PDA

View Full Version : Fields at NT


LonghornBronco
06-01-2009, 01:19 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?

LonghornBronco
06-01-2009, 01:20 PM
http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=609

Gcver2ver3
06-01-2009, 01:28 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?



when we're knee deep into TC i'll let you know...

til then it's anybody's guess...

LonghornBronco
06-01-2009, 01:34 PM
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/F/I/E/FIE787317.jpg
<!-- ************************* header END ******************** -->Ronald Fields | #91 | DT
Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/teams/denverbroncos/profile?team=DEN) | Official Team Site (http://www.denverbroncos.com/)

Height: 6-2 Weight: 315 Age: 27
Born: 9/13/1981 Bogalusa , LA
College: Mississippi State
Experience: 5th season
High School: Bogalusa HS [LA]; Hargrave Mil. Acad. [Chatham, VA]

Florida_Bronco
06-01-2009, 01:45 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?



Not surprised. He played pretty well in San Fran and I'm sure that will continue here.

TheReverend
06-01-2009, 01:53 PM
Not surprised. He played pretty well in San Fran and I'm sure that will continue here.

You're aware that he was #3 on the depth chart behind Sopoaga and Franklin, right?

SoDak Bronco
06-01-2009, 02:01 PM
I wonder if there has been a position of need on any team that has gone as ignored over the years as badly as DT/NT now then in Denver over the past several decades

Beantown Bronco
06-01-2009, 02:06 PM
I wonder if there has been a position of need on any team that has gone as ignored over the years as badly as DT/NT now then in Denver over the past several decades

Not ignored......just failed at their numerous attempts.

Think about it. Every year they've drafted and signed multiple FAs to play along the DLine. They've just guessed wrong far more than they've guessed right.

cmhargrove
06-01-2009, 02:09 PM
What ever happened to the Dumervil to DT experiment? It was pretty fun watching him get pushed back eight yards every play.

kappys
06-01-2009, 02:13 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?



When you don't have any competition at your position its a hard one to lose.

dbfan21
06-01-2009, 02:27 PM
When you don't have any competition at your position its a hard one to lose.

QFT Hilarious!

BroncoInSkinland
06-01-2009, 02:32 PM
Hmm, Fields has the most experience of any DT on our roster, he is Nolan's guy from San Fran, he is one of the few guys with experience in the 3-4, is it really any surprise he is currently the front runner for the job? Training camp will be a competition for this spot, and then we will see if Fields can hold onto it. I really doubt he is way out in front for the job at this point, there just aren't any other candidates that have any true claim on it. gcver2ver3 has it right, wait until we have seen what the other guys can do before we jump to any conclusions.

BroncoBuff
06-01-2009, 02:33 PM
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/getty/headshot/F/I/E/FIE787317.jpg
<!-- ************************* header END ******************** -->Ronald Fields | #91 | DT
Denver Broncos (http://www.nfl.com/teams/denverbroncos/profile?team=DEN) | Official Team Site (http://www.denverbroncos.com/)

Height: 6-2 Weight: 315 Age: 27
Born: 9/13/1981 Bogalusa , LA
College: Mississippi State
Experience: 5th season
High School: Bogalusa HS [LA]; Hargrave Mil. Acad. [Chatham, VA]
315 is not all that small for a NT after all:

DALLAS:
Tim Anderson 315
Jay Ratliff 302

SAN DIEGO
Jamal Wiliiams 348
Ian Scott 302

PITTSBURGH
Casey Hampton 325
Chris Hoke 305

NEW ENGLAND
Vince Wilfork 325
Titus Adams 305
Ron Brace 330

NY JETS
Kris Jenkins 349
Howard Green 320

CLEVELAND
Shaun Rogers 350
Robaire Smith 310

BALTIMORE
Haloti Ngata 330
Justin Bannan 305

Not all that many jumbos in the league after all ...

uplink
06-01-2009, 02:48 PM
If he is any good wonder why San F. would let him go, doesn't appear
to be a money issue.

SoDak Bronco
06-01-2009, 02:51 PM
I wish Raji would've fallen to us at 12...He would've been a huge upgrade

Gcver2ver3
06-01-2009, 02:54 PM
Hmm, Fields has the most experience of any DT on our roster, he is Nolan's guy from San Fran, he is one of the few guys with experience in the 3-4, is it really any surprise he is currently the front runner for the job? Training camp will be a competition for this spot, and then we will see if Fields can hold onto it. I really doubt he is way out in front for the job at this point, there just aren't any other candidates that have any true claim on it. gcver2ver3 has it right, wait until we have seen what the other guys can do before we jump to any conclusions.

i have to give REP to anyone that actually spells out my entire username...

REP to you!!!...:afro:

BroncoInSkinland
06-01-2009, 02:58 PM
i have to give REP to anyone that actually spells out my entire username...

REP to you!!!...:afro:

lol, not all that hard, I always figured it was version 2, then version 3, but plenty of people knew you by ver2 already, close to the origin? Anyway I just remember ver2ver3, I actually had to go back to find the gc part. ;)

Gcver2ver3
06-01-2009, 03:24 PM
lol, not all that hard, I always figured it was version 2, then version 3, but plenty of people knew you by ver2 already, close to the origin? Anyway I just remember ver2ver3, I actually had to go back to find the gc part. ;)

lol...

believe it or not, it's actually verifier 2 then verifier 3....(long boring and useless story)...

but irregardless...another REP for you!...8')

montrose
06-01-2009, 03:24 PM
You're aware that he was #3 on the depth chart behind Sopoaga and Franklin, right?

Rev, I thought you were actually excited about picking up Fields?

BroncoBuff
06-01-2009, 03:26 PM
gcver2ver3 .... got rep?

I'm always asking you ... when are you rolling out version 3?

broncofan7
06-01-2009, 03:28 PM
Rev, I thought you were actually excited about picking up Fields?

Love the avatar! Kid-N-Play!

BroncoBuff
06-01-2009, 03:32 PM
Love the avatar! Kid-N-Play!

He composed and performs the theme song for Bill Maher's "Real Time" on HBO. Very catchy, a real grinder :thumbs:

Gcver2ver3
06-01-2009, 03:34 PM
gcver2ver3 .... got rep?

I'm always asking you ... when are you rolling out version 3?

:P ...yes u have asked me on occassion haven't u...

and yes i always have REP! for you upon request sir...

TheReverend
06-01-2009, 03:36 PM
Rev, I thought you were actually excited about picking up Fields?

Yes, because it's someone with experience in the system and allowed for greater draft and FA flexibility.

Flexibility does not = ignoring the **** out of the spot.

elsid13
06-01-2009, 03:40 PM
If he is any good wonder why San F. would let him go, doesn't appear
to be a money issue.

It was a slight money issue, since they had just payed two young guys (Sopoaga and Franklin) that played a similar position and draft a young DE/DT (Balmer) in the first to also play that role.

BroncoBuff
06-01-2009, 03:50 PM
Still haven't heard any mention of Marcus Thomas outta Dove Valley ???

cmhargrove
06-01-2009, 04:00 PM
Still haven't heard any mention of Marcus Thomas outta Dove Valley ???

The only word so far was that they were trying him at NT, not DE. It wouldn't be surprising to see him around 315 by TC.

BroncoBuff
06-01-2009, 04:02 PM
The only word so far was that they were trying him at NT, not DE. It wouldn't be surprising to see him around 315 by TC.And Carlton Powell too?

That's 3 NTs ... plus Chris Baker who I hope will make the team.

footstepsfrom#27
06-01-2009, 04:57 PM
And Carlton Powell too?

That's 3 NTs ... plus Chris Baker who I hope will make the team.
I think Thomas, and possibly Powell also, wind up at DE. That's assuming Baker makes it. I can't see them using 3 or 4 NT's. Supposedly they'll all learn both spots though.

Br0nc0Buster
06-01-2009, 05:19 PM
And Carlton Powell too?

That's 3 NTs ... plus Chris Baker who I hope will make the team.

yes
But I imagine those guys will also see looks at end in certain situations.

I am actually more worried about end than tackle at the moment, outside of Kenny Peterson our next best pure end is McBean.......not good

Florida_Bronco
06-01-2009, 05:26 PM
You're aware that he was #3 on the depth chart behind Sopoaga and Franklin, right?

You're aware he started 9 games last year, right?

montrose
06-01-2009, 05:27 PM
Love the avatar! Kid-N-Play!

Gotta love em! I always felt like Play didn't get enough play - pun intended.

Yes, because it's someone with experience in the system and allowed for greater draft and FA flexibility.

Flexibility does not = ignoring the **** out of the spot.

Chris Baker! :strong:

TheReverend
06-01-2009, 05:32 PM
You're aware he started 9 games last year, right?

If by last year you meant to say "I'm a retard, he started 9 games in 2006", then yes, I'm aware of both.

Career Stats more
Season Team Tackles Interceptions Fumbles
G GS Total Solo Ast Sck SFTY PDef Int Yds Avg Lng TDs FUM Lost
2008 San Francisco 49ers 16 0 19 13 6 0.0 -- 0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- --
2007 San Francisco 49ers 16 0 21 11 10 1.0 -- 0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- --
2006 San Francisco 49ers 13 9 28 20 8 0.0 -- 1 -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- --
2005 San Francisco 49ers 4 0 7 4 3 0.0 -- 0 -- -- 0.0 -- -- -- --
TOTAL 75 48 27 1.0 0 1 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0

http://www.nfl.com/players/ronaldfields/profile?id=FIE787317

Educate yourself little girl.

Garcia Bronco
06-01-2009, 07:52 PM
He went to Hargrave. My high school rival.

cutthemdown
06-01-2009, 08:10 PM
I wonder if there has been a position of need on any team that has gone as ignored over the years as badly as DT/NT now then in Denver over the past several decades
\

Ignored not really.

They tried some FA like Gardner, drafted Thomas, tries Lional Dalton, and a bunch of has beens like luther ellis. It's just nothing worked.

Hopefully new staffs theory of just getting a lot of young big bodies in camp and trying to teach them will work better.

I think Fields and Peterson will play better then people think.

cutthemdown
06-01-2009, 08:12 PM
Until preseason games we won't really know how much 4-3 they plan on playing. 3-4 I guess the move they want to make but still they could play some 4-3 this yr in some situations.

~Crash~
06-01-2009, 08:38 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?



Hilarious!

400HZ
06-01-2009, 09:58 PM
It was a slight money issue, since they had just payed two young guys (Sopoaga and Franklin) that played a similar position and draft a young DE/DT (Balmer) in the first to also play that role.

Sopoaga is the only one who got a decent sized contract and is an ok player. Franklin is a scrub. Balmer is a disgrace. And they dumped Fields to make room for those two losers.

BroncoMan4ever
06-01-2009, 10:30 PM
You're aware that he was #3 on the depth chart behind Sopoaga and Franklin, right?

number 3 on just about every other defensive squad in the league at almost any defensive position is an improvement over the garbage that was fielded with our defense last season

Hulamau
06-01-2009, 11:02 PM
The only word so far was that they were trying him at NT, not DE. It wouldn't be surprising to see him around 315 by TC.

Marcus played much of last year around 320.

BroncoMan4ever
06-02-2009, 01:45 AM
Marcus played much of last year around 320.

i thought Robertson was the one playing at around 320 and Thomas was at around 300

azbroncfan
06-03-2009, 04:35 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?



He is a third stringer with only one year of starting so I don't expect much.

Mediator12
06-03-2009, 08:30 PM
The same thoughts I have every year. I hope this one works!

DEN has had 67 DL on the active roster in the last 6 years. None of them from past three years and that is Dumervil in the 2006 draft. Wait, now he is going to be a LB! Even he will no longer qualify soon!

This team has had the worst DL in the league since 2004. One part of that is the talent, one part is the Turnover, and one part is the lack of scheme consistency. I can not believe how poorly one team failed managing the most important part of the defense in the NFL.

Ron Fields, I just hope he breaks the trend of AWFUL DL DEN has acquired in FA. The average DL in that span stayed less than 2 years and never played for anyone EVER again. There are only 7 of the 50 that ever played for another team. Can anyone name them? (By Playing, I mean set foot on the field for another NFL team.)

Bigdawg26
06-03-2009, 09:33 PM
Ugh Reggie Hayward, Trevor Pryce, Bert Berry, Montae Reagor and i'm all out

Bigdawg26
06-03-2009, 09:34 PM
Thats a pretty good front seven with Hayward and Berry at the ends with Pryce and Reagor up front

s0phr0syne
06-03-2009, 10:11 PM
Amon Gordon is/was one of them...for the Iggles, I think.

epicSocialism4tw
06-03-2009, 10:28 PM
Based on Fields session with the media he has the starting NT possition nailed down.

Thoughts?



This is what we call bottom-barrell.

You hope for improvement at the position, but the talent is worse.

It looks like the front office isnt up to the task of formulating and executing a plan.

epicSocialism4tw
06-03-2009, 10:29 PM
The same thoughts I have every year. I hope this one works!

DEN has had 67 DL on the active roster in the last 6 years. None of them from past three years and that is Dumervil in the 2006 draft. Wait, now he is going to be a LB! Even he will no longer qualify soon!

This team has had the worst DL in the league since 2004. One part of that is the talent, one part is the Turnover, and one part is the lack of scheme consistency. I can not believe how poorly one team failed managing the most important part of the defense in the NFL.

Ron Fields, I just hope he breaks the trend of AWFUL DL DEN has acquired in FA. The average DL in that span stayed less than 2 years and never played for anyone EVER again. There are only 7 of the 50 that ever played for another team. Can anyone name them? (By Playing, I mean set foot on the field for another NFL team.)

An absolute, unmitigated disaster.

worm
06-03-2009, 10:32 PM
Nick Eason has a ring with Pitt...not sure if he counts as he was a pick not FA.

Hulamau
06-04-2009, 12:00 AM
I think Thomas, and possibly Powell also, wind up at DE. That's assuming Baker makes it. I can't see them using 3 or 4 NT's. Supposedly they'll all learn both spots though.

Your right 27 and I really don't think we're going to struggle anywhere near like the last few years on the D-line. We may be young over all but at least big and strong. Not likely to have the most dominant D-line in the league but I'll be surprised if this years version inst a significant upgrade over what we've seen lately. Nunnelly is a damn fine D-line coach.

And Thomas was always a penetrating disruptive guy at Florida in a role more likely to how he will be sued here now in what even he said Nolan's attacking style 3-4.

Image Fields will lock down the job early on with likely rotation with Baker as he gets up to NFL ready.

Between Thomas, McBean, Peterson, Powell, Rulon, Everrett P and Reid as DE/DTs within this system and with these coaches, I just don't think we're going to suck any more.

Mediator12
06-04-2009, 07:01 AM
Your right 27 and I really don't think we're going to struggle anywhere near like the last few years on the D-line. We may be young over all but at least big and strong. Not likely to have the most dominant D-line in the league but I'll be surprised if this years version inst a significant upgrade over what we've seen lately. Nunnelly is a damn fine D-line coach.

And Thomas was always a penetrating disruptive guy at Florida in a role more likely to how he will be sued here now in what even he said Nolan's attacking style 3-4.

Image Fields will lock down the job early on with likely rotation with Baker as he gets up to NFL ready.

Between Thomas, McBean, Peterson, Powell, Rulon, Everrett P and Reid as DE/DTs within this system and with these coaches, I just don't think we're going to suck any more.


I seriously wish I had your optimism, but that group scares the crap out of me. None of those guys have that many NFL snaps under their belt and Thomas is the Only NFL Starter of the bunch. DT is an experience position in the NFL. Its why elite guys mentally can not do it right out of the gate. Those guys get Mauled every play and they can not just out athlete people anymore.

I just hope they all learn to play the new way and fast. However, not having one top thirty DL in the mix does not bode well for success right away as not one player in DEN's front seven needs to be accounted for in anyone's blocking scheme. There is no mismatch anywhere up front. We have seen what happens the last 2 years when teams can run ANYTHING at your defense without having to change or adjust for matchup issues.

fdf
06-04-2009, 07:23 AM
Still haven't heard any mention of Marcus Thomas outta Dove Valley ???

I thought that was an interesting silence also.

rugbythug
06-04-2009, 07:25 AM
The Players this year are much better than the Players last year on the line. I am not looking for the Giants line. I think 25th in the league would be a huge step forward.

~Crash~
06-04-2009, 07:27 AM
Marcus Thomas will be the starter NT if we play one gap 3-4 like they are talking . if so one mess up and the other side six points . high risk D .

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 08:03 AM
I seriously wish I had your optimism, but that group scares the crap out of me. None of those guys have that many NFL snaps under their belt and Thomas is the Only NFL Starter of the bunch. DT is an experience position in the NFL. Its why elite guys mentally can not do it right out of the gate. Those guys get Mauled every play and they can not just out athlete people anymore.

I just hope they all learn to play the new way and fast. However, not having one top thirty DL in the mix does not bode well for success right away as not one player in DEN's front seven needs to be accounted for in anyone's blocking scheme. There is no mismatch anywhere up front. We have seen what happens the last 2 years when teams can run ANYTHING at your defense without having to change or adjust for matchup issues.

Well, I think you're being a little too negative. Many of the problems the last couple years came from having 3-4-5 guys missing their assignments, not being able to shed a blocker, taking a poor angle - all on the same play. Hence the number of 20+, 30+, 50+ running plays/screens/short passes converted into long gains.

A lot of those big plays allowed by the D were not just a DL problem. There were a ton of breakdowns in the back seven - the inability to shed a blocker or taking a poor angle.

Denver I think is much improved on paper in overall ability to limit big plays. Therefore, that limits first downs, TOP, scoring, and should lead to more wins.

We'll have to wait and see. Preseason will show us if there has been progress made.

Mediator12
06-04-2009, 08:51 AM
Well, I think you're being a little too negative. Many of the problems the last couple years came from having 3-4-5 guys missing their assignments, not being able to shed a blocker, taking a poor angle - all on the same play. Hence the number of 20+, 30+, 50+ running plays/screens/short passes converted into long gains.

A lot of those big plays allowed by the D were not just a DL problem. There were a ton of breakdowns in the back seven - the inability to shed a blocker or taking a poor angle.

Denver I think is much improved on paper in overall ability to limit big plays. Therefore, that limits first downs, TOP, scoring, and should lead to more wins.

We'll have to wait and see. Preseason will show us if there has been progress made.

Dude, I am not being negative, I am being skeptical. This DL is NOT better on paper than any DL we have had the last 3 years in any way shape or form. There is a ton of young talent that has never proven a thing in the NFL. In years past, we have at least acquired former NFL starting caliber players in FA. Not great ones mind you, but starting level players in FA.

Name one starting level player on the DL? There are only 2 in the LB unit and that is DJ and Andra Davis who is not even taking starting reps in OTA's. Scheme and coaching can correct a lot, but at the end of the day, Talent along the front seven is what wins Defensive battles for teams. Right now, there is little to no proven NFL caliber starting players in DEN's front seven.

Its OK to think they might get a few players to come along with DJ, but having 3 out of 7 players NFL level starting caliber to start a season is still a recipe for disaster by game ten for a Defense.

Haroldthebarrel
06-04-2009, 09:07 AM
There are some positive signs. At least it seems like McDaniels will put an effort into the defensive line.
He did say why draft a player when you dont have him rated high enough, and that is very much the NE way.
Secondly, there are some pretty good role players there already so we should be a lot harder to run on.
Thirdly, getting rid of Burney alone, who didnt produce a nfl player the last five years or more should be addition by subtraction.
Finally, the running game could easily be top five. Which seems to be part of the plan for the upcoming season. If we win the TOP, the defense could look a whole lot better than they really are.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 09:15 AM
Dude, I am not being negative, I am being skeptical. This DL is NOT better on paper than any DL we have had the last 3 years in any way shape or form. There is a ton of young talent that has never proven a thing in the NFL. In years past, we have at least acquired former NFL starting caliber players in FA. Not great ones mind you, but starting level players in FA.

Name one starting level player on the DL? There are only 2 in the LB unit and that is DJ and Andra Davis who is not even taking starting reps in OTA's. Scheme and coaching can correct a lot, but at the end of the day, Talent along the front seven is what wins Defensive battles for teams. Right now, there is little to no proven NFL caliber starting players in DEN's front seven.

Its OK to think they might get a few players to come along with DJ, but having 3 out of 7 players NFL level starting caliber to start a season is still a recipe for disaster by game ten for a Defense.

Negative, skeptical, whatever, I'm saying you're a little too far on the negative/skeptical side. You've said yourself and I agree that DL guys most of the time take several years to mature into good DL players. That's the gamble Nolan/McD took by grabbing some 3rd-4th year guys and sticking with homegrown 3rd year guys like Moss, Crowder, and Elvis who is a proven pass-rusher.

I'm not saying this is gonna be the shiz DL, but I'm sure not gonna say this is gonna be a disaster DL. No way.

Also, having an improved back four and back 7, that will limit the ridiculous # of +20 yd gains given up the past two years, which was one of the biggest problems the past couple of years. The lack of passrush potential on paper is a problem, but the overall D I think is much improved.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 10:09 AM
Well, I think you're being a little too negative. Many of the problems the last couple years came from having 3-4-5 guys missing their assignments, not being able to shed a blocker, taking a poor angle - all on the same play. Hence the number of 20+, 30+, 50+ running plays/screens/short passes converted into long gains.

A lot of those big plays allowed by the D were not just a DL problem. There were a ton of breakdowns in the back seven - the inability to shed a blocker or taking a poor angle.

Denver I think is much improved on paper in overall ability to limit big plays. Therefore, that limits first downs, TOP, scoring, and should lead to more wins.

We'll have to wait and see. Preseason will show us if there has been progress made.

Strong misunderstanding.

Watch how heavy they had to stack the box last year. More times than not, they've got NINE guys in the box to squeeze gaps down.

You've heard of a runner breaking into the "second level" right? When you have 8-9 in the box... there is no second level! Get a decent initial hole through those tight gaps, and you're off to the races, period.

Hulamau
06-04-2009, 10:19 AM
I seriously wish I had your optimism, but that group scares the crap out of me. None of those guys have that many NFL snaps under their belt and Thomas is the Only NFL Starter of the bunch. DT is an experience position in the NFL. Its why elite guys mentally can not do it right out of the gate. Those guys get Mauled every play and they can not just out athlete people anymore.

I just hope they all learn to play the new way and fast. However, not having one top thirty DL in the mix does not bode well for success right away as not one player in DEN's front seven needs to be accounted for in anyone's blocking scheme. There is no mismatch anywhere up front. We have seen what happens the last 2 years when teams can run ANYTHING at your defense without having to change or adjust for matchup issues.

First of all Med, lets define expectations of success. Its easier to be optimistic when you are not demanding nor expecting the Steeler's front line, to be sure.

Granted, I expect a work in progress. What I am hoping for, and see evidence for some optimism for, is solid improvement in this defense as a whole this year, and that includes at least incremental relative gains on the D-line compared with the last two years of fiasco schizoid scheme changes in mid-season and key injuries to boot.

We have better size now. Fields may not be Wilfork but he's not a total embarrassment either at NT. That alone will help settle things down and help Thomas, Powell, McBean, Reid, Peterson do better work at DE. And with a little luck perhaps we get surprising contributions in rotation from Davis and/or Everett P as well as Baker? We'll see.

We just need to have a couple guys able to hold up the opposing tackles/ guards long enough to let these LB's slowdown the run game a bit more than last year and lessen the back breaking long runs a bit to see some real improvement and spending less time on the field. Even if we are still just a middle of the road D at best this year.

Also if your contention that no other teams will feel they have to account for anyone on our d-line in their blocking schemes is true, then that attitude might well be a plus for us and offers a better chance to surprise a lot of folks with even marginally better play than people 'expect'.

I'm not expecting them to mimic the Ravens this year, and I also expect greater efficiency in the end zone by our offense as well and with an improved running game and ball control passing game to take some of the pressure off the D and D line as well.

A significant reduction in the 60 yard runs or long bomb completions on 3rd and 28 will go along way to keeping this team competitive in tight games.

Its easy to look at the lack of marquee names and just assume its going to be another horror show, but there are enough new elements here, from new coaches, new schemes on both sides of the ball and a lot of fresh talent on the team, even if some of it is still unproven and raw, to not get locked into a depressing numbers game this early in the off-season.

Yes, it will take some breaks, yes we need a a couple guys on D to really step up and take command of their positions this year. But they also have a better LB corp and a MUCH improved and Healthy( so far) secondary to help support the line, motivate them with better leadership and pressure these guys to play their best ball.

But bottom-line, my optimism is for continued improvement from here on out with the clarity and understanding that Rome wasn't built in a day and we are unlikely to have the defense we really want for another year or two at least.

Simply a little better luck on the injury front alone will make this a better performing defense than last year, hands down. Even if the D-line does still struggle some as is likely. If we can just keep the score we have to beat below 21 this year rather than having to score 34 points a game to have a chance, that will be a plus :-).

No doubt there are some real challenges and some good breaks have to fall our way, but I'm optimistic we will surprise a bunch of people even with some weak links that still need to be addressed before we go SB hunting.

I feel some intangibles coming together in just the way the team seems to be embracing McD and the new system and the chip on their shoulder "Us against the 'experts' mentality starting to come through as well., That combined with McD's obvious passion for this and ultra detail oriented and disciplined approach has the making of a good surprise story. Especially for those 'pundits' not really paying attention or looking at the Broncos mostly through the rear view mirror.

Besides, it's the time of year for optimism! If the worst happens and the whole experiment takes a swan dive off the high board this season there will be plenty of opportunity for me to piss, moan and gnash my teeth with the gloomers as well.

But why spoil a perfectly good summer being surly and depressed until proven there's a good reason to be?? :flower:

Hulamau
06-04-2009, 10:54 AM
Dude, I am not being negative, I am being skeptical. This DL is NOT better on paper than any DL we have had the last 3 years in any way shape or form. There is a ton of young talent that has never proven a thing in the NFL. In years past, we have at least acquired former NFL starting caliber players in FA. Not great ones mind you, but starting level players in FA.

Name one starting level player on the DL? There are only 2 in the LB unit and that is DJ and Andra Davis who is not even taking starting reps in OTA's. Scheme and coaching can correct a lot, but at the end of the day, Talent along the front seven is what wins Defensive battles for teams. Right now, there is little to no proven NFL caliber starting players in DEN's front seven.

Its OK to think they might get a few players to come along with DJ, but having 3 out of 7 players NFL level starting caliber to start a season is still a recipe for disaster by game ten for a Defense.

Perhaps, but we ARE a young team, particularly in the front seven and on offense. James Harrison was no one's idea of a starting caliber plays two years ago either.

Woodyard and Spencer were rookie back ups last year but could blossom into starting calibre players now. Even Jarvis Moss 'might' come through and show a bit of his first round value at long last if he is ready to step up after two years of humiliation and in a new position?

McBean sounds like a classic late bloomer with good size who some other team would up developing and perhaps we get to reap the reward? These are the kinds of things , not all , and maybe some different scenarios that need to happen for serious progress on the D this year, but I just don't think we can stink it up (on D) any worse than last year and that's a start in the right direction.

Id love to swap our front seven with the Patriots ( particularly oi two years ago) But just maybe people will say the same thing about our defense in a few years, once we've had time to put a few more pieces of the puzzle together ... and with a little luck.

Hulamau
06-04-2009, 11:02 AM
Strong misunderstanding.

Watch how heavy they had to stack the box last year. More times than not, they've got NINE guys in the box to squeeze gaps down.

You've heard of a runner breaking into the "second level" right? When you have 8-9 in the box... there is no second level! Get a decent initial hole through those tight gaps, and you're off to the races, period.

Maybe on occasion Rev, but I don't recall stacking the box with 9 guys on most of those break away runs/passes on 3rd and long last year? You sure about that, or are you taking a few liberties there to make a point?

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 11:03 AM
Maybe on occasion Rev, but I don't recall stacking the box with 9 guys on most of those break away runs/passes on 3rd and long last year? You sure about that, or are you taking a few liberties there to make a point?

Lol, yeah I'm completely making this up. That's why we even ran a 4-4 against Carolina...

epicSocialism4tw
06-04-2009, 11:16 AM
Dude, I am not being negative, I am being skeptical. This DL is NOT better on paper than any DL we have had the last 3 years in any way shape or form. There is a ton of young talent that has never proven a thing in the NFL. In years past, we have at least acquired former NFL starting caliber players in FA. Not great ones mind you, but starting level players in FA.

Name one starting level player on the DL? There are only 2 in the LB unit and that is DJ and Andra Davis who is not even taking starting reps in OTA's. Scheme and coaching can correct a lot, but at the end of the day, Talent along the front seven is what wins Defensive battles for teams. Right now, there is little to no proven NFL caliber starting players in DEN's front seven.

Its OK to think they might get a few players to come along with DJ, but having 3 out of 7 players NFL level starting caliber to start a season is still a recipe for disaster by game ten for a Defense.


Second verse...same as the first!

This franchise still puts no stock in controlling the defensive line of scrimmage, and this will be 100+-yard-RB-central until it does. You simply cannot be pushed around at the first level of the defense and expect to win games. Its a miracle that the former squad was even able to maintain an average level of ball control. It might have been divine intervention for the Jake Plummer team to make the Conference Championship.

Defensive line is the second-most important level of the field on either side of the ball...second only to the offensive line.

Its funny...on this site people attack you for talking football. They want you to fall in line with whatever general perspective that they want you to have...be it anti-Plummerness, pro-McD'ness, or whatever. Just smile and jump in line like the rest of the sheep. I dont know if its an unusually high proportion of teenagers or kids or whatever that frequent this site, but you only come across football talk so often.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 11:19 AM
Second verse...same as the first!

This franchise still puts no stock in controlling the defensive line of scrimmage, and this will be 100+-yard-RB-central until it does. You simply cannot be pushed around at the first level of the defense and expect to win games. Its a miracle that the former squad was even able to maintain an average level of ball control. It might have been divine intervention for the Jake Plummer team to make the Conference Championship.

Defensive line is the second-most important level of the field on either side of the ball...second only to the offensive line.

Its funny...on this site people attack you for talking football. They want you to fall in line with whatever general perspective that they want you to have...be it anti-Plummerness, pro-McD'ness, or whatever. Just smile and jump in line like the rest of the sheep. I dont know if its an unusually high proportion of teenagers or kids or whatever that frequent this site, but you only come across football talk so often.

2005's DL was insanely good at stopping the run

epicSocialism4tw
06-04-2009, 11:20 AM
2005's DL was insanely good at stopping the run

I dont know if that was the DL as much as it was Al Wilson.

Inkana7
06-04-2009, 11:21 AM
Courtney Brown, Gerard Warren and Trevor Pryce played awesome against the run that year.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 11:22 AM
I dont know if that was the DL as much as it was Al Wilson.

Not minimizing the greatness or accomplishments of that man in anyway, but 2005 was very impressive in pushing plays laterally, collapsing holes immediately, and putting ball carriers on the ground.

epicSocialism4tw
06-04-2009, 11:23 AM
Courtney Brown, Gerard Warren and Trevor Pryce played awesome against the run that year.

They were pretty good in general, especially Pryce who was the only top-flight this DL has seen in years (and was treated with general disregard and disrespect by the coaching staff while he was here). However, Al Wilson was brilliant and getting into gaps and disrupting things when he got there.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 11:24 AM
Strong misunderstanding.

Watch how heavy they had to stack the box last year. More times than not, they've got NINE guys in the box to squeeze gaps down.

You've heard of a runner breaking into the "second level" right? When you have 8-9 in the box... there is no second level! Get a decent initial hole through those tight gaps, and you're off to the races, period.

You're wrong about this as you generally are wrong about everything be it O, D, ST's. Good lord, that's ridiculous.

Denver very, very, very seldom had 8-9 in the box. Short yardage or goal line only. That's a ridiculous assertion that they More times than not, they've got NINE guys in the box to squeeze gaps down. They'd sneak a seventh in there dictated by down and distance, but mostly they played a straight 4-3 or nickel.

What hurt was the back seven couldn't stop the long gains.

I'll grant you the DL was not stellar, but please.

epicSocialism4tw
06-04-2009, 11:26 AM
Not minimizing the greatness or accomplishments of that man in anyway, but 2005 was very impressive in pushing plays laterally, collapsing holes immediately, and putting ball carriers on the ground.

All of which were Al's specialties. That defense played to Al's strengths.

Unfortunately, the DL had about zero ability in collapsing the pocket and/or getting to the QB, which was ultimately its downfall. Benburger had plenty of time to dissect Foxworth like a cadaver, and that ultimately was the difference in getting a chance to put another trophy in the case.

BroncoInSkinland
06-04-2009, 11:30 AM
But bottom-line, my optimism is for continued improvement from here on out with the clarity and understanding that Rome wasn't built in a day and we are unlikely to have the defense we really want for another year or two at least.

I love your optimism Hulamau, but I also can't share it. The problem I have is we aren't building Rome, we are building Hoboken unless we get real lucky. What building blocks do you see? I see mediocre no name players that will be lucky to even be in the league in three years, much less starting at a high level. I understand that it takes time to build a defense, but the part that takes time is finding talented guys and then giving them the coaching and experience to perform at a high level. We aren't getting talented guys, we are taking what falls to us.

We may get lucky and one or maybe two of them may be something Nolan can work with, but I fully expect more of the same in three years, one or two of these guys as holdovers on a practically new defense. I would be fine with building a defense, and would give them the time to do so without grumbling too much, if I saw them making a true attempt at all. We currently have a third string reject from a mediocre defense penciled in at starting NT, the most important position in a 3-4. His backup/competition? UDFA. A guy that 32 teams passed on in the draft 7 times. Show me the effort / investment the team made in the D-Line and maybe I will show signs of hope, until then skeptical is the word of the day. You say you would love to swap out for the Patriots line, I say I would love to start drafting and trading to make them wish they had ours.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 11:34 AM
You're wrong about this as you generally are wrong about everything be it O, D, ST's. Good lord, that's ridiculous.

Denver very, very, very seldom had 8-9 in the box. Short yardage or goal line only. That's a ridiculous assertion that they More times than not, they've got NINE guys in the box to squeeze gaps down. They'd sneak a seventh in there dictated by down and distance, but mostly they played a straight 4-3 or nickel.

What hurt was the back seven couldn't stop the long gains.

I'll grant you the DL was not stellar, but please.

Wow, you're dumb.

You realize our base defense involved the safety playing weakside contain?

That's 8. In a base.

Learn something.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 11:48 AM
Second verse...same as the first!

This franchise still puts no stock in controlling the defensive line of scrimmage, and this will be 100+-yard-RB-central until it does. You simply cannot be pushed around at the first level of the defense and expect to win games. Its a miracle that the former squad was even able to maintain an average level of ball control. It might have been divine intervention for the Jake Plummer team to make the Conference Championship.

Defensive line is the second-most important level of the field on either side of the ball...second only to the offensive line.

Its funny...on this site people attack you for talking football. They want you to fall in line with whatever general perspective that they want you to have...be it anti-Plummerness, pro-McD'ness, or whatever. Just smile and jump in line like the rest of the sheep. I dont know if its an unusually high proportion of teenagers or kids or whatever that frequent this site, but you only come across football talk so often.

You talk Oprah football. Leave the real football talk to us men.

epicSocialism4tw
06-04-2009, 11:51 AM
You talk Oprah football. Leave the real football talk to us men.

you
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/wrench-1.jpg

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 11:52 AM
So... is he an adjustable wrench or a tool?

epicSocialism4tw
06-04-2009, 11:57 AM
So... is he an adjustable wrench or a tool?

Ha!

I guess that I wanted to infer "monkey wrench" as a sub-category of "tool". But a classic monkey wrench may not have gotten the point across because its maybe less often associated with the useage of "tool" in that sense.

azbroncfan
06-04-2009, 11:57 AM
I am concerned with the bandaid's and castoffs on the DL. Fields is a 3rd stringer from a mediocre D. The DE's are guys that no one seems to be winning the job. If those guys can't control the LOS the LB's aren't perfect 3-4 backers either and we saw what DJ has brought playing inside. At least he won't have as much field to cover. The OLB's are DE's that were DE's and outside of Dumerville they have been underachievers due to mental capacity. This D could be very ugly and we will know after the first preseason game where the bottom is. If the DL can't hold their assignments it will be an ugly year.

azbroncfan
06-04-2009, 12:00 PM
Ha!

I guess that I wanted to infer "monkey wrench" as a sub-category of "tool". But a classic monkey wrench may not have gotten the point across because its maybe less often associated with the useage of "tool" in that sense.

Except your attempt at calling him a tool shows your lack of tool knowledge since you posted a pic of a crescent/adjustable wrench and called it a monkey wrench which is slang for a pipe wrench.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 12:01 PM
Wow, you're dumb.

You realize our base defense involved the safety playing weakside contain?

That's 8. In a base.

Learn something.

8 in a base, sure, I just learned something, jack.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 12:03 PM
8 in a base, sure, I just learned something, jack.

Glad I can help. PM me if you need more.

Mediator12
06-04-2009, 12:08 PM
You're wrong about this as you generally are wrong about everything be it O, D, ST's. Good lord, that's ridiculous.

Denver very, very, very seldom had 8-9 in the box. Short yardage or goal line only. That's a ridiculous assertion that they More times than not, they've got NINE guys in the box to squeeze gaps down. They'd sneak a seventh in there dictated by down and distance, but mostly they played a straight 4-3 or nickel.

What hurt was the back seven couldn't stop the long gains.

I'll grant you the DL was not stellar, but please.

No one in the NFL plays the run with seven consistently, so I would be very careful in your assesment. Every running play outside of select rare formations still needs to have 8 gaps filled. The closest anyone comes with regularity are the Tampa 2 teams who still walk a safety up the majority of the time presnap if its a predominant run read.

Also, by the end of the year DEN was playing eight and even nine in the box versus the Jets. Playing cover one, too deep safety. Go watch the Thomas Jones long runs and watch who is in the box. Against CAR, they also played a modified 46 base with a standard 8 in the box on first downs and obvious rushing downs.

Where DEN was plain awful was tackling and shedding in the front seven. Porous is a kind word to describe their efforts. NOW, who in this front seven is markedly better than last years group? No one definitively has any pedigree to say they are better and most are changing from roles they were drafted to play, to roles they have never had any experience whatsoever. There has not been an overall talent or scheme effective upgrade of talent to the front seven. Sure the back 8 might help some of the long plays, but they WILL wear down just as they did in the past as almost all of them are over 30. And, it is yet to be seen if the pass rush improves with the scheme cahnge. That is nowhere near a given.

azbroncfan
06-04-2009, 12:11 PM
No one in the NFL plays the run with seven consistently, so I would be very careful in your assesment. Every running play outside of select rare formations still needs to have 8 gaps filled. The closest anyone comes with regularity are the Tampa 2 teams who still walk a safety up the majority of the time presnap if its a predominant run read.

Also, by the end of the year DEN was playing eight and even nine in the box versus the Jets. Playing cover one, too deep safety. Go watch the Thomas Jones long runs and watch who is in the box. Against CAR, they also played a modified 46 base with a standard 8 in the box on first downs and obvious rushing downs.

Where DEN was plain awful was tackling and shedding in the front seven. Porous is a kind word to describe their efforts. NOW, who in this front seven is markedly better than last years group? No one definitively has any pedigree to say they are better and most are changing from roles they were drafted to play, to roles they have never had any experience whatsoever. There has not been an overall talent or scheme effective upgrade of talent to the front seven. Sure the back 8 might help some of the long plays, but they WILL wear down just as they did in the past as almost all of them are over 30. And, it is yet to be seen if the pass rush improves with the scheme cahnge. That is nowhere near a given.


I just have a sick feeling that the run D will be terrible again and the pass D will only be improved. The secondary improvements won't matter if RB's are gashing Denver at 5 ypc and there is little pass rush. I'll have to wait and see but I don't like all the bandaid DL.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 12:13 PM
Against CAR, they also played a modified 46 base with a standard 8 in the box on first downs and obvious rushing downs

Why would you call that modified?

It's got the off-coverage so QBs can read the pocket and play contain, with 4 on the line and 4 pure LBs. Pure definition of a 46, imo.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Ha!

I guess that I wanted to infer "monkey wrench" as a sub-category of "tool". But a classic monkey wrench may not have gotten the point across because its maybe less often associated with the useage of "tool" in that sense.

You don't know the difference between "infer" and "imply". That always points to a person that doesn't know the difference beween ignorance and knowledge.

Mediator12
06-04-2009, 12:15 PM
Why would you call that modified?

It's got the off-coverage so QBs can read the pocket and play contain, with 4 on the line and 4 pure LBs. Pure definition of a 46, imo.

Position of the 4th LB/S. They ran it outside the D gaps and pinched in instead of pinching out.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 12:19 PM
Position of the 4th LB/S. They ran it outside the D gaps and pinched in instead of pinching out.

Ah, okay. Can't complain about that decision, though. Need to play to Wesley and Winborn's limitations.

Hulamau
06-04-2009, 12:23 PM
I love your optimism Hulamau, but I also can't share it. The problem I have is we aren't building Rome, we are building Hoboken unless we get real lucky. What building blocks do you see? I see mediocre no name players that will be lucky to even be in the league in three years, much less starting at a high level. I understand that it takes time to build a defense, but the part that takes time is finding talented guys and then giving them the coaching and experience to perform at a high level. We aren't getting talented guys, we are taking what falls to us.

We may get lucky and one or maybe two of them may be something Nolan can work with, but I fully expect more of the same in three years, one or two of these guys as holdovers on a practically new defense. I would be fine with building a defense, and would give them the time to do so without grumbling too much, if I saw them making a true attempt at all. We currently have a third string reject from a mediocre defense penciled in at starting NT, the most important position in a 3-4. His backup/competition? UDFA. A guy that 32 teams passed on in the draft 7 times. Show me the effort / investment the team made in the D-Line and maybe I will show signs of hope, until then skeptical is the word of the day. You say you would love to swap out for the Patriots line, I say I would love to start drafting and trading to make them wish they had ours.

My perspective is a bit broader. Yes it would be great to have stocked on on some Raji, Tyson Jackson, Maybe Orakpo and also Ayers this year but once Raji and Jackson were gone the picking got a bit slim relative to what McD saw as better value in other key areas that were on the board. Hence the reason we have more offensive picks than defense this year.

I get it that McD sees this as a multi year plan. He obviously didn't like the potential of Brace over Smith longer term or he would have moved up for him. I think hes right (NE picked Brace as a development project to stash behind Wilfork for a couple years and maybe work in the rotation).

Beyond that I really think Chris Baker was the most natural NT left on the board

And who do we have ... Chris Baker! He came in and interviewed with McD and they worked him out. And the main reason he was passed over seven times ( by those 3-4 teams) is his off field question marks not as a football player between the lines. You take away his getting canned from Penn State for the scandal and he's long gone before the end of day one.

McD and Xanders did their due diligence, felt that problem was history and bet correctly he would be available as an UDFA simply because of the fear teams have of getting close to a guy with that kind of potential 'character' issue and resume. Particularly with Dirty Harry as our current commissioner!

But if they are right and the kid wasn't as bad as accused and if he has turned his life around we may well have gotten a real steal! On the field he was solid at Penn State and even more so at Hampton.

We'll see, and Baker is likely a two year project too but perhaps he can help this year in rotation as well.

However the point is McD took the best players on their board regardless he felt would strength this team now and in the long term .. you know the Patriot way of building championships. And if the luck of the draw in not getting Raji and an otherwise piss poor weak draft at DL forced McD to choose other significant needs with better over all players this year then so be it.

The point being each player we drafted looks like a solid prospect at his position even though we obviously didn't have a dream draft on the D line like every one was praying for. There IS a plan here though, and lets see how it plays out. Next year at this time lets talk again and see if this bigger picture plan is becoming any clearer.

Focusing on getting the 'cant miss' star guy at a great position of need is wonderful when it can happen. But when he's not there, I'm with McD and the Patriots track record that you're better off going for the best player overall on your board at other positions of need rather than reaching for what will likely become future cannon fodder just because you still have some holes to fill.

Listen, baring the second coming we aren't going to win the SB this year.
Signs of significant solid progress 'as a team' .. and playing like a team that is tougher and more competitive the last 5 games than they are in the first five for a change, is about the best we can ask for this year. Anything else is gravy.

I'm not arguing at all that it would been the bee's knees to land the top 4 DL prospects in this draft ... somehow ... and why not throw in Albert Hainesworth as well while we're dreamin'?

But with the budget and the positions we had and the timing with Raji and Jackson already gone, I can understand why McD chose to fill in the rest of the team with quality guys elsewhere now and take a flyer on some UDFAs up front this year.

By December, it should be crystal clear where he needs to focus his offseaon FA and draft targets next year for this two to three year make over project to restore the Broncos to serious SB competition again each year there after. Lets give the process a chance to take shape before getting too bent out of shape.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 12:43 PM
No one in the NFL plays the run with seven consistently, so I would be very careful in your assesment. Every running play outside of select rare formations still needs to have 8 gaps filled. The closest anyone comes with regularity are the Tampa 2 teams who still walk a safety up the majority of the time presnap if its a predominant run read.

Also, by the end of the year DEN was playing eight and even nine in the box versus the Jets. Playing cover one, too deep safety. Go watch the Thomas Jones long runs and watch who is in the box. Against CAR, they also played a modified 46 base with a standard 8 in the box on first downs and obvious rushing downs.

Where DEN was plain awful was tackling and shedding in the front seven. Porous is a kind word to describe their efforts. NOW, who in this front seven is markedly better than last years group? No one definitively has any pedigree to say they are better and most are changing from roles they were drafted to play, to roles they have never had any experience whatsoever. There has not been an overall talent or scheme effective upgrade of talent to the front seven. Sure the back 8 might help some of the long plays, but they WILL wear down just as they did in the past as almost all of them are over 30. And, it is yet to be seen if the pass rush improves with the scheme cahnge. That is nowhere near a given.

Sure, on a run read you creep an S up to put seven in the box, and on rare occasions denver put 8 in the box, but it sure wasn't the base package on D. Eight in the box as a base? No way. 9 in the box? No way.

You're right that these guys on the DL have very little experience as starters, but as you've said and I agree with it takes a few years for DL guys to mature. That's the gamble Nolan and McD took. They're gambling the 3-4 year vets they acquired and already have will be mature enough.

My argument is the back seven and in particular the back four will limit big plays, the +20 yd plays, and that will in turn limit overall scoring.

It's a risk, but I figure it's a good risk that will result in better TOP, less scoring, less sustained drives against our D. That's an improvement.

Cito Pelon
06-04-2009, 12:47 PM
Glad I can help. PM me if you need more.

Thanks, jack.

Hulamau
06-04-2009, 01:04 PM
No one in the NFL plays the run with seven consistently, so I would be very careful in your assesment. Every running play outside of select rare formations still needs to have 8 gaps filled. The closest anyone comes with regularity are the Tampa 2 teams who still walk a safety up the majority of the time presnap if its a predominant run read.

Also, by the end of the year DEN was playing eight and even nine in the box versus the Jets. Playing cover one, too deep safety. Go watch the Thomas Jones long runs and watch who is in the box. Against CAR, they also played a modified 46 base with a standard 8 in the box on first downs and obvious rushing downs.

Where DEN was plain awful was tackling and shedding in the front seven. Porous is a kind word to describe their efforts. NOW, who in this front seven is markedly better than last years group? No one definitively has any pedigree to say they are better and most are changing from roles they were drafted to play, to roles they have never had any experience whatsoever. There has not been an overall talent or scheme effective upgrade of talent to the front seven. Sure the back 8 might help some of the long plays, but they WILL wear down just as they did in the past as almost all of them are over 30. And, it is yet to be seen if the pass rush improves with the scheme change. That is nowhere near a given.

My question to Rev was specifically about how often he actually saw 9 in the box, not 8, when long runs/passes happened. My recollection was that very few of those long gains were against 9 in the box. If, for no other reason, than that we rarely HAD nine in the box to begin with! On rare occasion yes, andperhaps oen or two of those long gainers came against 9 in the box but no more than a couple max, if that many!

I felt simply questioned whether or not using '9' in the box as an excuse for many of the long gains last year was an exaggeration just to make a point. .... And still do question that!

No doubt our D schemes often sucked the past two years, and at times for injury reasons as well as lack of talent in addition to lousy coaching.

But I just don't recall many long gains being made against 9 in the box formations last year?

Maybe one or two but nothing more in my memory. Sometimes, yes, there were 8 in the box when big gains happened and other times more standard 4- 3 alignment or even their quasi 3- 4 experiments but 9 in the box and thus a break down on the line in that alignment being a prime reason to blame for many of the long gains is beyond a bit of a stretch.

TheReverend
06-04-2009, 01:20 PM
My question to Rev was specifically about how often he actually saw 9 in the box, not 8, when long runs/passes happened. My recollection was that very few of those long gains were against 9 in the box. If, for no other reason, than that we rarely HAD nine in the box to begin with! On rare occasion yes, andperhaps oen or two of those long gainers came against 9 in the box but no more than a couple max, if that many!

I felt simply questioned whether or not using '9' in the box as an excuse for many of the long gains last year was an exaggeration just to make a point. .... And still do question that!

No doubt our D schemes often sucked the past two years, and at times for injury reasons as well as lack of talent in addition to lousy coaching.

But I just don't recall many long gains being made against 9 in the box formations last year?

Maybe one or two but nothing more in my memory. Sometimes, yes, there were 8 in the box when big gains happened and other times more standard 4- 3 alignment or even their quasi 3- 4 experiments but 9 in the box and thus a break down on the line in that alignment being a prime reason to blame for many of the long gains is beyond a bit of a stretch.

It's not specifically a breakdown in the line as it is a breakdown in the entire front.

Mediator12
06-04-2009, 01:24 PM
My question to Rev was specifically about how often he actually saw 9 in the box, not 8, when long runs/passes happened. My recollection was that very few of those long gains were against 9 in the box. If, for no other reason, than that we rarely HAD nine in the box to begin with! On rare occasion yes, andperhaps oen or two of those long gainers came against 9 in the box but no more than a couple max, if that many!

I felt simply questioned whether or not using '9' in the box as an excuse for many of the long gains last year was an exaggeration just to make a point. .... And still do question that!

No doubt our D schemes often sucked the past two years, and at times for injury reasons as well as lack of talent in addition to lousy coaching.

But I just don't recall many long gains being made against 9 in the box formations last year?

Maybe one or two but nothing more in my memory. Sometimes, yes, there were 8 in the box when big gains happened and other times more standard 4- 3 alignment or even their quasi 3- 4 experiments but 9 in the box and thus a break down on the line in that alignment being a prime reason to blame for many of the long gains is beyond a bit of a stretch.

I can just off the top of my head remember three LONG runs where there were eight in the box with a CB pinching in to become the ninth man. 2 were in the Jets game and one in the CAR game. At the end of the year, DEN had to sell out mightily to stop the run and when it did not work they were gashed by huge gains.

Bigdawg26
06-04-2009, 01:42 PM
I just wish we would have got some guys with more experience to go with talent similar to McDaniels did with the secondary. To me he is building from the secondary down instead of front seven and back (which is backwards). He brought in two new coners and three new safeties (to his credit was a horrible secondary last year) with either experience or with talent. To me he really hasn't gotten really solid starting experience players up front (outside of Andra Davis whos going to be good). I wish we would have picked up more DE's or a NT in the first 4 rounds.