PDA

View Full Version : McDaniels discusses Nolan, Martindale, the slide and Orton


BigPlayShay
01-29-2010, 02:11 PM
Interview from The Score 1510 AM this morning:

http://thescore1510.podbean.com/mf/feed/4rfffw/12910JoshMcDaniels.mp3

tsiguy96
01-29-2010, 02:29 PM
mcdaniels says winning the line of scrimmage is key in regards to a question about what needs to be upigraded this offseason. he said running the ball and stopping the run is important.

HEAV
01-29-2010, 02:37 PM
2nd year in the offense is going to be huge for Kyle. Sink or swim.

HooptyHoops
01-29-2010, 02:43 PM
Well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can I get an Amen?

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 02:44 PM
Well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can I get an Amen?

He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

BroncoBen
01-29-2010, 02:50 PM
He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

No team running a 'zone blocking' scheme has won a SuperBowl since the last time the Broncos won the SuperBowl.

Maybe it is time to run a power blocking scheme.

OCBronco
01-29-2010, 02:51 PM
He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

This is true, but it's no accident that the Broncos have been having problems with scoring touchdowns in the redzone, and especially nearly the goal line, for the past five years.

The ZBS is great for moving the ball between the 20's. But with the smaller linemen, it's not as effective for punching the ball in at the goal line.

DenverBrit
01-29-2010, 02:53 PM
He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

Don't you think Wiegman and Hamilton got tossed around regardless the scheme in 2009??

DenverBrit
01-29-2010, 02:54 PM
no team running a 'zone blocking' scheme has won a superbowl since the last time the broncos won the superbowl.

Maybe it is time to run a power blocking scheme.

+1

gtown
01-29-2010, 03:07 PM
Power blocking is the wave of the near future. We need to protect Orton's concrete feet, wear down opponents over the course of the year (as opposed to vice versa), and prepare for a potential increase in games that count 17-18 game season as the NFL has been talking about for the past few years. Plus it makes sense. I want smashmouth not a track team. It's football for God sakes.

tsiguy96
01-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Power blocking is the wave of the near future. We need to protect Orton's concrete feet, wear down opponents over the course of the year (as opposed to vice versa), and prepare for a potential increase in games that count 17-18 game season as the NFL has been talking about for the past few years. Plus it makes sense. I want smashmouth not a track team. It's football for God sakes.

yep. its nice to see a coach who realizes we arent "one player away" after a mediocre season. one thing everyone called shanahan to do for years is being done now: make the lines a priority over everything else.

TheReverend
01-29-2010, 03:24 PM
yep. its nice to see a coach who realizes we arent "one player away" after a mediocre season. one thing everyone called shanahan to do for years is being done now: make the lines a priority over everything else.

We said that last year too.

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:27 PM
Now we just have to wonder why it took him an extra year to figure out that the lines need work. I mean, we brought in guys for both but we used a lot of resources and very few went to the lines this past offseason. I cried about it last offseason. Hopefully this isn't all talk and they actually do something about it for once.

OABB
01-29-2010, 03:28 PM
Now we just have to wonder why it took him an extra year to figure out that the lines need work. I mean, we brought in guys for both but we used a lot of resources and very few went to the lines this past offseason. I cried about it last offseason. Hopefully this isn't all talk and they actually do something about it for once.

He must have missed the second draft.

tsiguy96
01-29-2010, 03:30 PM
We said that last year too.

im sure he didnt see a need to change the oline, no one did, until hamilton and weigmann **** the bed. he added some dline FAs and spent a first on a dline player as well.

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:30 PM
He must have missed the second draft.

I have no clue what you are trying to say. Whatever it is went right over my head.

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:31 PM
im sure he didnt see a need to change the oline, no one did, until hamilton and weigmann **** the bed. he added some dline FAs and spent a first on a dline player as well.

Spent a first on a d-line player? When?

tsiguy96
01-29-2010, 03:32 PM
Spent a first on a d-line player? When?

http://www.thefootballexpert.com/robertayers_Tennessee_v_UCLA.jpg

you actually claim to know anything about the broncos. hah!

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:33 PM
http://www.thefootballexpert.com/robertayers_Tennessee_v_UCLA.jpg

I could swear he plays LB for us....

Popps
01-29-2010, 03:33 PM
Thought it was interesting that when the Marshall thing came up, McD's first response involved the CBA.

I'm telling you, this is going to be a ****-storm. Teams just have no idea how to deal with it.

tsiguy96
01-29-2010, 03:36 PM
I could swear he plays LB for us.....

except the thing is, and i know you know this, the OLB position in a 3-4 is essentially the 4th down lineman, except when they rarely split him out in coverage to confuse the offense. theres nothing LB about his actual position and what he does as compared to a real linebacker.

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:38 PM
except the thing is, and i know you know this, the OLB position in a 3-4 is essentially the 4th down lineman, except when they rarely split him out in coverage to confuse the offense. theres nothing LB about his actual position and what he does as compared to a real linebacker.

Really? So LBs are now d-lineman? Wouldn't Dumerville be the guy that acted more as the other lineman when he was the one always putting his hand down and rushing far more? Are all of our LBs now d-linemen? I am just wondering so I can get my positions correct. I thought LBs were LBs and d-linemen were d-linemen.

tsiguy96
01-29-2010, 03:41 PM
Really? So LBs are now d-lineman? Wouldn't Dumerville be the guy that acted more as the other lineman when he was the one always putting his hand down and rushing far more? Are all of our LBs now d-linemen? I am just wondering so I can get my positions correct. I thought LBs were LBs and d-linemen were d-linemen.

no, situational pass rushing "linebackers" like ayers are lineman who arent in a 3 point. i realize you love arguing semantics because you cant ever win a real argument about anything, but i know you know this. he is a lineman and his role is that of a lineman, regardless of what his official position title is.

Florida_Bronco
01-29-2010, 03:42 PM
He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

The ZBS is pretty much dead these days, mainly because of the red zone problems that come with it.

Getting away from that was the right move.

Popps
01-29-2010, 03:43 PM
I also love how when asked about the Saints/Colts game... all McD talked about was the Colts DEs for the entire time. He clearly understands the importance of a couple of guys like that for a defense.

Popps
01-29-2010, 03:43 PM
Really? So LBs are now d-lineman? .

You're kidding, right?

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:44 PM
no, situational pass rushing "linebackers" like ayers are lineman who arent in a 3 point. i realize you love arguing semantics because you cant ever win a real argument about anything, but i know you know this. he is a lineman and his role is that of a lineman, regardless of what his official position title is.

Sorry, that is dumb. We don't have 2 LBs and 5 d-linemen. Learn the NFL. A 3-4 is 3 linemen and 4 linebackers. The linebackers are used different than in a 4-3 but they still have far different responsibilities than a DE.

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:45 PM
You're kidding, right?

No, I would say they are two different positions.

So, you guys actually think when a team says we need to upgrade our d-line, they are saying we need to get DT's, DE's, and LB's? Really? Weird that they don't just include them in the d-line when they say 3-4, 4-3 and whatnot. Everyone runs a 7 now....

Play2win
01-29-2010, 03:49 PM
Well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can I get an Amen?

A-mother****ing-MEN.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-29-2010, 03:50 PM
So... was anyone going to break down what was said? My computer is downloading at a REALLY slow rate, and I'd like to know what he said in the interview....

Thanks in advance.

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:52 PM
So... was anyone going to break down what was said? My computer is downloading at a REALLY slow rate, and I'd like to know what he said in the interview....

Thanks in advance.

He said the same as always. This is everyones second year so there should be improvement. THey are going to look into why the team sucked at the end. The front office was just as disappointed as the fans at how they collapsed. We are looking to get bigger and address both lines. We need to bring in competition. Blah, blah, blah.... bunch more coach speak.. blah...

Popps
01-29-2010, 03:53 PM
No, I would say they are two different positions.

So, you guys actually think when a team says we need to upgrade our d-line, they are saying we need to get DT's, DE's, and LB's? Really? Weird that they don't just include them in the d-line when they say 3-4, 4-3 and whatnot. Everyone runs a 7 now....


When you're talking about an OLB in a 3-4, you're talking about a hybrid position. Your primary pass-rush is coming from the LBs... primarily when they're lined up on the LOS.

So, yea... when you're talking about OLBs in a 3-4, you're talking about players that are regularly dealing with the opposing team's offensive line, and rushing the QB.

So, as has been pointed out... you can play games with semantics, but OLBs are ABSOLUTELY MAJOR considerations when it comes to controlling the LOS in a 3-4 defense.

I can't believe you'd need that explained to you, and yet still choose to argue with people as if you understand the game.

OABB
01-29-2010, 03:53 PM
No, I would say they are two different positions.

So, you guys actually think when a team says we need to upgrade our d-line, they are saying we need to get DT's, DE's, and LB's? Really? Weird that they don't just include them in the d-line when they say 3-4, 4-3 and whatnot. Everyone runs a 7 now....

well if saying that drafting a nt and picking one up in free agency, along with another de in fa, as well as changing an entire scheme and bringing out an entirely new defensive line in one offseason doesn't constitute paying attention to the line at all- is just as absurd.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-29-2010, 03:53 PM
He said the same as always. This is everyones second year so there should be improvement. THey are going to look into why the team sucked at the end. The front office was just as disappointed as the fans at how they collapsed. We are looking to get bigger and address both lines. We need to bring in competition. Blah, blah, blah.... bunch more coach speak.. blah...

Hmm. Thanks. Anyone else want to give a take?

No offense, jhns, but... you do seem to miss a lot of important ****.

Popps
01-29-2010, 03:54 PM
A-mother****ing-MEN.

:strong:

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:57 PM
When you're talking about an OLB in a 3-4, you're talking about a hybrid position. Your primary pass-rush is coming from the LBs... primarily when they're lined up on the LOS.

So, yea... when you're talking about OLBs in a 3-4, you're talking about players that are regularly dealing with the opposing team's offensive line, and rushing the QB.

So, as has been pointed out... you can play games with semantics, but OLBs are ABSOLUTELY MAJOR considerations when it comes to controlling the LOS in a 3-4 defense.

I can't believe you'd need that explained to you, and yet still choose to argue with people as if you understand the game.

I don't need that explained to me. They have far different responsibilities than a DE. They are not a d-linemen. Yes, they rush the passer. They also have to do a lot more than that, they do it differently, and they do not rush every play like a DE.

So, LB's in a 4-3 don't impact the LOS? The middle LB's in this defense don't impact the LOS? I thought the advantage of the 3-4 is you didn't know where the rush was coming from? That would mean you don't send the same guy every play..... That would mean they have different responsibilities than d-linemen.

You guys are a joke. You really argue this stuff? "LBs are D-linemen now because jhns said they are LBs and not D-linemen!"

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:58 PM
doesn't constitute paying attention to the line at all- is just as absurd.

When did anyone say that?

jhns
01-29-2010, 03:58 PM
Hmm. Thanks. Anyone else want to give a take?

No offense, jhns, but... you do seem to miss a lot of important ****.

No offense taken, just figured I'd give a rundown until someone else gave a good one.

Popps
01-29-2010, 04:00 PM
So, LB's in a 4-3 don't impact the LOS?

Not nearly in the way they do in a 3-4.

But, as someone else said... you're just so wrong so often, you need to argue EVERY single word of ANY given topic just in hopes to eventually be right.

So, here you go kid... you're right. LBs in a 3-4 have nothing to do with the line. In fact, they're like safeties. They're practically part of the secondary. No team has EVER drafted a 3-4 OLB with hopes of improving their control over the opposing team's LOS.

Better?

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:01 PM
Not nearly in the way they do in a 3-4.

But, as someone else said... you're just so wrong so often, you need to argue EVERY single word of ANY given topic just in hopes to eventually be right.

So, here you go kid... you're right. LBs in a 3-4 have nothing to do with the line. In fact, they're like safeties. They're practically part of the secondary. No team has EVER drafted a 3-4 OLB with hopes of improving their control over the opposing team's LOS.

Better?

LOL

That is exactly what I said. You guys are a bunch of 2 year olds.

"LBs ARE D-linemen!"

"They impact the line so they are d-linemen! Who knows why they call them LB's!"

Ha, good stuff.

This isn't some technicality. LB's are called LB's for a reason. They play different than d-linemen. When we say we need to upgrade the d-line, we mean we need to upgrade the d-line. When we say we need to upgrade LB's, we are saying we need to upgreade LB's. When we say we didn't spend many resources on the d-line last year, we are talking about the d-line. This isn't semantics, these are the basics. Do we need to go over what a CB is next? Maybe you can tell me how when we talk about upgrading the CB position, we really mean we want a new safety. You know, they are just as responsible for the secondary as a CB and all.....

Play2win
01-29-2010, 04:01 PM
:strong:

We need more of THOSE GUYS on our line --------> :strong: :strong: :strong:

steeledude
01-29-2010, 04:07 PM
I also love how when asked about the Saints/Colts game... all McD talked about was the Colts DEs for the entire time. He clearly understands the importance of a couple of guys like that for a defense.

Wow...he understands what the most basic 13 year old playing Madden understands. Thank god for small miracles. Next his revelation when the Colts win the Superbowl is that a hall of fame QB is important too.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:21 PM
jhns has been an idiot in 90% of his posts. I just haven't found the missing 10%.

He argues to argue when there's a chance for any anti-mcd bull****. I place him in the same camp as bf7 and rasta.

You can play with semantics all you want, but, if you knew anything about football, you would understand denver drafted a 1st rd DE, and placed him at olb in a 3-4. We also picked up starters in FA.

These both directly address the needs at DL.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:23 PM
Wow...he understands what the most basic 13 year old playing Madden understands. Thank god for small miracles. Next his revelation when the Colts win the Superbowl is that a hall of fame QB is important too.

sigh. 09's. :facepalm

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:25 PM
jhns has been an idiot in 90% of his posts.

And you guys are 5 year olds in 90% of your posts. I bet when the coach says something about the d-line, he is talking about the 3 guys on the line. I bet when he says something about the LB's, he is talking about the 4 guys behind them. These aren't semantics. You guys really think an OLB in a 3-4 plays the exact same as a DE in a 4-3? Really? Why have a different formation then? Why not just put that guy down since the one guy is doing the same thing as if he was down on every play? How does it confuse the defense if the same LB does the same thing every time and just plays as a DE? Doesn't that make it pointless to change to a 3-4?

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:30 PM
I didn't say olbs play the exact same as de's. Point that out for me sparkie.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:31 PM
And yes you are playing a game of semantics.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:32 PM
I didn't say olbs play the exact same as de's. Point that out for me sparkie.

"These both directly address the needs at DL."

So OLB's are just part of the d-line now? We run a 5-2? Hmmmm.

Front 7 is not the same as d-line. It includes a lot more. I think that should help you kids.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:33 PM
And yes you are playing a game of semantics.

How is that? We say we need to address the d-line. We aren't talking about getting another OLB.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:33 PM
Yep, thank you for making my point.
I just did a quick search of your posts, we dont need jerkoffs like you here waiting to **** on the broncos. Go be a kc fan.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:34 PM
Yep, thank you for making my point.
I just did a quick search of your posts, we dont need jerkoffs like you here waiting to **** on the broncos. Go be a kc fan.

Again, 5 year old.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:35 PM
So, when we picked up graham, was it to directly address our OL/protection?
That doesn't mean he's an OL. A team is a working system dependent on the performance of it's parts.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:36 PM
Thats the 4th time you've called someone a 5 year old today. Lets be a little more creative.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:36 PM
So, when we picked up graham, was it to directly address our OL/protection?
That doesn't mean he's an OL. A team is a working system dependent on the performance of it's parts.

It addressed our protection, sure. We picked up a TE though, not an o-linemen. A TE gets to do stuff differently, like go out for passes and such. That is why we call them TE's. Kind of like how OLBs have different responsibilities than DE's, or any other d-linemen.

Popps
01-29-2010, 04:37 PM
Thats the 4th time you've called someone a 5 year old today. Lets be a little more creative.

And less ironic.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:37 PM
Thats the 4th time you've called someone a 5 year old today. Lets be a little more creative.

I have no need for name calling and saying everyone is dumb. I will just continue to point out that you are acting like a 5 year old. You are the ones arguing an OLB is a d-linemen.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:38 PM
LOL

That is exactly what I said. You guys are a bunch of 2 year olds.



And you guys are 5 year olds in 90% of your posts. I bet when the coach says something about the d-line, he is talking about the 3 guys on the line. I bet when he says something about the LB's, he is talking about the 4 guys behind them. These aren't semantics. You guys really think an OLB in a 3-4 plays the exact same as a DE in a 4-3? Really? Why have a different formation then? Why not just put that guy down since the one guy is doing the same thing as if he was down on every play? How does it confuse the defense if the same LB does the same thing every time and just plays as a DE? Doesn't that make it pointless to change to a 3-4?

Yes, my entire argument was that he didn't start over Champ. Does starting to act like a 5 year old mean you know you are wrong?
Lame

gunns
01-29-2010, 04:39 PM
well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can i get an amen?


amen!

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:39 PM
Lame

Should I just go to what you guys do and twist what everyone says and make the 5 year old insults? Would that be better for you? Ok Mr. Do-do head, you are all being a bunch of dumb mother ****ers.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:39 PM
I have no need for name calling and saying everyone is dumb. I will just continue to point out that you are acting like a 5 year old. You are the ones arguing an OLB is a d-linemen.

Again, semantics.
Did you know a rhombus is a square?

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:40 PM
Should I just go to what you guys do and twist what everyone says and make the 5 year old insults? Would that be better for you? Ok Mr. Do-do head, you are all being a bunch of dumb mother ****ers.

Nope, perhaps some creativity would lead to people thinking you might be less of a moron.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:41 PM
Again, semantics.
Did you know a rhombus is a square?

It isn't semantics. They are called different stuff to make it less confusing. You know, so McDaniels doesn't tell his scouts to go look at o-linemen and they come back with a bunch of TE's. I'm sure he would be thrilled with that. These 250 guys playing G and C....

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:41 PM
Nope, perhaps some creativity would lead to people thinking you might be less of a moron.

Aww, people on some random message board think I am a moron? That just breaks my heart.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:42 PM
It isn't semantics. They are called different stuff to make it less confusing. You know, so McDaniels doesn't tell his scouts to go look at o-linemen and they come back with a bunch of TE's. I'm sure he would be thrilled with that. These 250 guys playing G and C....

It's pretty obvious you dont get it. ROFL!

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:43 PM
It's pretty obvious you dont get it. ROFL!

Oh, I get it. You are all a bunch of 5 year olds. Its ok though, not everyone grows up.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:43 PM
Aww, people on some random message board think I am a moron? That just breaks my heart.

Well then, I don't know why you are trying to make any arguments here. You obviously are ambivalent toward their success.

Tombstone RJ
01-29-2010, 04:44 PM
Power blocking is the wave of the near future. We need to protect Orton's concrete feet, wear down opponents over the course of the year (as opposed to vice versa), and prepare for a potential increase in games that count 17-18 game season as the NFL has been talking about for the past few years. Plus it makes sense. I want smashmouth not a track team. It's football for God sakes.

I hate to jump on this post but do you even know what you are saying? If it ain't ZB then it's automatically power blocking. There's only two types of blocking in the running game, ZBS and power blocking. Most teams, in fact I dare say ALL teams use both at some point and time during a game...

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:44 PM
Well then, I don't know why you are trying to make any arguments here. You obviously are ambivalent toward their success.

Right.

OLB is a d-lineman. You guys win....

LOL

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:48 PM
Words for jhns to live by:

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt."

-Lincoln

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:49 PM
Right.

OLB's doesn't affect D-Line play. You guys win....

LOL

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:50 PM
Words for jhns to live by.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doub.

That is pretty creative and original.

I bet you haven't heard this one "If you argue with a dumbass you are a dumbass."

Keep playing the 5 year old though. Every time you insult me, you are insulting yourself.

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:50 PM
Right.

OLB's doesn't affect D-Line play. You guys win....

LOL

Do you care to point out anything close to this being said by me?

Right, the 5 year old act. Sorry, almost forgot.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:53 PM
It's creative, and it was original when Lincoln said it.

I haven't heard that one. Perhaps I should take heed.

Rest assured you have exposed yourself as a football guru and master wordsmith. I'm going to go hammer my dick to an iceblock, I'm so embarrassed and insulted.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 04:54 PM
Do you care to point out anything close to this being said by me?

Right, the 5 year old act. Sorry, almost forgot.

Hmm, parody and sarcasm. Read up on each.

Right.

OLB is a d-lineman. You guys win....

LOL

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:55 PM
Hmm, parody and sarcasm. Read up on each.

Hmmm, can't come with anything real because you know you are acting like a dumbass..... Nice....

Sorry, going to have to wrap this up. It will be hard to walk away from this debate of the OLB being a d-linemen but I have stuff to do. I get it though, not everyone can be as smart as me. I can live with that.

OABB
01-29-2010, 04:57 PM
5 year olds!

jhns
01-29-2010, 04:58 PM
5 year olds!

5 year olds have better arguments than what is in this thread. The dumb is hurting my brain.

gyldenlove
01-29-2010, 04:58 PM
Don't you think Wiegman and Hamilton got tossed around regardless the scheme??

The sacks and the run game of 2008 says they don't, but lessons from history seems to be disregarded on a regular basis.

OABB
01-29-2010, 05:00 PM
5 year olds have better arguments than what is in this thread. The dumb is hurting my brain.

Thats because its feeding on itself.

jhns
01-29-2010, 05:01 PM
Thats because its feeding on itself.

Exactly my point.

Flex Gunmetal
01-29-2010, 05:06 PM
Lol. This has been enjoyable. Gonna watch the xgames with the rest of the 5 year olds!!

DenverBrit
01-29-2010, 05:29 PM
The sacks and the run game of 2008 says they don't, but lessons from history seems to be disregarded on a regular basis.

How about 2009? They both looked like liabilities no matter the scheme.

TonyR
01-29-2010, 05:40 PM
Now we just have to wonder why it took him an extra year to figure out that the lines need work. I mean, we brought in guys for both but we used a lot of resources and very few went to the lines this past offseason. I cried about it last offseason. Hopefully this isn't all talk and they actually do something about it for once.

Serious question: name some of the difference makers the Broncos could have/should have added to the lines last offseason.

TonyR
01-29-2010, 05:42 PM
The sacks and the run game of 2008 says they don't, but lessons from history seems to be disregarded on a regular basis.

Nah, people complained some about Hamilton last year, too. Both he and Weigmann declined this year, clearly, particularly with lesser talent and/or injuries around them in some games and playing in a new scheme. Covering your eyes won't make it go away.

gyldenlove
01-29-2010, 06:03 PM
How about 2009? They both looked like liabilities no matter the scheme.

No, in 2008 they looked just fine you will remember how we set a franchise record for fewest sacks allowed and had a middle of the pack run despite having 6 runners end up on IR.

In comes a new scheme and suddenly we are in huge trouble, Clady is getting abused, we have all sorts of problems in the interior and our 3rd down and red zone offense falls through the floor as a result.

gyldenlove
01-29-2010, 06:05 PM
Nah, people complained some about Hamilton last year, too. Both he and Weigmann declined this year, clearly, particularly with lesser talent and/or injuries around them in some games and playing in a new scheme. Covering your eyes won't make it go away.

I am not covering my eyes at all, but Hamilton and Wiegmann didn't suddenly become bad players, Clady didn't go from being a 1 sack per season player to a 9 sack per season player. This is about coaching, if you ask a monkey to direct an opera you are going to get a ****ty performance, if you ask a zoneblocking lineman to try to overpower a defensive linemen who outweighs him by 50 pounds he will get killed - these are facts. The problems we have now are our own making.

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 06:24 PM
The ZBS is pretty much dead these days, mainly because of the red zone problems that come with it.

Getting away from that was the right move.

Didn't have that problem when TD was around.

Get an actually talented RB, and the ZBS can still be very effective. Besides a couple years with Portis, we've had nothing but scrubs in at RB.

Since McD has always planned to get away from the ZBS and install a different system, why in the hell didn't we spend the resources in OL talent? Instead, we drafted a 3-4 OLB in the 1st round, spent a 1st and 2nd round pick on a CB, and moved up to get a blocking TE in the 2nd round. Not until the 4th round and our 7th pick did McD take any lineman. And we didn't draft even 1 DL in the entire draft while transitioning to a 3-4.

For a guy attempting to install new systems on both sides of the ball, on a team historically weak on the DL for over a decade, last year's draft just made no sense to me at all outside of the Moreno pick.

We drafted 3 secondary guys, but not 1 DL. For everyone that preaches the 2-8 finish was a result of lack of talent and schemes not being able to hide that any longer, how do you justify that type of draft? To listen to McD preach about neededing to build from the inside is a joke, when he's clearly committed to priorites elsewhere.

And the Ayers pick was just horrible. Hindsight 20/20 and all, but we could have had a guy that's actually played OLB in Cushing, or a guy that was actually productive in college in Orakpo. Instead he took a flyier on a one-year wonder with great athelticism. This pick is only marginally better than Shanny's Moss pick because we didn't trade up to get Ayers.

Popps
01-29-2010, 06:28 PM
And the Ayers pick was just horrible. Hindsight 20/20 and all, but we could have had a guy that's actually played OLB in Cushing, or a guy that was actually productive in college in Orakpo. Instead he took a flyier on a one-year wonder with great athelticism. This pick is only marginally better than Shanny's Moss pick because we didn't trade up to get Ayers.

You've got no idea if it was "horrible" or not.

Mario Williams took three years to really become a force in the NFL.

Ayers was widely accepted as a guy who was going to need a couple of years to mature and adjust. Mayock said he'd be the best defender in this draft, but it would take a few years for that to come to fruition.

But, you go ahead and call him a bust. There were probably fans in Baltimore calling Ray Rice a bust last year, too.

DenverBrit
01-29-2010, 06:43 PM
No, in 2008 they looked just fine you will remember how we set a franchise record for fewest sacks allowed and had a middle of the pack run despite having 6 runners end up on IR.

In comes a new scheme and suddenly we are in huge trouble, Clady is getting abused, we have all sorts of problems in the interior and our 3rd down and red zone offense falls through the floor as a result.

Denver was still running zone as well as 'man.' Same O line coach and RB coach.

The real difference was the play of Hamilton and Wiegman, neither played as well as 2008 and that's almost certainly the reason Clady wasn't as effective.
He was playing alongside two guys who's play had dropped off.

IMO, they didn't replace Hamilton soon enough.

DenverBrit
01-29-2010, 06:46 PM
Didn't have that problem when TD was around.



Don't have TD......the same O Line or Elway either. ;D

The MVPlaya
01-29-2010, 06:47 PM
jhns -

I'm not sure if you realize this, but no one has actually said LB is the same as Dlineman. You're the one shoving the point in people's mouths to try and win some sort of argument.

Popps said the OLB was a hybrid - please search that term up. Like a hybrid car? :spit:

Now - pea brain - the topic being discussed/of concern is the battle of LOS.

Drafting a DE and then using him as a OLB - primarily as a run stopper would technically mean they're trying to address that issue - correct? The point that the other posters were trying to make is that the OLB position in the 3-4 has A LOT, more so than the 4-3, to do with battling at the LOS. That's the point being made.

Now you're accusations of people saying LB's are the same as a DE... YOU'RE the only one stuffing that line in your post.

Your logic of "they're called LB's and DL's for a reason" is probably on the level of 5 year old kid talking about the different shapes of triangles, squares, and circles.

DBroncos4life
01-29-2010, 06:59 PM
You've got no idea if it was "horrible" or not.

Mario Williams took three years to really become a force in the NFL.

Ayers was widely accepted as a guy who was going to need a couple of years to mature and adjust. Mayock said he'd be the best defender in this draft, but it would take a few years for that to come to fruition.

But, you go ahead and call him a bust. There were probably fans in Baltimore calling Ray Rice a bust last year, too.

What do you mean "a force"? I think the NFL was plenty aware of Mario Williams abilities after his second season. He had 59 tackles and 14 sacks that year.

theAPAOps5
01-29-2010, 07:21 PM
He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

The Red Zone called. They wanted me to tell you that the Broncos sucked ass running the ball there. They also wanted me to tell you that between the 20's is great and all if you are only satisfied with drives that result in FG's which doesn't win many games. In closing they wanted to reiterate that 3rd and short, regardless of field position, as well as goal to go situations were abysmal for the Broncos. Therefor they endorse the Power Blocking scheme because big fat road graders who are incredibly athletic will negate the speed and power found on the DLine these days. But they also wanted to stress that if you are impressed with stats and not results then please disregard all that was said. :angel::kiss:

SureShot
01-29-2010, 07:45 PM
The Red Zone called. They wanted me to tell you that the Broncos sucked ass running the ball there. They also wanted me to tell you that between the 20's is great and all if you are only satisfied with drives that result in FG's which doesn't win many games. In closing they wanted to reiterate that 3rd and short, regardless of field position, as well as goal to go situations were abysmal for the Broncos. Therefor they endorse the Power Blocking scheme because big fat road graders who are incredibly athletic will negate the speed and power found on the DLine these days. But they also wanted to stress that if you are impressed with stats and not results then please disregard all that was said. :angel::kiss:

The airplane on the tarmac called they are out of peanuts;D. On hold is the year 1997 and 98. This is not a scheme problem it may be a personel problem but the lack of production in the red zone has nothing to do with blocking scheme.

crush17
01-29-2010, 07:54 PM
Flex Gunmetal for President!

Florida_Bronco
01-29-2010, 08:11 PM
Didn't have that problem when TD was around.

Get an actually talented RB, and the ZBS can still be very effective. Besides a couple years with Portis, we've had nothing but scrubs in at RB. The ZBS scheme was also relatively new then and the type of talent needed to run it could be had alot later in the draft. Now more athletic linemen are wanted in all schemes and the talent pool gets picked clean sooner.

The ZBS was very effective back in the day but teams have simply found ways to defend it and as such it's starting to go out of style.

Since McD has always planned to get away from the ZBS and install a different system, why in the hell didn't we spend the resources in OL talent? Simply put, I'm sure McDaniels figured the interior line would hold together better than it did, allowing him to spend those resources on much more dire needs in his first year. Wiegmann had played outside of the ZBS before and I don't think anyone anticipated Hamilton having such a problem with the new system.

Despite that, we traded for Hochstein and drafted Olsen. Hochstein basically saved our bacon by stepping in for Hamilton and Olsen could start and guard or center for us next year.

And we didn't draft even 1 DL in the entire draft while transitioning to a 3-4. Because that draft was starved for DL talent and the talent that was there was way overvalued as a result.

And the Ayers pick was just horrible. Hindsight 20/20 and all, but we could have had a guy that's actually played OLB in Cushing, or a guy that was actually productive in college in Orakpo. Instead he took a flyier on a one-year wonder with great athelticism. This pick is only marginally better than Shanny's Moss pick because we didn't trade up to get Ayers. How the hell can you say that? Ayers was a starter for basically the whole year despite the fact that even people like Mike Mayock (the Elway of draft analysis) said he was a project.

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 08:47 PM
Don't have TD......the same O Line or Elway either. ;D

you're wooshing on the point.

Rohirrim
01-29-2010, 08:50 PM
He created his own problem with the OL by changing up the running strategy. They were one of the best in the NFL in 2008.

Yeah. Especially in the red zone. :spit:

Rohirrim
01-29-2010, 08:55 PM
I hate to jump on this post but do you even know what you are saying? If it ain't ZB then it's automatically power blocking. There's only two types of blocking in the running game, ZBS and power blocking. Most teams, in fact I dare say ALL teams use both at some point and time during a game...

But it's a lot easier for big lineman to switch over to ZB than it is for smaller linemen to switch over to power blocking.

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 08:59 PM
The ZBS scheme was also relatively new then and the type of talent needed to run it could be had alot later in the draft. Now more athletic linemen are wanted in all schemes and the talent pool gets picked clean sooner.

The ZBS was very effective back in the day but teams have simply found ways to defend it and as such it's starting to go out of style.

So going back to desiring what most of the rest of the league does in OL prospects somehows increases our chances of getting talent???

It's still a solid system, and just like any other system, requires the talent to execute it.

Red zone issues were not prevalant when we had the talent at RB to execute the system.



Simply put, I'm sure McDaniels figured the interior line would hold together better than it did, allowing him to spend those resources on much more dire needs in his first year. Wiegmann had played outside of the ZBS before and I don't think anyone anticipated Hamilton having such a problem with the new system.

Despite that, we traded for Hochstein and drafted Olsen. Hochstein basically saved our bacon by stepping in for Hamilton and Olsen could start and guard or center for us next year.

Hochstein was actually quite horrible as well. And what DIRE needs were addressed in the draft? Moreno and to a lesser extent Ayers. DIRE needs included 3 secondary players, and a blocking TE? Really?

How long has DL been a DIRE need? How many did we draft in 09? We didnt' even bother to address OL until OUR 7TH PICK, which is actually more than that considering the picks we used to trade up to draft a CB and TE, because those were DIRE needs.


And I just don't find it acceptable for a coach who's goal is to drastically change our running game approach, not spend at least some of the MASSIVE resources we had available in the last draft in addressing this issue.

Because that draft was starved for DL talent and the talent that was there was way overvalued as a result.

Ron Brace comes to mind. But instead we traded a 1st rounder to use a 2nd and draft a CB and trade up again to draft a blocking TE who had more penalties than contributions to the team last year.[/quote]

How the hell can you say that? Ayers was a starter for basically the whole year despite the fact that even people like Mike Mayock (the Elway of draft analysis) said he was a project.

Ayers was not a starter for basically the whole year. He was a non-impact player for us at any level, which is not what you are looking for at pick number 18 of a draft.

Although I don't like the Ayers pick, it's not my true grip with the draft, as at least one could argue that he was both the best player available and addressed a need. I'd have still rather had Cushing or Orakpo, but it's of no conern.

However, no matter how you look at last year's draft, either by value we got for our picks, or addressing our team needs, you have to admit it was pretty horrible. It is what has me concerned going into this years draft. Especially since McD is hell bent on trading our best offensive player yet again this year. He's trading away the absolute gems that turn into proven players that you look for in the draft and he doesn't seem to possess the ability to replace those players once they are gone.

theAPAOps5
01-29-2010, 09:02 PM
The airplane on the tarmac called they are out of peanuts;D. On hold is the year 1997 and 98. This is not a scheme problem it may be a personel problem but the lack of production in the red zone has nothing to do with blocking scheme.

That's funny I got a call from a house that needs to be sold. They said you haven't done **** in over a year..... :)

As for 97 and 98 thats when the zone blocking scheme was in its prime. But even Shanny hasn't done squat since.

Now back to pretend selling homes for you. And I will look out my office window and see the peanut loaders and chuckle as they are probably making a better living than you! And better me than me damn it, because they are union! ^5

DenverBrit
01-29-2010, 09:03 PM
you're wooshing on the point.

I hate it when I 'woosh.' What's the point?

Bigdawg26
01-29-2010, 09:21 PM
Ayers was not a starter for basically the whole year. He was a non-impact player for us at any level, which is not what you are looking for at pick number 18 of a draft.

Although I don't like the Ayers pick, it's not my true grip with the draft, as at least one could argue that he was both the best player available and addressed a need. I'd have still rather had Cushing or Orakpo, but it's of no conern.

However, no matter how you look at last year's draft, either by value we got for our picks, or addressing our team needs, you have to admit it was pretty horrible. It is what has me concerned going into this years draft. Especially since McD is hell bent on trading our best offensive player yet again this year. He's trading away the absolute gems that turn into proven players that you look for in the draft and he doesn't seem to possess the ability to replace those players once they are gone.
Well said my friend! Only problem I have with this is that you pretty much have to trade away Brandon Marshall because he doesn't get along with McDaniels and he doesn't want to be here. Also, everybody bashing Mcdaniels, but what about the GM??? Shouldn't he be blamed for some of those bad picks?? It's a shame we picked up safeties last year when theres a BUNCH of potential great safeties this year (Eric Berry, Chad Jones, Earl Thomas, Taylor Mays, Morgan Burnett, Major Wright, etc.)

Popps
01-29-2010, 09:34 PM
What do you mean "a force"? I think the NFL was plenty aware of Mario Williams abilities after his second season. He had 59 tackles and 14 sacks that year.

Great, then you'll be patient as our rookies develop and you won't bitch all day long?

Perfect.

TheReverend
01-29-2010, 09:38 PM
The Red Zone called. They wanted me to tell you that the Broncos sucked ass running the ball there. They also wanted me to tell you that between the 20's is great and all if you are only satisfied with drives that result in FG's which doesn't win many games. In closing they wanted to reiterate that 3rd and short, regardless of field position, as well as goal to go situations were abysmal for the Broncos. Therefor they endorse the Power Blocking scheme because big fat road graders who are incredibly athletic will negate the speed and power found on the DLine these days. But they also wanted to stress that if you are impressed with stats and not results then please disregard all that was said. :angel::kiss:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Stuffed 20% of the time and ranked 20th in the league for stuffs. If you want to see something sad, flip back to 2008 and compare the rankings for things like stuffs, overall runblocking and pass blocking. Nevermind the upgraded RB position.

The ZBS scheme was also relatively new then and the type of talent needed to run it could be had alot later in the draft. Now more athletic linemen are wanted in all schemes and the talent pool gets picked clean sooner.

The ZBS was very effective back in the day but teams have simply found ways to defend it and as such it's starting to go out of style.

Out of style? The ZBS has been expanding for a decade. Not only is incorporated at some level in EVERY NFL offensive system, it's branched into the base blocking scheme for the Texans, Packers, Raiders and now the Redskins and Seahawks.

How the hell can you say that? Ayers was a starter for basically the whole year despite the fact that even people like Mike Mayock (the Elway of draft analysis) said he was a project.

I can't possibly fathom you taking this seriously as you wrote it. I am high on Robert Ayers. I think Robert Ayers will develop into a solid NFL player for the Broncos.

But for you to claim "Ayers was a starter for basically the whole year" when not only did he only have 1 start (due to opening with wrinkle variation of our nickle defense vs Philly) , but he was deactivated against the Chargers in favor of Jarvis ****ing Moss.

He was nowhere near a starting role... he was the 4th OLB behind Elvis, Haggan, REID, and then Ayers.

Does this mean he'll bust? Hell no.

DivineLegion
01-29-2010, 09:42 PM
Now we just have to wonder why it took him an extra year to figure out that the lines need work. I mean, we brought in guys for both but we used a lot of resources and very few went to the lines this past offseason. I cried about it last offseason. Hopefully this isn't all talk and they actually do something about it for once.

You mean the O-line that was one of the best in the league in 08'? The D line did need work your right, thats why he brought in veteren players like Ron Fields, moved Kenny outside, and picked up guys like Chris Baker and Ryan McBean. We addressed our D-Line with what was available and it worked for awhile until our lack of depth started to show. Thats why we brought in veterens like Vonnie Holliday mid way through the season, and Marcus Thomas saw a lot more playing time.

Now our biggest need this offseason is deffinity to address the problems that came to be on both lines, however the stop gap scheme utilized last season did work fairly well for awhile.

I think we wait until rounds 2-3 to address NT, G, and C. Where we are sitting in the first round I say Josh goes BPA again, and then really takes a hard look at what we desperatly need in the later rounds. I wouldent be suprised if we take Mike Iupati at 12 though, he seems like a can't miss kind of talent. I just don't see how you can pass on a guy like Rolando McClain if he is there.

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 09:46 PM
[B]
Well said my friend! Only problem I have with this is that you pretty much have to trade away Brandon Marshall because he doesn't get along with McDaniels and he doesn't want to be here. Also, everybody bashing Mcdaniels, but what about the GM??? Shouldn't he be blamed for some of those bad picks?? It's a shame we picked up safeties last year when theres a BUNCH of potential great safeties this year (Eric Berry, Chad Jones, Earl Thomas, Taylor Mays, Morgan Burnett, Major Wright, etc.)

Paying Brandon Marshall solves the Brandon Marshall issue.

McD is calling the shots. Xanders is GM in title only. He's basically the team's salary cap guru.

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 09:49 PM
I think we wait until rounds 2-3 to address NT, G, and C. Where we are sitting in the first round I say Josh goes BPA again, and then really takes a hard look at what we desperatly need in the later rounds. I wouldent be suprised if we take Mike Iupati at 12 though, he seems like a can't miss kind of talent. I just don't see how you can pass on a guy like Rolando McClain if he is there.

This approach is the reason our DL has sucked for so long. Teams do not generally let top tier proven DL talent leave, and when they do, you pay huge for them, i.e., Albert Hanyesworth and Jarred Allen for example.

The best and pretty much only way to develop a solid DL is by investing resources in it during the draft.

DivineLegion
01-29-2010, 09:57 PM
This approach is the reason our DL has sucked for so long. Teams do not generally let top tier proven DL talent leave, and when they do, you pay huge for them, i.e., Albert Hanyesworth and Jarred Allen for example.

The best and pretty much only way to develop a solid DL is by investing resources in it during the draft.

You have no idea what I am advocating for this offseason do you? I know that teams are built through the draft im not arguing that, what I was trying to say is that we did what we could with the resources we had. You see Ron Fields knew Mike Nolans philosophy very well seeing as how he was the starting NT for the 49ers. Step one bring in people who know your system. We retained Kenny Peterson (good hold over just hitting his prime, why not right), we picked up two RFA in McBean and Baker (Both have tremendous upside). McBean getting injured mid way through the season was one of the major reasons for our defensive decline. Go check out the Marshall to Tampa thread and you will see how I feel we should approach this offseason.

HAT
01-29-2010, 10:03 PM
McD is calling the shots. Xanders is GM in title only. He's basically the team's salary cap guru.

First good news I've heard all week.

Pseudofool
01-29-2010, 10:05 PM
This thread is horrible. Why did I read it?

Atwater His Ass
01-29-2010, 10:08 PM
You have no idea what I am advocating for this offseason do you? I know that teams are built through the draft im not arguing that, what I was trying to say is that we did what we could with the resources we had. You see Ron Fields knew Mike Nolans philosophy very well seeing as how he was the starting NT for the 49ers. Step one bring in people who know your system. We retained Kenny Peterson (good hold over just hitting his prime, why not right), we picked up two RFA in McBean and Baker (Both have tremendous upside). McBean getting injured mid way though the season was one of the major reasons for our defensive decline. Go check out the Marshall to Tampa thread and you will see how I feel we should approach this offseason.

whoa whoa whoa, McD apologists are claiming that the defense ran last season was McD's and not Nolans, hence no reason to worry about the depature of Nolan. don't think that fits in with your step one there since fields would be a Nolan guy.

in any case, what you described is what has been happening to the DL for over a decade. Bringing in retreads, RFA's, and UDFAs and earnstly spending draft picks to address it. It doesn't work.

theAPAOps5
01-29-2010, 10:26 PM
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

Stuffed 20% of the time and ranked 20th in the league for stuffs. If you want to see something sad, flip back to 2008 and compare the rankings for things like stuffs, overall runblocking and pass blocking. Nevermind the upgraded RB position.



This coming from the guy who basically ridicules stats! I remember you and our friend Mediator going toe to toe over stats. Don't get me wrong I am just shocked you are using any sort of stat. All I know is the team was in the bottom half in red zone scoring and was not good on short yardage. I watched the games always twice and usually thrice. The running in the red zone and short yardage was blech!

As for pass blocking man I agree Moreno was a sieve it was almost as bad as watching Hillis miss his reads and blocks. Actually it was worse Moreno is supposed to be a very cerebral player. Hillis is not known for his smarts.

DivineLegion
01-29-2010, 10:28 PM
whoa whoa whoa, McD apologists are claiming that the defense ran last season was McD's and not Nolans, hence no reason to worry about the depature of Nolan. don't think that fits in with your step one there since fields would be a Nolan guy.

in any case, what you described is what has been happening to the DL for over a decade. Bringing in retreads, RFA's, and UDFAs and earnstly spending draft picks to address it. It doesn't work.

Oh my fault I dident know I was a "McD apologist" please enlighten me on what makes a McD apologist. You should take a step back my friend and realize that your the one making this a miserable experience for your self. I don't hold any allegance to one side of this issue or the other, and to claim to be a patron of one side or the other is just bull****. We may not agree on how things have panned out over the last season but in the end we still hold one thing in common, our love for the Broncos. So with that in mind lets take a realistic look at last season and have a discussion on how we feel things should be taken care of not a this childish quarling.


Here you go sence it seems you didnt take a look at the thread I asked.

2 seconds and 4th would be fair compensation (for Brandon), and to add the cherry on the top we go out and sign Antonio Bryant. What this team needs is depth on both lines and you know where 90% of those players come from...You guessed it the SECOND round that would be freaking phenominal. Having 3 2nd round picks would give us so much flexability. We could take BPA in round one, grab a guard, a center, a NT in the second, WR in the third, and with our fourth take one of the big uglies from ECU. Thats exactly the kind of draft this orginization needs!

bronco militia
01-29-2010, 10:39 PM
This thread is horrible. Why did I read it?

Ha!

no doubT

YOU GUYS SUCK

Florida_Bronco
01-29-2010, 10:40 PM
So going back to desiring what most of the rest of the league does in OL prospects somehows increases our chances of getting talent??? No, but we didn't get to sit back in the later rounds and pick up the smaller, more athletic sliders like we used to. Now athletic linemen are being taken more earlier because defenses have got alot faster.

Long story short, you have to draft linemen early and often now no matter what scheme you run.

Red zone issues were not prevalant when we had the talent at RB to execute the system. And that goes back to it being a relatively new system as well. It's been 14 years now since the ZBS scheme was made prevalent in Denver and teams have figured out how to defend it.

Hochstein was actually quite horrible as well. Not quite. He was an average level starter, which was a vast improvement over what Hamilton was bringing prior to his benching.

And what DIRE needs were addressed in the draft? Moreno and to a lesser extent Ayers. DIRE needs included 3 secondary players, and a blocking TE? Really? Weren't you just bitching and moaning about talent at running back?

And yes, I'd say the DE/OLB prospect and the young corner and safety prospects were much more dire needs considering that we have a very talented but aging secondary. The jury is out on Smith but McBath looks to be a stud in waiting, and the team felt Quinn was the type of blocking talent you just can't pass up on.

How long has DL been a DIRE need? How many did we draft in 09? I love how you conviently ignore my prior post where I told you how shallow the the D-line talent was in the 2009 draft. Really, who did you want us to pick? We tried to move up for the best prospect (Raji) and then took the best available option with Ayers.

We didnt' even bother to address OL until OUR 7TH PICK, Olsen was a 4th round pick.

And I just don't find it acceptable for a coach who's goal is to drastically change our running game approach, not spend at least some of the MASSIVE resources we had available in the last draft in addressing this issue. Find it unacceptable all you want, but the only one who was a question to convert to the new scheme at the beginning of the season was Hamilton and McDaniels spent a 4th rounder and made a trade to provide a safety net there.

Ron Brace comes to mind. But instead we traded a 1st rounder to use a 2nd and draft a CB and trade up again to draft a blocking TE who had more penalties than contributions to the team last year.

See my above post regarding Brace and Quinn.

Ayers was not a starter for basically the whole year. He was playing in heavy rotation with Reid and Haggan, and I would venture a guess that if you totaled up their snaps taken, Ayers had the most.

He was a non-impact player for us at any level, which is not what you are looking for at pick number 18 of a draft. I know this might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but all 32 teams knew he was a project, and if we didn't pick him at 18 he goes very shortly after that.

However, no matter how you look at last year's draft, either by value we got for our picks, or addressing our team needs, you have to admit it was pretty horrible. It is what has me concerned going into this years draft. Especially since McD is hell bent on trading our best offensive player yet again this year. He's trading away the absolute gems that turn into proven players that you look for in the draft and he doesn't seem to possess the ability to replace those players once they are gone.

No, it wasn't pretty horrible. It was actually a pretty good draft.

Moreno - Season long starter. Lead all rookies in rushing yards
Ayers - Played heavy rotation in a deep linebacking corps.
Smith - Jury still out on him
McBath - Great pick
Quinn - Showed excellent run blocking skills in little playing time.
Bruton - Great pick
Olsen - Didn't get much playing time, but looked real good in preseason
McKinley - Jury still out
Tom B- Jury still out
Schlueter - Cut

Florida_Bronco
01-29-2010, 10:42 PM
It's a shame we picked up safeties last year when theres a BUNCH of potential great safeties this year Why? Both McBath and Bruton looked great this year.

broncocalijohn
01-29-2010, 10:50 PM
Please someone ask McDaniels what he really meant. I am thinking he wants guys on the line. Unless we need major help at OLB (which I think we will be fine), I am going with DL. JHNS while childish and is mostly anti Broncos/McDaniels, I think he will be correct on this topic. Draft and FA will show us what he meant.

Broncoman13
01-29-2010, 10:53 PM
This whole arguement about Ayers is funny. If he is a DL then why do we need to look at drafting or acquiring FAs at DE and DT? Robert Ayers is a 3-4 OLB and he struggled as a rookie. He is not a DL just as guys like Joey Porter, Terrell Suggs and DeMarcus Ware are not DLinemen. Bottom line, if he was playing the DE position in our base defense you could call him a DL and we would probably be looking to add an OLB in the draft or free agency. I can't believe it's such a big deal though. Ayers isn't the problem McD was referring to, he was referring to the guys on the DL keeping thepoint and freeing up the LBs to make plays and the OL being able to push the LOS forward in a man on man scheme. The GOD scheme is out. We're going man over in short yardage power running situations. I wouldn't be surprised in the least with a draft of Iupati in the first and Mt. Cody in the 2nd.

DivineLegion
01-29-2010, 10:57 PM
This whole arguement about Ayers is funny. If he is a DL then why do we need to look at drafting or acquiring FAs at DE and DT? Robert Ayers is a 3-4 OLB and he struggled as a rookie. He is not a DL just as guys like Joey Porter, Terrell Suggs and DeMarcus Ware are not DLinemen. Bottom line, if he was playing the DE position in our base defense you could call him a DL and we would probably be looking to add an OLB in the draft or free agency. I can't believe it's such a big deal though. Ayers isn't the problem McD was referring to, he was referring to the guys on the DL keeping thepoint and freeing up the LBs to make plays and the OL being able to push the LOS forward in a man on man scheme. The GOD scheme is out. We're going man over in short yardage power running situations. I wouldn't be surprised in the least with a draft of Iupati in the first and Mt. Cody in the 2nd.

Just say NO to Cody!

Florida_Bronco
01-29-2010, 10:57 PM
Out of style? The ZBS has been expanding for a decade. Not only is incorporated at some level in EVERY NFL offensive system, it's branched into the base blocking scheme for the Texans, Packers, Raiders and now the Redskins and Seahawks. Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it's going ever stop being used, but it's certainly becoming less and less popular over the years.

As for the teams you mentioned, I'd be interested to see how well they perform in the red zone and how much of that red zone production comes from running versus passing.

I can't possibly fathom you taking this seriously as you wrote it. I am high on Robert Ayers. I think Robert Ayers will develop into a solid NFL player for the Broncos.

But for you to claim "Ayers was a starter for basically the whole year" when not only did he only have 1 start (due to opening with wrinkle variation of our nickle defense vs Philly) , but he was deactivated against the Chargers in favor of Jarvis ****ing Moss.

He was nowhere near a starting role... he was the 4th OLB behind Elvis, Haggan, REID, and then Ayers.

Does this mean he'll bust? Hell no. You're right, I was wrong there. Haggan was starting across from Dumervil (I thought it was Ayers) but Ayers was in heavy rotation with him. I believe Reid was mainly behind Dumervil although he took snaps at several positions.

What honestly has me a little confused about this is that the team depth chart lists Ayers as Dumervil's backup when they spent alot of time on the field together. I wish they'd get that sorted out.

Gob
01-29-2010, 11:01 PM
I have to question those who said that drafting Ayers was addressing the D-line, then quickly switched it to addressing the line of scrimmage. That is like saying drafting Quinn is addressing our LOS problems. Ayers and Quinn are perimeter LOS players, our problems are in the middle, like they have always been. Hopefully McDaniels knows that it starts inside and works out this year and doesn't think he addressed things with an OLB in a 3-4.

PS. I wonder why Belicheck drafts NT's and DE's in the first round but not OLB's? Doesn't he know they are D line too?

Broncoman13
01-29-2010, 11:03 PM
Just say NO to Cody!

No to Cody in the first, in the 2nd he is worth the risk.

DivineLegion
01-29-2010, 11:05 PM
No to Cody in the first, in the 2nd he is worth the risk.

Its not good when your depth won't make it through the season, so NO to Cody.

jhns
01-29-2010, 11:47 PM
You mean the O-line that was one of the best in the league in 08'? The D line did need work your right, thats why he brought in veteren players like Ron Fields, moved Kenny outside, and picked up guys like Chris Baker and Ryan McBean. We addressed our D-Line with what was available and it worked for awhile until our lack of depth started to show. Thats why we brought in veterens like Vonnie Holliday mid way through the season, and Marcus Thomas saw a lot more playing time.

Now our biggest need this offseason is deffinity to address the problems that came to be on both lines, however the stop gap scheme utilized last season did work fairly well for awhile.

I think we wait until rounds 2-3 to address NT, G, and C. Where we are sitting in the first round I say Josh goes BPA again, and then really takes a hard look at what we desperatly need in the later rounds. I wouldent be suprised if we take Mike Iupati at 12 though, he seems like a can't miss kind of talent. I just don't see how you can pass on a guy like Rolando McClain if he is there.

We have had problems rushing in short yardage situations and in the red zone for a long time now. If McD planned on changing blocking schemes, he should have known the o-line was going to need addressed. I can see why he didn't though. As for the d-line. Yes, we brought in players. No, we didn't spend many resources on it. We used a lot of resources in the draft and in FA last year and very little went to the line. We brought in cheap FA's that are alright. Other than that, I agree with your post and would love to see that draft strategy used.

DBroncos4life
01-30-2010, 12:24 AM
Great, then you'll be patient as our rookies develop and you won't b**** all day long?

Perfect.

When have I bitched all day long about the rookies? Smith and Quinn are the only one's I can recall even talking that bad about in the first place.

BroncoMan4ever
01-30-2010, 12:58 AM
No team running a 'zone blocking' scheme has won a SuperBowl since the last time the Broncos won the SuperBowl.

Maybe it is time to run a power blocking scheme.

not only that, but no team running the ZBS has even reached the super bowl since we won it in 98.

Bronco Yoda
01-30-2010, 01:13 AM
Well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can I get an Amen?

Amen!

Atwater His Ass
01-30-2010, 01:40 AM
No, but we didn't get to sit back in the later rounds and pick up the smaller, more athletic sliders like we used to. Now athletic linemen are being taken more earlier because defenses have got alot faster.

Long story short, you have to draft linemen early and often now no matter what scheme you run.

Which is what I've been arguing all along. :rofl:

And that goes back to it being a relatively new system as well. It's been 14 years now since the ZBS scheme was made prevalent in Denver and teams have figured out how to defend it.

I'm not arguing that moving in a new direction is a bad move. Just pointing out that the ZBS isn't "dead" and is in fact, quite potent when executed properly.

There's a lot of double talk that happens on this forum about the ZBS just because Denver is moving away from it...sour grapes etc.

Not quite. He was an average level starter, which was a vast improvement over what Hamilton was bringing prior to his benching.

No, he's not very good. Better than Hamilton in the scheme McD is trying to run? Yes. But we can agree that interior OL is one of the biggest needs heading into the draft.

Weren't you just b****ing and moaning about talent at running back?

I've already stated that Moreno was one of the only picks I agreed with. We'll see how he pans out. I wasn't particularly impressed with him this season. But I do like his toughness and the fact he was able to contribute all season at a very physically demanding position as a rookie.

And yes, I'd say the DE/OLB prospect and the young corner and safety prospects were much more dire needs considering that we have a very talented but aging secondary. The jury is out on Smith but McBath looks to be a stud in waiting, and the team felt Quinn was the type of blocking talent you just can't pass up on.

Again, already stated my opinion on the Ayers pick. Addressed a need with an atheltic player, but Cushing or Orakpo would have been better choices. Depends on how Ayers develops. He was nothing but dissapointing this season.

I love how you conviently ignore my prior post where I told you how shallow the the D-line talent was in the 2009 draft. Really, who did you want us to pick? We tried to move up for the best prospect (Raji) and then took the best available option with Ayers.

I know that is your opinion. Raji was perhaps out of reach, but we let Brace just flitter away. Ayers was not drafted as a DL. He's a 3-4 OLB and that's what he was drafted by McD to be. We didn't draft a DL in the 09 draft.

Olsen was a 4th round pick.

Please count the number of picks we used/traded before we addressed the OL. Hint: It's more than 7.

Find it unacceptable all you want, but the only one who was a question to convert to the new scheme at the beginning of the season was Hamilton and McDaniels spent a 4th rounder and made a trade to provide a safety net there.

Hamilton and Wiegmann actually. And the 4th rounder he spent had absolutely zero impact for us last season. He coulnd't beat out a 32 year old career backup in Hochstein. Not to say that's career defining for Olsen, but it's not a good sign. Next year will be a big season for him.

He was playing in heavy rotation with Reid and Haggan, and I would venture a guess that if you totaled up their snaps taken, Ayers had the most.

And I would bet not. But even if so, Ayers had no impact on the defense. Not what you are looking for in a 1st round talent that allegedly is "starting".

I know this might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but all 32 teams knew he was a project, and if we didn't pick him at 18 he goes very shortly after that.

So? Ryan Leaf was a first round talent too...



No, it wasn't pretty horrible. It was actually a pretty good draft.

Moreno - Season long starter. Lead all rookies in rushing yards
Ayers - Played heavy rotation in a deep linebacking corps.
Smith - Jury still out on him
McBath - Great pick
Quinn - Showed excellent run blocking skills in little playing time.
Bruton - Great pick
Olsen - Didn't get much playing time, but looked real good in preseason
McKinley - Jury still out
Tom B- Jury still out
Schlueter - Cut

Seriously? A good draft? Moreno is the ONLY one that produced, and he really wasn't all that impressive in doing so.

I know you have a hard on for McBath and Bruton, and they may turn out to be good players, but they were nothing but special team guys this season. Not sure how that translates into "great" picks.

Olsen "Didn't get much playing time, but looked real good in preseason". Wow? Seriously? I'll agree the jury is out on him, but like I already said, he coulnd't beat out a career backup and starter on the decline. But hey, he looked good in preseason amirite guys?

It was a horrible draft in both getting players to fill our needs, and actually drafting any players that had any sort of impact at all.

Broncos_OTM
01-30-2010, 02:50 AM
We said that last year too.

Do you mean we as in The Omane? or We as a collective Denver Broncos.

In all fairness. The OLine was a strength the preivious year. The Dline and Secondary horrible. He found players last year where we needed it most. He had in the front seven one first rounder. (converting to the 3-4 means we needed a few linebackers. i have a feeling he wasnt impressed with Moss.) So you can justify that pick. He picked up To early pieces to his secondary. To groom under two very established vets. in Dawkins and Hill. He got a couple of DLine in UDFA. Chris Baker was tabbed a 3 Round or later guy who fell due to his Character Concerns. Great value as i see it if he can stay out of trouble. He had a VERY quiet year as far as play time and off the field. He is being coached by wayne numley who i have faith in. Everrete P. was another guy who was well regaurded for our scheme. But no matter how many rookies you get, They are still rookies. We got Fields to play NT who had a very solid year. Mcbean who was over all pretty solid. And he got Vonnie Holiday. You cannot go wrong with guys like that while you groom rookies. Rookies to which usually require 2-3 years worth of seasoning to see that potential. Unless miracles happen. I like the way Mcdaniels assemebeled this team. Although i really am not a huge fan of Quinn in the second. 3-4 round ok i just thought it was just a tad early. Having said that. He is not going to convert the whole team in one offseason. Especially with the way FA will be this year. Give the man some Kudos and lumps. Until the third year we really should just sit back and relax.

Florida_Bronco
01-30-2010, 03:12 AM
Which is what I've been arguing all along. :rofl: Really? I must have missed that part in all the bitching about dropping the ZBS.

Regardless, there wasn't a whole lot of need to spend resources on the line coming into this year. Clady and Harris are both elite and Kuper is damn close while Wiegmann has been solid his whole career while all of them theoretically could play in either scheme. The only real question was Hamilton and as I pointed out, we had safety nets in place for him.

It's not McDaniel's fault that Wiegmann got old in such a hurry and Harris got hurt. Just be thankful he had a capable backup for Hamilton.

I'm not arguing that moving in a new direction is a bad move. Just pointing out that the ZBS isn't "dead" and is in fact, quite potent when executed properly. Like I told Rev, I'd be real interested to see the numbers on those teams and just how well they run the ball in the redzone.

There's a lot of double talk that happens on this forum about the ZBS just because Denver is moving away from it...sour grapes etc.
Sour grapes? Really, where the hell do you come up with some of this? It has alot more to do with the fact that people are seeing that the ZBS scheme just doesn't get the job done like it used to.

No, he's not very good. Better than Hamilton in the scheme McD is trying to run? Yes. But we can agree that interior OL is one of the biggest needs heading into the draft. I never said he was "good". I said he played at about a league average level. Should we look to upgrade there? Absolutely.

I know that is your opinion. Raji was perhaps out of reach, but we let Brace just flitter away. You think perhaps that maybe the staff didn't like what they saw in Brace? Maybe they saw alot of similarities to Julius Peppers and Ryan Sims? You think that maybe they didn't think he was worth a 2nd round pick when in most drafts he's a 3rd or 4th rounder at best?

Hamilton and Wiegmann actually. And the 4th rounder he spent had absolutely zero impact for us last season. He coulnd't beat out a 32 year old career backup in Hochstein. Not to say that's career defining for Olsen, but it's not a good sign. Next year will be a big season for him. We have a pretty long history here of not starting rookie linemen, and that 32 year career backup had a pretty decent season for us after spending years in this scheme, so why is it such a shocker to you that they kept him on the bench?

And I would bet not. But even if so, Ayers had no impact on the defense. Not what you are looking for in a 1st round talent that allegedly is "starting". So a guy who was a DT/DE in college, moved to OLB in a 3-4 defense and was getting lots of playing time when the guys ahead of him weren't exactly scrubs is not "having an impact".

I think you might want to look beyond the stat lines.

So? Ryan Leaf was a first round talent too... Your basis of comparison is one of the biggest douchebags in NFL history? When Ayers starts acting like Leaf, then you might have a valid comparison.

Seriously? A good draft? Moreno is the ONLY one that produced, and he really wasn't all that impressive in doing so. Moreno lead all rookies in rushing while splitting carries with another productive back all behind a struggling interior line.

I know you have a hard on for McBath and Bruton, and they may turn out to be good players, but they were nothing but special team guys this season. Not sure how that translates into "great" picks. Really? McBath filled in for Dawkins on several occasions and the team didn't miss a beat even when playing elite teams like the Colts and Chargers. Bruton was less spectacular when he was getting regular snaps on defense later in the season, but he still played very well and was an asset rather than a liability. They did all this while being upper echelon special team players.

Could they end up turning into flops? Sure, but thus far they've shown nothing but positive play and as such you have to consider them good picks.

It was a horrible draft in both getting players to fill our needs, and actually drafting any players that had any sort of impact at all. I guess you can spin in whatever way you want, but when 3 out of 5 first day picks are getting significant playing time against solid competition, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

Atwater His Ass
01-30-2010, 04:49 AM
Really? I must have missed that part in all the b****ing about dropping the ZBS.

Regardless, there wasn't a whole lot of need to spend resources on the line coming into this year. Clady and Harris are both elite and Kuper is damn close while Wiegmann has been solid his whole career while all of them theoretically could play in either scheme. The only real question was Hamilton and as I pointed out, we had safety nets in place for him.

It's not McDaniel's fault that Wiegmann got old in such a hurry and Harris got hurt. Just be thankful he had a capable backup for Hamilton.

Like I told Rev, I'd be real interested to see the numbers on those teams and just how well they run the ball in the redzone.

Continue to miss my point about the ZBS, so really not worth repeating myself again here.

Sour grapes? Really, where the hell do you come up with some of this? It has alot more to do with the fact that people are seeing that the ZBS scheme just doesn't get the job done like it used to.

When not executed properly, yes it sucks. Just like any other system that isn't executed properly. Most people fail to see past what's really happening since it's in vouge to bash on anything Shanahan over the past year or so.

I never said he was "good". I said he played at about a league average level. Should we look to upgrade there? Absolutely.

You think perhaps that maybe the staff didn't like what they saw in Brace? Maybe they saw alot of similarities to Julius Peppers and Ryan Sims? You think that maybe they didn't think he was worth a 2nd round pick when in most drafts he's a 3rd or 4th rounder at best?

I don't put a lot of stock in this staff at evaluating young talent at all, considering just about every draft pick was pretty bad.

They do seem ok at getting FA's though. Made some solid moves there, albiet for stop gap type players.

We have a pretty long history here of not starting rookie linemen, and that 32 year career backup had a pretty decent season for us after spending years in this scheme, so why is it such a shocker to you that they kept him on the bench?

It's a new regimn in town. "History" doesn't mean much in the Denver Bronco organization at the moment. Again, already stated my thoughts on this subject, not going to repeat it again.

So a guy who was a DT/DE in college, moved to OLB in a 3-4 defense and was getting lots of playing time when the guys ahead of him weren't exactly scrubs is not "having an impact".

I think you might want to look beyond the stat lines.

My issue with this pick is that we spent the 18th overall pick on a project player. That's not a good way to spend blue chip picks.

And I can easily see beyond the stat lines. I watch the games. Ayers was invisible all year.

Can he improve and be a quality starter? Absolutely. But right now, he's not living up to expectations.

Your basis of comparison is one of the biggest douchebags in NFL history? When Ayers starts acting like Leaf, then you might have a valid comparison.

lolwut? You said that if we didn't draft Ayers, someone else would have almost immediately. Leaf was a hotter prospect than Ayers by a mile. He was going at #1 or #2. Sorry you got wooshed yet again. But I'll spell it out for you. Just because a player is a hot prospect, doesn't mean he'll be a good player and it doesn't make Ayers, at this point, a good pick at all. In fact, it's a pretty embarrasing pick as it currently stands.

Moreno lead all rookies in rushing while splitting carries with another productive back all behind a struggling interior line.

Really? Wow. That totally changes my opinion about him. Hilarious!

Really? McBath filled in for Dawkins on several occasions and the team didn't miss a beat even when playing elite teams like the Colts and Chargers. Bruton was less spectacular when he was getting regular snaps on defense later in the season, but he still played very well and was an asset rather than a liability. They did all this while being upper echelon special team players.

Could they end up turning into flops? Sure, but thus far they've shown nothing but positive play and as such you have to consider them good picks.


They are ST guys at this point. Nothing more, nothing less. I certainly don't have to consider them good picks at all. Espically when the glaring needs on both lines were overlooked to draft them.

I guess you can spin in whatever way you want, but when 3 out of 5 first day picks are getting significant playing time against solid competition, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

Nice spin on that. Moreno was the only pick that had a significant impact on the team.

elsid13
01-30-2010, 05:09 AM
Serious question: name some of the difference makers the Broncos could have/should have added to the lines last offseason.

From the draft and available for Denver to select
Alex Mack - Center/Guard picked 20 overall
Eben Britten - Nasty Right Tackle for Jax
Max Unger - Tackle/Guard
Eric Woods - Center/Guard
Sam Lee Hill - big NT that showed flashes his rookie season
Terrance Knighton - Started 16 games for Jacksonville and was strong at the POA. (should of been consider DYOP candidate)

All the guys started more then 12 games as rookies and were pretty good

ayjackson
01-30-2010, 08:27 AM
Outside LB in our 3-4 is not an easy position for a rookie to play. They often take years to develop into pro-bowl players - see Anthony Spencer and Mike Vrabel who have comparable skill sets to Ayers as heavier-set LB's. Ayers' first season in the league was miles better than Spencer's and Vrabel's.

The Wares of the world are few and far between.

I guess we could have drafted the pool jumper or traded up to snag Tyson Jackson if we wanted to improve the lines. But I'm pretty happy with Ayers over those two.

Dan Williams and Jared Odrick could be solid d-line contributors with a small trade down. We could roll the dice on Oghabase (sp?) a little later on two. But Rome wasn't built in a day, and our defensive talent level was in decline for a long time. (How many compensatory picks are we getting for our departed 2008 defenders?)

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 10:43 AM
The ZBS is pretty much dead these days, mainly because of the red zone problems that come with it.

Getting away from that was the right move.

No . It is not . Just running zone blocking the whole game is . come on guys.:giggle:

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 10:44 AM
Hell Indy and NE run zone and so will we but Josh likes to trap block.

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 10:47 AM
Since we won the SB's the NFL D line weights went up on average 25 pounds . We have stayed about the same weight in the interior of our oline .

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 10:48 AM
the titans ran zone blocking probably better than anyone this year .

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 10:49 AM
4,926

elsid13
01-30-2010, 10:57 AM
the titans ran zone blocking probably better than anyone this year .

I would put forward Caroline for the last two seasons too.

tsiguy96
01-30-2010, 11:16 AM
the titans ran zone blocking probably better than anyone this year .

i think its pretty obvious you can be successful doing both, i think the problem isnt with the system but that the coaches need to eb able to successfully implement both for different situations. zone inside the 3 yard line is dumb, as it is on 3rd and 1 on midfield, especially when youre oline is overpowered constantly because leverage and ability to move dline with technique doesnt mean **** when it comes to needing to move them within 1 second, as opposed to stretch plays where the RB has time to let the play develop.

sixtimeseight
01-30-2010, 11:31 AM
the titans ran zone blocking probably better than anyone this year .

The Titans also have the best RB in football.

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 11:54 AM
i think its pretty obvious you can be successful doing both, i think the problem isnt with the system but that the coaches need to eb able to successfully implement both for different situations. zone inside the 3 yard line is dumb, as it is on 3rd and 1 on midfield, especially when youre oline is overpowered constantly because leverage and ability to move dline with technique doesnt mean **** when it comes to needing to move them within 1 second, as opposed to stretch plays where the RB has time to let the play develop.

I Like the idea of being able to do all the ideas in the NFL and not be in a gimmick only Idea so the hater's need to lighten up... thing is this team got banned in the blocking Schemes we used after the two SB Win's ...but when the 49'ers did it it was all peach's and cream ...

We need some fatties that can tip toe thought the tulips deal with it it was time for the change

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 11:57 AM
solid Lines is how to start with rebuilds.

~Crash~
01-30-2010, 11:58 AM
The Titans also have the best RB in football.

ying meet yang:thanku:

TheReverend
01-30-2010, 01:34 PM
This coming from the guy who basically ridicules stats! I remember you and our friend Mediator going toe to toe over stats. Don't get me wrong I am just shocked you are using any sort of stat. All I know is the team was in the bottom half in red zone scoring and was not good on short yardage. I watched the games always twice and usually thrice. The running in the red zone and short yardage was blech!

As for pass blocking man I agree Moreno was a sieve it was almost as bad as watching Hillis miss his reads and blocks. Actually it was worse Moreno is supposed to be a very cerebral player. Hillis is not known for his smarts.

Haha! I definitely think that website comes up with a lot of ridiculous conclusions, but there's certainly some good info as well, and someone would be hard pressed to find any way to take away the validity of a hard line statistic like stuff %.

If you head over to si.com/nfl and go to individual players you can check out their splits on 3rd down and in the redzone and in most every situations. It wasn't AS bad as dramaticized.

barryr
01-30-2010, 01:43 PM
So the Broncos started having troubles in short yardage last year? That's what the McDaniel haters seem to be believing and ignoring that same problem this team had when Shanahan was the head coach. I remember many seasons where Elam was kicking a lot of 20-39 yard field goals.

BroncoBuff
01-30-2010, 01:56 PM
Well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can I get an Amen?

He should have tried that last year ... like many of us said then.


I also love how when asked about the Saints/Colts game... all McD talked about was the Colts DEs for the entire time. He clearly understands the importance of a couple of guys like that for a defense.

Maybe he understands it now, but he sure as heck didn't last year.

TonyR
01-30-2010, 02:04 PM
He should have tried that last year ... like many of us said.

I don't disagree, but there weren't a lot of D-line difference makers in the draft last year, and other than Haynesworth what FA D-liners made much of a difference? The Giants paid huge money to Chris Canty and Rocky Bernard and their D-line got worse. Who do you propose they should have drafted or signed? Fields, McBean and Holliday were improvements but as we found out certainly weren't good enough overall. So he did "try", contrary to your statement. And if we reached and moved up to draft Tyson Jackson or Raji we would have failed even worse. It's all a bit easier said than done, let's hope we do better this year.

DenverBrit
01-30-2010, 02:05 PM
He should have tried that last year ... like many of us said then.



I can only imagine the wailing and whining had McPoopyPants tinkered with the O line last year. Ha!

Yeah, he should have anticipated Hamilton becoming a turnstile and Wiegman's play dropping off. Denison should have been on top of that.

The D line? Not sure there were any other FA's that would have helped, and as for the draft, don't you think Nolan got most of what he asked for?

TonyR
01-30-2010, 02:06 PM
Maybe he understands it now, but he sure as heck didn't last year.

Yes, because premier DE's grow on trees.

TonyR
01-30-2010, 02:09 PM
Yeah, he should have anticipated Hamilton becoming a turnstile and Wiegman's play dropping off. Denison should have been on top of that.

Yep, not to mention Kuper and Harris both getting hurt, with the latter missing most of the season. Crystal ball was broken.

DenverBrit
01-30-2010, 02:25 PM
Yep, not to mention Kuper and Harris both getting hurt, with the latter missing most of the season. Crystal ball was broken.

Fortunately, the Mane's crystal ball works fine...........it's 20/20 with hindsight! ;D

BroncoBuff
01-30-2010, 02:37 PM
Yes, because premier DE's grow on trees.

C'mon man, don't start ... he did very very very little with the d-line last year, and many of us screamed about it.

It was his choice.

Facts is facts.

Paladin
01-30-2010, 02:37 PM
I hate to jump on this post but do you even know what you are saying? If it ain't ZB then it's automatically power blocking. There's only two types of blocking in the running game, ZBS and power blocking. Most teams, in fact I dare say ALL teams use both at some point and time during a game...

I agree with that, but the Broncos did not have a strong power blockoing team for the times when they need it. Like in red zones. We all saw the failures of the OL when they needed 2 freaking yards......

BTW. jhns is such a freaking idiot, I would hope all would just put him on ignore and just....well....ignore him.....

BroncoBuff
01-30-2010, 02:42 PM
Fortunately, the Mane's crystal ball works fine...........it's 20/20 with hindsight! ;D

Talking defensive line here ... and no hindsight needed. Many (MANY) of us were correct when we screamed and yelled that D-line was largely ignored.

Fact is, many of us knew: Peterson-Fields-McBean was nowhere near good enough.

WolfpackGuy
01-30-2010, 02:43 PM
I agree with that, but the Broncos did not have a strong power blockoing team for the times when they need it. Like in red zones. We all saw the failures of the OL when they needed 2 freaking yards...

The line had its issues, but some of the playcalling was just BLAND and MORONIC in those situations.

WolfpackGuy
01-30-2010, 02:46 PM
Talking defensive line here ... and no hindsight needed. Many (MANY) of us were correct when we screamed and yelled that D-line was largely ignored.

Fact is, many of us knew: Peterson-Fields-McBean was nowhere near good enough.

They should've come out of the 2009 draft with Raji, Brace, or Jerry.

DenverBrit
01-30-2010, 02:53 PM
Talking defensive line here ... and no hindsight needed. Many (MANY) of us were correct when we screamed and yelled that D-line was largely ignored.

Fact is, many of us knew: Peterson-Fields-McBean was nowhere near good enough.

Most knew, but who else could have helped?

Nolan was almost certainly responsible for selecting the defensive draft picks.

As for 'talking defense here' you might need to clean your glasses. :P

You responded to:

Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!!

BroncoBuff
01-30-2010, 02:54 PM
They should've come out of the 2009 draft with Raji, Brace, or Jerry.
Would've been tough to reach high enough for Raji, but Brace was there when we drafted Alphonso of course. Only time will tell whether we made the right choice ... but I would've preferred Brace then, and I would prefer him now.


AND ... Terrance Knighton was available where we took Richard Quinn. Again, I would've preferred Knighton then, and I'd prefer him now.

oubronco
01-30-2010, 03:00 PM
Would've been tough to reach high enough for Raji, but Brace was there when we drafted Alphonso of course. Only time will tell whether we made the right choice ... but I would've preferred Brace then, and I would prefer him now.


AND ... Terrance Knighton was available where we took Richard Quinn. Again, I would've preferred Knighton then, and I'd prefer him now.

agreed

BroncoBuff
01-30-2010, 03:01 PM
Most knew, but who else could have helped?
See my post above ... Brace and Knighton instead of Alphonso and Quinn ... HELLO?!

Don't alienate Scheffler and give JMFW a longer look.

Them would've been my moves ... time will tell (betcha I was right ;D)


Nolan was almost certainly responsible for selecting the defensive draft picks.

As for 'talking defense here' you might need to clean your glasses. :P

You responded to:

Well, EXCUSE ME, but I was talking defense ;D

Yeah, that's true, it was Nolan ... he did make those very questionable statements that he preferred to build the defense from "back to front" ... most of us knew that was wrong, but some of the guys here - the way they contorted themselves to defend that philosophy was truly comical :~ohyah!:

BroncoMan4ever
01-30-2010, 03:05 PM
He should have tried that last year ... like many of us said then.




Maybe he understands it now, but he sure as heck didn't last year.

with who? in the draft, the DL available to us when we were picking were not improvements over what was already on the roster. why waste the pick on a guy because he plays a position of need if he isn't going to improve the position. that is why we were stuck with guys like Moss, Crowder and Thomas. they played positions we needed help at and then didn't do anything because they weren't any better than what we had before.

TonyR
01-30-2010, 03:12 PM
They should've come out of the 2009 draft with Raji, Brace, or Jerry.

Did any of those guys do all that much this year? Would any have made that big of a difference? Was Raji worth that top 10 $? I certainly understand the thinking but wonder whether it would have made much difference.

BroncoBuff
01-30-2010, 03:12 PM
with who?

Brace over Alphonso or Knighton over Quinn ... that's who.

Time will tell.

DenverBrit
01-30-2010, 03:13 PM
Well, EXCUSE ME, but I was talking defense ;D


Not even in hindsight! Unless you purposely ignored what you quoted? ;D


Well, he said something that all of us have been saying for years: Looking to bolster the lines on both sides of the ball!! Can I get an Amen?

He should have tried that last year ... like many of us said then.
Maybe he understands it now, but he sure as heck didn't last year.

Atwater His Ass
01-30-2010, 10:33 PM
Would've been tough to reach high enough for Raji.

Like how we threw away a 1st rounder to draft Smith?

With the resources spent on getting Smith and Quinn, it may have been entirely possible to move up to get Raji. Even add the Moreno pick to that. Are there really that many people that would be against giving up Moreno, Smith, and Quinn for Raji?

KipCorrington25
01-30-2010, 10:56 PM
McBean should be with special forces in Iraq, he is invisable.

Cito Pelon
01-31-2010, 07:17 AM
Talking defensive line here ... and no hindsight needed. Many (MANY) of us were correct when we screamed and yelled that D-line was largely ignored.

Fact is, many of us knew: Peterson-Fields-McBean was nowhere near good enough.

For the umpteenth time the DL was definitely not 'largely ignored'. They went and got some guys they thought would improve the DL. You can say they could have addressed it more, but it certainly wasn't 'largely ignored'.

And who were they supposed to get in FA? There wasn't much available. They could have drafted some more DL guys, but there were also other needs, notably safety. Did you want an all DL draft?

Cito Pelon
01-31-2010, 07:21 AM
They should've come out of the 2009 draft with Raji, Brace, or Jerry.

Raji went long before Denver picked. Brace and Jerry were non-factors as rookies.

elsid13
01-31-2010, 07:31 AM
Most knew, but who else could have helped?

Nolan was almost certainly responsible for selecting the defensive draft picks.

As for 'talking defense here' you might need to clean your glasses. :P

You responded to:

That not true. There was article in the Post where the decision to move up to get Smith were Xanders stated the move up was based on McDaniels and his decision because they really liked him. And Nolan himself stated McDaniels was responsible for bring in the guys like Fields, and he had really no input.

Cito Pelon
01-31-2010, 08:36 AM
That not true. There was article in the Post where the decision to move up to get Smith were Xanders stated the move up was based on McDaniels and his decision because they really liked him. And Nolan himself stated McDaniels was responsible for bring in the guys like Fields, and he had really no input.

Do you have a link? If you can prove it that's fine with me, but I hadn't heard anything like that til now.

DenverBrit
01-31-2010, 09:11 AM
That not true. There was article in the Post where the decision to move up to get Smith were Xanders stated the move up was based on McDaniels and his decision because they really liked him. And Nolan himself stated McDaniels was responsible for bring in the guys like Fields, and he had really no input.

If that's true, then no wonder Nolan moved on.

But it does seem odd that having brought in a DC of Nolan's experience they deny him input when defensive personnel decisions are made.

I could have sworn Fields was brought on-board because of Nolan's history with him in SF.

As for Smith, I'd probably distance myself from that decision too. ;D