit into a system allowing other options then it is to have a tatum bell home run hitter.

I think we will draft a RB somewhere. Shanahan and company can't resist. But make no mistake, the deficiency on the Broncos isn't on the O-side, it's on D-side. Pure and simple. And that deficency may not be as great as we would have thought given how well the Rooks has 2nd and 3rd year players have been stepping up.

Cito Pelon
12-01-2008, 02:00 AM
Most of you guys are right on the beam. The guy totally reminds me of Mark van Eeghen.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/V/VanEMa00.htm

Hillis is the same kind of back. A chain mover. He doesn't have to be the feature back, but seems to me you want to get Hillis 20 touches a game. He adds diversity galore to the O and has a nose for the endzone. You can't teach a nose for the end zone, either you have it or you don't. Hillis has it. This guy is a dynamo. His ego is big, so he'll be holding out soon for a payday to meet his production. Worry about that when it happens.

footstepsfrom#27
12-01-2008, 02:25 AM
IMHO the best help for defense would be a stud RB. For all the yardage racked up by denver, they are ranked 21st in 5 min+ drives.
Good point. We also rank 25th in time of possession, so we're giving the ball back to the other team far to frequently, which is a direct result of having had an inconsistent running game. That may change with Hillis. I want to see more before crowning him the answer. I want Taylor Mays in the draft, and I'm not sure how good the talent level is at RB anyway, but suggesting we are suddenly without need at this position seems presumptuous at this point.

elsid13
12-01-2008, 02:56 AM
Now what funny, hillis didn't have good game by himself. Hamilton, Wiegman and Kupper were the reason that that Hillis went for 100 plus. But most of you aren't paying attention to that.

Cito Pelon
12-01-2008, 03:10 AM
I'm liking the way that he's running, and he's pretty much won the starters job for the rest of the season. But as for long term, I'd say no. Sure, give him a chance to win the job in training camp, but I don't see him as a long term solution at the position. I'd like to see him as part of the offense for years to come, but not as the feature back.



Reuben Droughns and Mike Anderson. Looks similar. Very hard to take down. Always getting extra yards after the first contact. I really liked what they gave to the offense, but they didn't have the big play factor at all.

Sure, he's not a 'feature back'. But the guy is a legitimate running threat. He's a plower, a chain mover. It was laughable the play action we saw yesterday, there was no real playaction. Cutler just waved the ball at a guy four yards away. Hillis can make the playaction believable, if they actually want to run playaction. There will come a time in this season and in the playoffs where the team really wants to make playaction work. Cutler can sell playaction damn good, didn't see it this game and haven't seen it much this year, but there will come a time where they have to do it. Hillis hopefully will be gold when that time comes.

Drek
12-01-2008, 04:19 AM
Now what funny, hillis didn't have good game by himself. Hamilton, Wiegman and Kupper were the reason that that Hillis went for 100 plus. But most of you aren't paying attention to that.

I think everyone is giving full props to the OL and have all season long. They rarely allow sacks period and as the season has gone on their cohesiveness as a run blocking unit has taken a big step up.

I still don't like the frequent holding calls on the interior linemen, but that is the nature of the beast.

However, Hillis ran the ball and took more yardage than just what the OL gave him on nearly every carry. He did the work none of our other HB options have performed this year. Pittman was our most effective back pre-injury because he took the tough yardage, Hillis is effective for the same reason.

We've changed our OL to work better in pass protection and there is some reduced effectiveness in run blocking as a result. This line can't run block like the '02 and '03 line did for Portis, where we had OLs putting hits on linebackers and safeties 6 and 7 yards down the field.

We can't have it both ways though. You can't have the smaller, highly mobile OLs who can get into the second level to setup big home run blocks and still be able to pass from the pocket consistently. You also can't expect a big, powerful OL that can maintain a good passing pocket to get to the second level and set up big runs with regularity. We've got an OL that comes as close as we can ask for in terms of a best of both worlds scenario, but ultimately we're going to be a vertical passing attack offense.

To me the ideal setup would be to let a bulldozer like Hillis be the primary back, getting about 15 carries a game where he's turning 2nd and 10's into 3rd and shorts and 3rd and shorts into 1sts. At the same time see if we can't find someone to be an effective 10-15 carry speed back. Its the new way of the NFL and the Broncos were one of the pioneering teams when we did just that with Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell in '05.

I said it earlier in this thread, Hillis spent the off-season training his body to be a blocker first, ball carrier second. He's playing at 250 pounds. You let him cut that down to about 240 and see how much more speed and agility he picks up. I don't think we need to go searching for another power back to replace him, especially when we aleady have Torain as an option there. I could see a lot of value in a good speed back though, preferably one who can also split return duties with Royal, and/or better yet someone who's hands are good enough to be a threat out of the slot. Basically, a Reggie Bush type of guy but not for nearly that high a price (financially or in draft position). Leon Washington, Jerious Norwood, and Maurice Drew are examples of the increasing prevelancy of backs like this coming out of college, and Young or Aldrige might even be able to fill that role as well.

footstepsfrom#27
12-01-2008, 05:10 AM
Hillis reminds me a bit of a bigger version of Rueben Droughns, maybe a Mike Anderson type. Hillis is a chain mover...granted...but while he seems perfecty capable of going for 20 now and then...I don't think he's the permenant answer until we see him rip off 60 to paydirt. He's a bigger Roger Craig for Denver...absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I think Shanahan would prefer the TD or Portis kind of back...and to illustrate that just look what he did with both of those other FB's...one got traded and the other split time with Tatum Bell. You need the homerun threat in there...and since Bell got 0 carries against the Jets I'm betting Shanny doesn't see him as that guy anymore. I agree the D should get priority...but if it's a choice between an "OK" DT or Safety and a stud runner...take the runner.

fontaine
12-01-2008, 05:35 AM
I admire Hillis but there is no way he is going to be a feature back in our offense when our RBs are healthy.

He's a plodder who's really tough to bring down. Other than that he has no speed, no vision, and most importantly no cutback ability. Guys routinely catch him from behind and he has zero acceleration.

You watch his runs and he doesn't look for the cutback, he doesn't explode through the gap, and he doesn't have patience behind his OL.

Quite simply put, if Shanahan wants to use a guy like Hillis beyond this year as the feature back then there's no point running a zone blocking system (that fits Torain, Young etc) because Hillis isn't a cutback RB.

That being said he's a diverse full back. Can catch, block, and run with the ball and I'm all for having multiple options on the offense.

footstepsfrom#27
12-01-2008, 05:41 AM
I admire Hillis but there is no way he is going to be a feature back in our offense when our RBs are healthy.
He's not a feature back but it's got nothing to do with the backs we have on the roster already, which are all average at best. If we can find a 1500 yard producer for this offense in the draft Hillis goes to FB where he belongs. That said...I think the guy could easily get 10-15 carries a game as the fullback and catch 50 passes in this offense.

lex
12-01-2008, 06:42 AM
I think everyone is giving full props to the OL and have all season long. They rarely allow sacks period and as the season has gone on their cohesiveness as a run blocking unit has taken a big step up.

I still don't like the frequent holding calls on the interior linemen, but that is the nature of the beast.

However, Hillis ran the ball and took more yardage than just what the OL gave him on nearly every carry. He did the work none of our other HB options have performed this year. Pittman was our most effective back pre-injury because he took the tough yardage, Hillis is effective for the same reason.

We've changed our OL to work better in pass protection and there is some reduced effectiveness in run blocking as a result. This line can't run block like the '02 and '03 line did for Portis, where we had OLs putting hits on linebackers and safeties 6 and 7 yards down the field.

We can't have it both ways though. You can't have the smaller, highly mobile OLs who can get into the second level to setup big home run blocks and still be able to pass from the pocket consistently. You also can't expect a big, powerful OL that can maintain a good passing pocket to get to the second level and set up big runs with regularity. We've got an OL that comes as close as we can ask for in terms of a best of both worlds scenario, but ultimately we're going to be a vertical passing attack offense.

To me the ideal setup would be to let a bulldozer like Hillis be the primary back, getting about 15 carries a game where he's turning 2nd and 10's into 3rd and shorts and 3rd and shorts into 1sts. At the same time see if we can't find someone to be an effective 10-15 carry speed back. Its the new way of the NFL and the Broncos were one of the pioneering teams when we did just that with Mike Anderson and Tatum Bell in '05.

I said it earlier in this thread, Hillis spent the off-season training his body to be a blocker first, ball carrier second. He's playing at 250 pounds. You let him cut that down to about 240 and see how much more speed and agility he picks up. I don't think we need to go searching for another power back to replace him, especially when we aleady have Torain as an option there. I could see a lot of value in a good speed back though, preferably one who can also split return duties with Royal, and/or better yet someone who's hands are good enough to be a threat out of the slot. Basically, a Reggie Bush type of guy but not for nearly that high a price (financially or in draft position). Leon Washington, Jerious Norwood, and Maurice Drew are examples of the increasing prevelancy of backs like this coming out of college, and Young or Aldrige might even be able to fill that role as well.

It depends on where youre willing to draft interior linemen.

montrose
12-01-2008, 07:11 AM
I'm in the rather-have-him-at-FB camp although I'm not opposed to him getting carries from our singleback set. Maybe a Torain/Hillis backfield with Hillis the singleback guy and Alridge as our change of pace back. I think the guy brings so much to the table as a pass receiver out of the backfield that, now that we know what he can do, Shanny will always keep him involved in the offense.

socalorado
12-01-2008, 07:28 AM
Well, if we're playing man on man, we already have champ. If were playing zones or with 10 yard cushions, its nonsensical to draft a CB so high, since thats essentially a waste.

And DEs take too long to develop. It makes more sense to sign a FA.

Rolle is probably moving to England...and even at that, drafting him 15-25 is reaching.

And no thanks on Cushing. I know he is a USC guy and therefore is bustproof like Leinart and Jarrett but Im not sold.

MLB and S is what makes the most sense and yes, I have a problem with drafting Laurinaitis in 1.

i am not saying to draft one of those players. I am saying that there is alot of 1st round talent that will be taken ahead of DEN at #21.
You make it out like there is only 5 players worth taking and they will all be taken by #21. Thats not true. Many teams picking ahead of DEN dont need a Safety or a MLB. Theres still a good chance that one of those players you want will be there with all of that talent available. I dont want any of those players in the 1st.
My list is your list. Same exact thing.

cmhargrove
12-01-2008, 07:44 AM
I'm getting in late to this conversation, but I have a few points:

1. For those who don't think Hillis can become an effective starter, consider this: Coming out of high school, Hillis was the leading TB in the state of Arkansas over - you guessed it, Darren McFadden. Hillis ended his senior year with over 2,600 yards rushing and a 10.1 ypc (29 TD's). If you listen to him in his interviews, he says "give me a little time while I readjust to TB, I will get better every week as I get used to it." He has done just that.

2. For those who keep saying he doesn't understand the Denver stretch play and cutback - you are 100% wrong, and you need to re-watch the games. He doesn't do it as flashy as some little backs that make a big deal of it, but he constantly hits the hole off the back side and has good vision to find a crease for extra yards. As a matter of fact, that's what makes him so different from Pittman - he can see the crease and get extra yards instead of jacking himself up on the first defender. Most of his punishing plays happen because of his leg strength, not because he pops people with his helmet - that's a really good thing so hge doesn't end up like Alstott.

3. He may never be quite as good, but I think he could be more like our "Gerome Bettis." He can take over a hard game against a good run defense for extra yards. However, I think we need another solid back to compliment him. I wouldn't mind picking up someone like Spiller to compliment his talents.

I'm not going crazy over him being a HOF TB yet, but people need to stop criticizing his running skills when he has shown weekly improvement. He is the real reason I am getting more confident about the playoffs.

~Crash~
12-01-2008, 09:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih8WKX-Xmbo

~Crash~
12-01-2008, 09:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-y_g1cMWd0

Taco John
12-01-2008, 09:17 AM
One would think that the last three years of drafts would have convinced people to be less assertive in what they predict. Given the outcome of the last three years, perhaps that's a good thing.

Then again, maybe we will steal Tony G from the chiefs.

I didn't think the last three years of drafts were all that suprising. And there's no way in hell we are selecting a Tight End in next years draft. Why would we when we've got Scheffler and Graham on the team? It makes no sense.

Meck77
12-01-2008, 09:20 AM
He's too slow, he can't jump high enough, he won't be a starter, he can't be a starter, he's not the typical player for the position, etc etc etc

Oh but he was tough and retired with Two Superbowl rings..........

With as many flavor clowns who have been thru the door lately I'm thrilled we have a guy like Hillis pounding people and playing hard.

What we have now is a guy who has EARNED the position until somebody PROVES they deserve the job.

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/9658/edmcsa5uy7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/edmcsa5uy7.jpg/1/w594.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img70/edmcsa5uy7.jpg/1/)

Bronco X
12-01-2008, 09:33 AM
This comment might make more sense if I dumped it here:

I like him as a full back who gets the ball regularly. It'd add another weapon if there's a good RB behind him as well.

cmhargrove
12-01-2008, 09:55 AM
This comment might make more sense if I dumped it here:

I like him as a full back who gets the ball regularly. It'd add another weapon if there's a good RB behind him as well.

Call it what you want, but we are generally running him out of a one back set. He is running / playing TB.

Popps
12-01-2008, 10:17 AM
Call it what you want, but we are generally running him out of a one back set. He is running / playing TB.

Exactly, and Shanahan has to love what the single-back offense brings.

Again, I'm a bit confused as to why the emergence of a very solid runner in our system seems to have convinced people Shanahan will now take a RB high in the draft. My guess is that Shanahan is thrilled with what he's getting from Hillis.

That said, nothing Shanahan does ever surprises me. He could draft a QB in round one and it wouldn't surprise me.

Rock Chalk
12-01-2008, 10:18 AM
Exactly. I can't understand why people are so unconfident if we trot him out there as a #1 back. He's 10x more useful than Selvin Young. I'll take a guy who can gut out those 4-7 yard runs after contact any day over a guy who gets...... 1, 3, 2, 1, 3, 25.

Yes, we could use a "2" for a 1-2 punch, but I love having him in there pounding on people.

Plus, it's only his third game as a starter. He's got a chance to get much better as he learns the position. He can also be depended on to BLOCK when he's in there.

You watch, Shanahan is going to stick with this kid.

That'd be a great analogy if it were anywhere close to accurate.

Selvin averaged nearly 5 ypc and rarely had any big runs of 25 yards or more to pad his stats.

He was good for nearly 5 yards on every run play except those that got blown up at the line due to the defense calling the right defensive play.

You people should do more research.

Selvin isnt the answer because it is unlikely he can stay healthy for a full season. Torain should be cut outright because he is a walking injury. Dude will NEVER stay healthy. Couldnt even stay healthy for one whole game.

Hall probably wont be in Denver next year but we do have that Alridge kid on IR, he may be something.

WolfpackGuy
12-01-2008, 10:19 AM
<img src=http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/11%20Hemingways%20Approve.jpg width=300>

bronco militia
12-01-2008, 10:20 AM
look around the league...you need at least two stud RB's to get through the season.

55CrushEm
12-01-2008, 10:30 AM
Rookie Peyton Hillis rushed for a career-high 129 yards and a score, becoming the first to gain 100 or more yards against New York's third-ranked run defense.

Yep.....they said before yesterday, the Bretts hadn't allowed any runner to eclipse even 75 yards rushing all year long....

Peoples Champ
12-01-2008, 10:35 AM
I'd like us to draft a higher round RB to complement him. Somebody we can put on the field at the same time as well as give him a rest. I'm all for getting him 10-20 touches a game though (run AND pass).


What about Ryan Torrain?

Mountain Bronco
12-01-2008, 10:52 AM
I hate to agree with Popps here, but you people are being retards about drafting a back #1. First this isn't a great tailback draft. Second, Shannahan doesn't draft tailbacks in the first round. Third, we get 4 RB's back next year, plus Hillis is running the ball very well. Fourth, we need to focus on Defense. We have a ton of weapons on offense. Chad Jackson even contributed and could be a nice #4 reciever.

As for a balanced attack versus Oakland, it was far from it. Shanny thought he could get milage out of the long ball, but it didn't work out.

Bronco X
12-01-2008, 11:05 AM
Call it what you want, but we are generally running him out of a one back set. He is running / playing TB.

I know, and it's great it's worked. But it's not as though they have many other options at this point. I'm talking about when there are options due to the availablity of healthy bodies.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 11:09 AM
I hate to agree with Popps here, but you people are being retards about drafting a back #1.

I don't believe anybody has said that we are absolutely drafting a runningback #1. Just that it's a position of need still, and that it could be addressed on day one.

Mountain Bronco
12-01-2008, 11:14 AM
I would put need as follows:

1. safety
2. MLB
3. Dline
4. CB
5. RB

So no, I don't think RB is even a first day need.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 11:19 AM
I would put need as follows:

1. safety
2. MLB
3. Dline
4. CB
5. RB

So no, I don't think RB is even a first day need.



It doesn't matter what any of us think the need order is. What matters is what Shanahan thinks the need order is. And for that matter, Shanahan has a long and very established history of putting offensive needs ahead of defensive ones. Whether that's right or wrong is up for someone else to argue. I'm uninterested in that sort of argument.

I'l be looking at all of those things on day one - in no particular order. I won't be suprised if any of them come.

Popps
12-01-2008, 11:34 AM
That'd be a great analogy if it were anywhere close to accurate.

Selvin averaged nearly 5 ypc and rarely had any big runs of 25 yards or more to pad his stats.

He was good for nearly 5 yards on every run play except those that got blown up at the line due to the defense calling the right defensive play.

You people should do more research..

LOL

I touched the Selvin Young nerve, huh? Jeesh.

Selvin couldn't run in short-yardage situations. Hillis can. Selvin couldn't gain yards after contact. Hillis can.

Selvin can't keep his fragile ass on the field. Hillis can.

Research complete.

Popps
12-01-2008, 11:36 AM
I don't believe anybody has said that we are absolutely drafting a runningback #1. Just that it's a position of need still, and that it could be addressed on day one.

Correct, it's a position of need as long is it's put in proper order...

1. DE
2. DE
3. S
4. S
5. OLB (Strong)
6. RB

kappys
12-01-2008, 11:38 AM
LOL

I touched the Selvin Young nerve, huh? Jeesh.

Selvin couldn't run in short-yardage situations. Hillis can. Selvin couldn't gain yards after contact. Hillis can.

Selvin can't keep his fragile ass on the field. Hillis can.

Research complete.

Selvin can't run inside either - lets not forget that. He runs off tackle and to the outside - the result - the safeties both cheat towards their respective sidelines allowing them to provide over the top coverage against both our talented WR's without giving up anything in the running game.

enter a big guy who runs right between the tackles and they have to tighten up to prevent him from gashing them up the middle.

Popps
12-01-2008, 11:41 AM
I would put need as follows:

1. safety
2. MLB
3. Dline
4. CB
5. RB

So no, I don't think RB is even a first day need.

Oops, didn't see this post.

Only thing you omitted is a DE. We literally don't have a single NFL-caliber starting DE on the roster. Moss is tiny and barely seeing any playing time, Dumervil is a situational player and Engleberger is obviously a joke. Crowder must suck.

That means, DE remains #1 priority in this coming draft.... though I would accept that S is just as dire. I think we need a true strong side LB. Hopefully we dump Boss Bailey after this season. You bring up a good point with CB, though some may argue that Williams/Carl P. provide enough insurance there for the short term.

Hey, I'm all for an elite back in the draft as long as it doesn't interfere with our more pressing needs.... OR, if we grab one in free agency, that's fine, too.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 11:44 AM
Correct, it's a position of need as long is it's put in proper order...

1. DE
2. DE
3. S
4. S
5. OLB (Strong)
6. RB

Proper order according to you...

It doesn't matter what any of us think the need order is. What matters is what Shanahan thinks the need order is. And for that matter, Shanahan has a long and very established history of putting offensive needs ahead of defensive ones. Whether that's right or wrong is up for someone else to argue. I'm uninterested in that sort of argument.

I'l be looking at all of those things on day one - in no particular order. I won't be suprised if any of them come.

Popps
12-01-2008, 12:00 PM
Shanahan has a long and very established history of putting offensive needs ahead of defensive ones. .


You got that right.

That said, if we're talking history... Shanahan doesn't have a big history of taking RBs early, either.

We'll draft one. I'll still stick with the idea that it'll be day 2, but anything's possible.

SouthStndJunkie
12-01-2008, 12:05 PM
"He hits it hard, he hits the holes. Guy breaks tackles - he broke a lot of tackles (Sunday). He runs hard. It's going to be interesting to see what happens, because I don't think he's going to give that position up lightly."

- Cutler on Hillis, who finished with 129 yards rushing.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 12:21 PM
That said, if we're talking history... Shanahan doesn't have a big history of taking RBs early, either.

Clarett was a third rounder. Tatum Bell was a second rounder. Griffin was a third rounder. Portis a second rounder. There's plenty of history for taking a runningback on day one.

Hard to say who might be available where we end up drafting. But if Chris Wells or Knowshown Moreno falls to us, it's a distinct possibility that we walk away with either of them. Either of those two falling to us at #1 is unlikely though. The second round is going to be where the most runningback action is going to be. I wouldn't be suprised at all to see Donald Brown or Arian Foster drafted if they were available to us in the second round. Rashad Jennings in the third round would be an absolute steal for his ability and size.

Gcver2ver3
12-01-2008, 12:23 PM
some of you guys love to over-think things...

Hillis CAN play tailback and should be our #1 for the rest of the season and heading into camp next season...

I call bs on the people saying Hillis can't read the cutback lane...he made a couple cutbacks yesterday and let's keep in mind he hasn't practiced as out #1 tailback for very long...give the guy some time to better learn our system...


People keep calling him slow?...the guy runs a 4.5 40....don't mistake speed for quickness...he's not super quick and he doesn't have the best lateral movements in the world but every RB has a couple weaknesses...

Hillis is big, strong, and easily fast enough to be the #1 back...and I'm not sure we know enough about the guy to comment on his "lack of vision" as some of you call him...

With that said, he shouldn't get more than 15 - 20 carries a game...have a change of pace home run hitter get the other 10 carries... I think Alridge may be that guy...

Our draft needs to be almost exclusively geared towards our defense...Hillis and Alridge can be our tandem...or Hillis and some other back on our roster or FA...

Peoples Champ
12-01-2008, 12:26 PM
I say Ya, keep Hillis in there, I am a big fan of "if it aint broke, dont fix it."

When we decided to run the ball, it looked like we could do it with ease (except that 3rd and 1) , but if its working, keep it. We dont need a HR hitter.

We might need a second back because hillis runs so hard he will wear himself down.

Elway777
12-01-2008, 12:36 PM
I think the Broncos will take a running back in the first 3 rounds of the draft. I also think the Broncos will sign a veteran . I could see Hillis as a guy who cound be a short yardage back plus be a back in spread formations. I say the Broncos Draft Shon Green in the second round plus sign Maurice Morris for about 2 million next year. The Broncos would have Hb Green ,Morris, Young Fb Hillis . Torrain or Bell would be the Broncos 5 running back . If torrain is ready to play then they cut Bell.

Cito Pelon
12-01-2008, 12:39 PM
It doesn't matter what any of us think the need order is. What matters is what Shanahan thinks the need order is. And for that matter, Shanahan has a long and very established history of putting offensive needs ahead of defensive ones. Whether that's right or wrong is up for someone else to argue. I'm uninterested in that sort of argument.

I'l be looking at all of those things on day one - in no particular order. I won't be suprised if any of them come.

I'll give you a history lesson so you don't say that again:

Denver drafts from 1999-2005 they picked D players 21 of the top 29 picks during that frame. From 1999-2008 Denver picked D players 25 of their top 39 draft picks.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/den.htm

Lately, sure Shanny absolutely had to refresh the O on draft day and FA. What a coup Cutler was, Plummer was obviously winding down his career. Clady was a superb pick - and I thought he couldn't make the translation to the pros from Boise State - Scheff, Royal, Graham, Stokley, Marshall, Kory L., Torain, Hillis. Shanny restocked the O finally, he had to. Did a dang fine job restocking the O. With nine picks in 2009 I think, they're scouting D players galore right now. They'll try to add some O players, maybe a 6-3 ratio when all is done.

Drek
12-01-2008, 12:41 PM
That'd be a great analogy if it were anywhere close to accurate.

Selvin averaged nearly 5 ypc and rarely had any big runs of 25 yards or more to pad his stats.

He was good for nearly 5 yards on every run play except those that got blown up at the line due to the defense calling the right defensive play.

You people should do more research.

Selvin isnt the answer because it is unlikely he can stay healthy for a full season. Torain should be cut outright because he is a walking injury. Dude will NEVER stay healthy. Couldnt even stay healthy for one whole game.

Hall probably wont be in Denver next year but we do have that Alridge kid on IR, he may be something.
Funny that.

Young's YPC wasn't inflated by a lot of 25 yard runs, yet people are saying Hillis can't be a feature back because he won't break of a ton of 25+ yard runs.

So what is it? Because obviously the faster "feature back capable" guys aren't tearing off that many 25+ yarders the last few years for us.

The problem with Young as a #1 HB is that he can't run between the tackles and on obvious running downs defenses can shut him down. They haven't been able to do that with Hillis yet. So who should be the featured back? The guy who can consistently get you 5 yards breaking it outside but gets stonewalled on 3rd and shorts, or the guy who consistently gets you 4 every down blasting the ball up the middle? Doesn't seem that hard a choice to me.

Guys like Portis who can last just the better part of a season and still be home run hitters are very, very rare and he did what he did here with an experienced OL tailor made to run the ZBS. We aren't going back to those days, not ever, people around here need to stop having wet dreams about those days. We're a pass first team now.

It doesn't matter what any of us think the need order is. What matters is what Shanahan thinks the need order is. And for that matter, Shanahan has a long and very established history of putting offensive needs ahead of defensive ones. Whether that's right or wrong is up for someone else to argue. I'm uninterested in that sort of argument.

I'l be looking at all of those things on day one - in no particular order. I won't be suprised if any of them come.
That is exactly right, ultimately Shanahan and the Goodman family make the calls on personnel, so its their choice as to what the need priority really is.

But we didn't draft an RB in a good RB class until the 5th round. What did we draft a lot of?

Well we took a big 300+ OT with our top 15 first rounder. A guy who doesn't really fit the ZBS system of old.

Then we took a speedy slot WR type, when a good number of people on this board were hoping for an RB.

Later on we took defensive players and a center who was coming out of a spread offense program, applauded for his pass blocking skills and excellent shotgun snapping ability.

Other than that it was all defense until we took Torain in the 5th and Hillis in the 7th.

Seems to me like we can infer some things from the recent drafts plus the recent offensive schemes. And what I'm inferring is that Shanahan is adapting to the times in the NFL and he's moving the team away from his flavor of the WCO with zone blocking run plays and heavy play action passes toward a more traditional vertical attack.

Will we still see the ZBS running attack and play actions? I'm sure, and they'll probably be very effective. But they are no longer the core of the system, they're the frills. Pocket protection and deep targets are the real talent base we've been pursuing.

Also, Shanahan has a history of using 1st rounders on defense at least as much as offense, and when Bates came in he let him use nearly a whole draft to stock his defense with the right guys for his system. He couldn't offer that to Slowik because he needed to get the offense back on track, but there is very little chance Slowik sees the door after just one year again and so I wouldn't be surprised if Shanahan lets the majority of our draft picks once again go towards defense to help his old college buddy out.

There are a lot of tells about the future of the organization if you ask me. The one RB we drafted last spring? A power guy who wasn't going to break off a lot of 25+ yard runs himself. Who else touched the ball besides Hillis this sunday? No one. Did we shy away from handing it off to him? Only when the play calling was to go deep, not short passes as an alternative to letting him run for grind it out first downs.

All I can read from those signs is that we were already looking for a power back, likely to implement a two back power/speed tandem a la Anderson and Bell in 2005, and that it seems as though the coaching staff likes what they're seeing from the current power back we're sending out there on Sundays.

Maybe they will move Hillis back to FB, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they instead ask him to drop 10-15 pounds, gain some speed, acceleration and agility in the process, and use him as the power component to the a fore mentioned running back tandem, with Torain as his backup with Young, Aldrige, maybe Hall, and maybe a mid-round draftee fighting for the speed back role to compliment him.

Popps
12-01-2008, 01:06 PM
I'll give you a history lesson so you don't say that again:

Denver drafts from 1999-2005 they picked D players 21 of the top 29 picks during that frame. From 1999-2008 Denver picked D players 25 of their top 39 draft picks.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/den.htm

Lately, sure Shanny absolutely had to refresh the O on draft day and FA. What a coup Cutler was, Plummer was obviously winding down his career. Clady was a superb pick - and I thought he couldn't make the translation to the pros from Boise State - Scheff, Royal, Graham, Stokley, Marshall, Kory L., Torain, Hillis. Shanny restocked the O finally, he had to. Did a dang fine job restocking the O. With nine picks in 2009 I think, they're scouting D players galore right now. They'll try to add some O players, maybe a 6-3 ratio when all is done.

I'd only agree with Taco here with regard to the level of seriousness with which we've approached the defense. Yes, we've taken some high picks... but I wonder how many of those high picks were cornerbacks? We wasted a TON of high picks at DB.

We haven't paid near the level of attention to the front 7 we've needed to over the past few years. Whereas, we've taken Cutler mid-first round, traded for Walker, gave big salaries to guys like Travis Henry, etc.

The draft numbers may say we've taken more defense than offense, but it sure doesn't feel that way. Factor in free agency, and I do think we've been lacking. Clearly, we've blatantly ignored the D-line.

Cito Pelon
12-01-2008, 01:41 PM
I admire Hillis but there is no way he is going to be a feature back in our offense when our RBs are healthy.

He's a plodder who's really tough to bring down. Other than that he has no speed, no vision, and most importantly no cutback ability. Guys routinely catch him from behind and he has zero acceleration.

You watch his runs and he doesn't look for the cutback, he doesn't explode through the gap, and he doesn't have patience behind his OL.

Quite simply put, if Shanahan wants to use a guy like Hillis beyond this year as the feature back then there's no point running a zone blocking system (that fits Torain, Young etc) because Hillis isn't a cutback RB.

That being said he's a diverse full back. Can catch, block, and run with the ball and I'm all for having multiple options on the offense.

So what's the problem? Seems like you did some backflips there trying to disprove your own points.

tsiguy96
12-01-2008, 02:01 PM
everyone here keeps saying what they want in a RB, but then say the hillis can do those things as a fullback. if hes already doing those things great as a running back, what exactly are we trying to fix? he had 129 yards yesterday against a great running d, he carries LB and DB for multiple yards and MAKES defenses respect the run. no one is respecting andre hall or selvin young, just like no one is tackling hillis without a lot of help.

Cito Pelon
12-01-2008, 02:04 PM
I'd only agree with Taco here with regard to the level of seriousness with which we've approached the defense. Yes, we've taken some high picks... but I wonder how many of those high picks were cornerbacks? We wasted a TON of high picks at DB.

We haven't paid near the level of attention to the front 7 we've needed to over the past few years. Whereas, we've taken Cutler mid-first round, traded for Walker, gave big salaries to guys like Travis Henry, etc.

The draft numbers may say we've taken more defense than offense, but it sure doesn't feel that way. Factor in free agency, and I do think we've been lacking. Clearly, we've blatantly ignored the D-line.

Well, I'll take a look at the positions:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/den.htm

1999-2005 3 LB's drafted in the top 29 picks.

3 DT's in that top 29.

11 DB's in that top 29.

4 DE's in that top 29.

Yup, you called it.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 02:16 PM
no one is respecting andre hall or selvin young...

You're absolutely right about that. Add Torain's name to that list, because I have no respect right now for him either. Hillis, yes. The rest of these guys still have to prove themselves, because the only thing that any of them are proving right now is that they can't be relied upon down the stretch.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 02:24 PM
I'll give you a history lesson so you don't say that again:

Denver drafts from 1999-2005 they picked D players 21 of the top 29 picks during that frame. From 1999-2008 Denver picked D players 25 of their top 39 draft picks.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/den.htm

Lately, sure Shanny absolutely had to refresh the O on draft day and FA. What a coup Cutler was, Plummer was obviously winding down his career. Clady was a superb pick - and I thought he couldn't make the translation to the pros from Boise State - Scheff, Royal, Graham, Stokley, Marshall, Kory L., Torain, Hillis. Shanny restocked the O finally, he had to. Did a dang fine job restocking the O. With nine picks in 2009 I think, they're scouting D players galore right now. They'll try to add some O players, maybe a 6-3 ratio when all is done.


Your history lesson doesn't apply to what I was referring - which is day one selections. In the last five years you'll find that we've drafted with a heavy offensive bent on day one. You have to go back to the 90's teams to see a consistent day-one defensive bent - back when he was satisfied with the level of talent on offense.

Shanahan's priority has always been offense first. Once he's satisfied with the offense, that's when he puts high priority focus on defense... But not until then, if you can take history as any sort of indicator.

Cito Pelon
12-01-2008, 02:38 PM
Your history lesson doesn't apply to what I was referring - which is day one selections. In the last five years you'll find that we've drafted with a heavy offensive bent on day one. You have to go back to the 90's teams to see a consistent day-one defensive bent - back when he was satisfied with the level of talent on offense.

Shanahan's priority has always been offense first. Once he's satisfied with the offense, that's when he puts high priority focus on defense... But not until then, if you can take history as any sort of indicator.

Bud, you must be distracted. What, you got a couple kids on your lap? You surely aren't making sense. I'll try again:

21 of the top 29 draft picks from 1999-2005 were D players. 29 draft picks divided by 6 drafts = the first five picks average. So Denver drafted D players 73% of their first 5 picks from 1999 - 2005.

Sure, as I made quite an effort to point out above lately Shanny has been building the O, duh. Nevertheless, Denver is still sitting at 25 of their top 39 draft picks 1999 - 2008 being D players.

summerdenver
12-01-2008, 02:48 PM
You're absolutely right about that. Add Torain's name to that list, because I have no respect right now for him either. Hillis, yes. The rest of these guys still have to prove themselves, because the only thing that any of them are proving right now is that they can't be relied upon down the stretch.

I with you TJ. I have absolutely no faith that either of these guys will be healthy for all the 16 games.

Right now Denver has good YPC but most of the runs came against nickel defenses. Denver running attack right now resembles that of Eagles run game. Westbrook also has good metrics but they can't run to close the games and their run game is based on passing. Adding a legit RB like Moreno and pairing him with Hillis/Torrain (2 games of the year when he is healthy) will take away lot of pressure from Jay. Defenses can't ignore playaction like KC did. IMO it will transform the this offense to that of Giants/Chargers(circa 2006) or the holy grail of them all 1998 Denver Broncos.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 02:50 PM
Bud, you must be distracted. What, you got a couple kids on your lap? You surely aren't making sense. I'll try again:

21 of the top 29 draft picks from 1999-2005 were D players. 29 draft picks divided by 6 drafts = the first five picks average. So Denver drafted D players 73% of their first 5 picks from 1999 - 2005.

Sure, as I made quite an effort to point out above lately Shanny has been building the O, duh. Nevertheless, Denver is still sitting at 25 of their top 39 draft picks 1999 - 2008 being D players.

I think what we did in the 90's is immaterial to the situation that the Broncos are in right now. I think it's hard to make the argument that we've given the defense the same kind of priority that the organization has given the offense.

Taco John
12-01-2008, 02:55 PM
For what it's worth, I think when Shanahan selected Ashley Lelie over Ed Reed (or any of the defensive needs we had at that time), he gave us the perfect demonstration that, in a general way of speaking, he considers offense a priority.

elsid13
12-01-2008, 03:17 PM
Funny that.



That is exactly right, ultimately Shanahan and the Goodman family make the calls on personnel, so its their choice as to what the need priority really is.

Well we took a big 300+ OT with our top 15 first rounder. A guy who doesn't really fit the ZBS system of old.

Seems to me like we can infer some things from the recent drafts plus the recent offensive schemes. And what I'm inferring is that Shanahan is adapting to the times in the NFL and he's moving the team away from his flavor of the WCO with zone blocking run plays and heavy play action passes toward a more traditional vertical attack.

Will we still see the ZBS running attack and play actions? I'm sure, and they'll probably be very effective. But they are no longer the core of the system, they're the frills. Pocket protection and deep targets are the real talent base we've been pursuing.



Shanahan has stated before the he didn't have problem with 300 pounder for o-line as long as the had the feet to move around. In fact Shanahan stated in RMN that he felt that college were producing 300 pounders that were agile as the 280-290 he used to draft and develop. Which follow why they went after Clady. It was because they felt that Clady fit the mode of ZBS the coaching staff wanted not because the team was moving to dive power run style. And Torain, Young, Hall, Pope fit Turner criteria of one cut and downhill running style that this team has favored.

Eldorado
12-01-2008, 03:44 PM
Bud, you must be distracted. What, you got a couple kids on your lap? You surely aren't making sense. I'll try again:

21 of the top 29 draft picks from 1999-2005 were D players. 29 draft picks divided by 6 drafts = the first five picks average. So Denver drafted D players 73% of their first 5 picks from 1999 - 2005.

Sure, as I made quite an effort to point out above lately Shanny has been building the O, duh. Nevertheless, Denver is still sitting at 25 of their top 39 draft picks 1999 - 2008 being D players.

Oh my ****ing gawd.

Nothing in your post is true.

First, from 1999 to 2005 there were seven drafts. Not six.

Second, what is this top 29 number? Top of what? What the **** does that even mean?

Third, 21/29 = .72 and 25/39 = .64

Either way, 73% is a bull **** made up number that you manipulated to support whatever point you thought you were trying to make. Even if it is close to .72, you still changed it to support your argument.

Total crap.

cutthemdown
12-01-2008, 03:51 PM
All we need now is a white cornerback and we can be unique.

USMCBladerunner
12-01-2008, 05:24 PM
Great thread...lots of infighting about various topics of dubious relation to the thread title.

I don't know or care if Hillis is our "feature" TB or not. What I do know is that he has impressed on nearly every touch of the football he's had, starting off with that FB pass out of our own endzone. We will probably draft a RB, we usually do, but I don't expect it to be any earlier than Round 5.

Hillis keeps making plays, and I expect that Shanahan will figure him into the game plan until he stops making plays. In the end, I think Hillis will become one of or the most productive FB in the NFL.

I'm loving how Lex is pounding the table for a first round RB again. Hope springs eternal I guess.

azbroncfan
12-01-2008, 06:25 PM
I heard Sharpton and Jackson flew to Denver last night to protest Shanny's press conference today for Shanny's choice for starting RB. They claim shanny is trying to keep a brother down and accusing him of being racist since there are many FA's who are more athletic and qualified for the job.

lex
12-01-2008, 07:23 PM
Great thread...lots of infighting about various topics of dubious relation to the thread title.

I don't know or care if Hillis is our "feature" TB or not. What I do know is that he has impressed on nearly every touch of the football he's had, starting off with that FB pass out of our own endzone. We will probably draft a RB, we usually do, but I don't expect it to be any earlier than Round 5.

Hillis keeps making plays, and I expect that Shanahan will figure him into the game plan until he stops making plays. In the end, I think Hillis will become one of or the most productive FB in the NFL.

I'm loving how Lex is pounding the table for a first round RB again. Hope springs eternal I guess.

Guess again.

broncosteven
12-01-2008, 08:05 PM
Again I love Hillis's heart and the fact that we had a 100+ yard game out of a RB for what must be the 1st time this year but lets not elevate this guy to our RB for the next 3 years just yet.

David Wooderson
12-01-2008, 08:14 PM
The only thing holding Hillis back is white skin. It will take the country awhile to get use to this new phenomen called white lightening.

Popps
12-01-2008, 08:50 PM
Maybe we can talk Houston out of Slaton. Wow, that little ****er can run!

Taco John
01-13-2010, 02:23 PM
This thread is liquid gold.

tsiguy96
01-13-2010, 02:37 PM
he definitely earned a shot at competing for the starting RB job, even shanny said it. its unfortunate he didnt see the field for whatever reason this year.

skpac1001
01-13-2010, 03:16 PM
he definitely earned a shot at competing for the starting RB job, even shanny said it. its unfortunate he didnt see the field for whatever reason this year.

He is a fun player to watch. It wouldn't take much to make me happy, I like him best catching balls then running over db's so a pass to the flat once in a while would be fun plus maybe a run up the middle every once in a while. McDaniels has all offseason to figure out how to better integrate the players if he can, so if Hillis is still around I bet he has a real role next year.