PDA

View Full Version : Jabar Gaffney Appreciation Thread


Beantown Bronco
02-16-2010, 12:31 PM
This guy has to be one of the two or three most underappreciated guys on the team right now. In his honor, I give you this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcTXwZgtDnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YcTXwZgtDnU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Look at the routes this guy is running. Most catches are over 15 yards downfield with none of the hated bubble screens, with the exception of when they get inside the 10.....and who says Orton can't throw with accuracy beyond 5 yards? Look at these throws.

Flex Gunmetal
02-16-2010, 12:42 PM
Nice vid. Positively terrible music.

iDENVER
02-16-2010, 12:48 PM
hopefully we can keep marshall put gaff at #2 and put royal in the slot

OBF1
02-16-2010, 12:50 PM
hopefully we can keep marshall put gaff at #2 and put royal in the slot

This

Swedish Extrovert
02-16-2010, 12:55 PM
hopefully we can keep marshall put gaff at #2 and put royal in the slot

That would be a 1a, 1b, 1c option, with Gaffney at 1a. I like Marshall but he isnt a #1

Rabb
02-16-2010, 12:58 PM
I kept thinking all season, it seemed like every time he touched the ball it went for big plays

Orton made some damn nice throws there btw

kamakazi_kal
02-16-2010, 12:58 PM
That would be a 1a, 1b, 1c option, with Gaffney at 1a. I like Marshall but he isnt a #1

Gaffney a 1a ............ wtf are you smoking dude.

montrose
02-16-2010, 01:02 PM
He was brought in by McD, therefore he sucks.

PRBronco
02-16-2010, 01:04 PM
/signed

kamakazi_kal
02-16-2010, 01:08 PM
He was brought in by McD, therefore he sucks.

I'm not saying he sucks but some people saying he's is a #1 WR .... no.

He had a great game yes but cmon it was the chiefs. Let's not get carried away.

yerner
02-16-2010, 01:12 PM
average.

jhns
02-16-2010, 01:25 PM
He was brought in by McD, therefore he sucks.

This.

SouthStndJunkie
02-16-2010, 01:42 PM
Jabar Gaffney is a nice WR to have on the roster....but he is definitely not a #1.

Requiem
02-16-2010, 01:45 PM
He is a complementary receiver. Nice to have. Great pick-up. It was nice to have someone familiar with McDaniels system who can come in and contribute at a good level when more is asked of him. Hence the finale game and others.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
02-16-2010, 01:59 PM
orton made some damn nice throws there btw

you take that back!

watermock
02-16-2010, 02:03 PM
That would be a 1a, 1b, 1c option, with Gaffney at 1a. I like Marshall but he isnt a #1

When he's on the field he is.

Crushaholic
02-16-2010, 02:09 PM
I'm not saying he sucks but some people saying he's is a #1 WR .... no.

He had a great game yes but cmon it was the chiefs. Let's not get carried away.

Did you watch the video? It was more than the Chiefs game. I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Gaffney is very underrated...

montrose
02-16-2010, 02:28 PM
This.

and Dawkins, Hill, Goodman, Davis, Buckhalter and Jordan too!

Rabb
02-16-2010, 02:30 PM
Did you watch the video? It was more than the Chiefs game. I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Gaffney is very underrated...

not just that but how can we say "it was just the Chiefs" when we...*holding back vomit*...got abused by them...at home

Popps
02-16-2010, 02:54 PM
Gaffney was a fantastic pick-up. Look forward to seeing him excel next season.

I actually thought we'd see more of Brandon Lloyd. I'm guessing he's just useless on special teams, so it's tough to activate him. But, every time he plays, he seems to make a few nice catches.

DBroncos4life
02-16-2010, 03:39 PM
Did you watch the video? It was more than the Chiefs game. I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Gaffney is very underrated...

I guess his multiple years in McDs system doesn't give him advantage in your mind then. Everyone else is expecting Orton to get better in year two in the system. Marshall and Royal should as well, should we keep Marshall. I expect Gaffney's stats to get worse as Marshall and Royal settle into the offense. Look for another 40 catch 450 yard 2 TD season from him. That's about his average.

montrose
02-16-2010, 03:41 PM
Gaffney was a fantastic pick-up. Look forward to seeing him excel next season.

I actually thought we'd see more of Brandon Lloyd. I'm guessing he's just useless on special teams, so it's tough to activate him. But, every time he plays, he seems to make a few nice catches.

He looked awesome and if you heard him the next day on The Fan, carried himself with great class as a tremendous team player. I hope he's back in camp next year.

strafen
02-16-2010, 05:33 PM
I'm not saying he sucks but some people saying he's is a #1 WR .... no.

He had a great game yes but cmon it was the chiefs. Let's not get carried away.

No kiddin'! ROFL!

Guys remember the score?
We've lost the freakin' game AT HOME!
Gaffney gets the game of his life, Orton gets praised, now we're looking forward to these two for next season?
Come on people!
You guys can do better than that.
A #1 receiver? lol!

iDENVER
02-16-2010, 05:36 PM
That would be a 1a, 1b, 1c option, with Gaffney at 1a. I like Marshall but he isnt a #1

hope this is bad sarcasm ???

strafen
02-16-2010, 05:40 PM
I guess his multiple years in McDs system doesn't give him advantage in your mind then. Everyone else is expecting Orton to get better in year two in the system. Marshall and Royal should as well, should we keep Marshall. I expect Gaffney's stats to get worse as Marshall and Royal settle into the offense. Look for another 40 catch 450 yard 2 TD season from him. That's about his average.There's nothing about Orton 2nd year in the system that would guarantee he'd get better.
A second year in the system will not make Orton short-hop the ball to his receivers, his lack of athleticism, his inaccuracy in mid-long range throws, and his inability to improvise. He just doesn't have it, people.
He's not the guy!
Orton needs a stronger defense backing him up, more than an extra year in the system would do to make him look better ...

mhgaffney
02-16-2010, 05:40 PM
Let's hear it for my namesake.

Great hands.

Even if he wasn't born in Ireland!

Florida_Bronco
02-16-2010, 05:47 PM
No kiddin'! ROFL!

Guys remember the score?
We've lost the freakin' game AT HOME!
Gaffney gets the game of his life, Orton gets praised, now we're looking forward to these two for next season?
Come on people!
You guys can do better than that.
A #1 receiver? lol!

What does the final score have to do with evaluating an individual player's performance? That's just lunacy man.

I don't think anyone would claim Gaffney is a #1 receiver, but he's a serviceable #2 and damn near prototypical #3. On top of that he's experienced in this system and is a class act.

KipCorrington25
02-16-2010, 05:51 PM
He's OK, if that's who we have to be excited about becasue Marshall and Sheftler are run out of town and Royal is not used then we're screwed...

Hulamau
02-16-2010, 08:27 PM
I kept thinking all season, it seemed like every time he touched the ball it went for big plays

Orton made some damn nice throws there btw

Yep, Hard to miss that fact.

azbroncfan
02-16-2010, 08:38 PM
Positively terrible music.

I approve of this.

DenverBrit
02-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Nice vid. Positively terrible music.

That was music?? Sh*t!!

Nice highlights and hopefully a preview of what the offense will look like in its second year.

TheReverend
02-16-2010, 11:06 PM
I can't say I particularly appreciate this guy. Davis, Dawkins, McBath, Hill, Fields, definitely... not so much on Gaffney

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 12:24 AM
He's pretty good, especially as a #3 receiver, but I definitely don't "appreciate" that a 10-year vet took so many touches away from a budding star like Eddie Royal.

Kinda the same feeling I have about Buckhalter/Hillis.

DenverBrit
02-17-2010, 07:04 AM
He's pretty good, especially as a #3 receiver, but I definitely don't "appreciate" that a 10-year vet took so many touches away from a budding star like Eddie Royal.

Kinda the same feeling I have about Buckhalter/Hillis.

Gaffney gets open consistently, Royal didn't and appears to have been in a sophomore slump.

Crushaholic
02-17-2010, 09:50 AM
He's pretty good, especially as a #3 receiver, but I definitely don't "appreciate" that a 10-year vet took so many touches away from a budding star like Eddie Royal.

Kinda the same feeling I have about Buckhalter/Hillis.

If they are wearing Orange and Blue, I really don't care who gets the touches...as long as they catch the ball. Gaffney did a pretty good job of catching the ball last season...

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 10:01 AM
He's pretty good, especially as a #3 receiver, but I definitely don't "appreciate" that a 10-year vet took so many touches away from a budding star like Eddie Royal.

Kinda the same feeling I have about Buckhalter/Hillis.

Gaffney has been in the league for 8 years, not 10. He was in the same draft class as Lelie. He also didn't take touches away from Royal because they play different positions within McDaniels offense.

strafen
02-17-2010, 10:02 AM
Gaffney gets open consistently, Royal didn't and appears to have been in a sophomore slump.Tell it like it is...
Royal was grossly under-utilized last year.
He only had 37 receptions to show for...

jhat01
02-17-2010, 10:16 AM
Tell it like it is...
Royal was grossly under-utilized last year.
He only had 37 receptions to show for...

I wish I knew what the deal was. I was excited before the season, thinking the we would see him in more of a "Welker" type mold. That didn't happen, and hopefully the staff will get him in a position to succeed. He's a talented player and he's easy to like.

Let's hope he breaks out again next year.

azbroncfan
02-17-2010, 10:54 AM
He's pretty good, especially as a #3 receiver, but I definitely don't "appreciate" that a 10-year vet took so many touches away from a budding star like Eddie Royal.

Kinda the same feeling I have about Buckhalter/Hillis.

Yeah I am sure MCD has a problem not playing the best players or most productive.

strafen
02-17-2010, 11:12 AM
Yeah I am sure MCD has a problem not playing the best players or most productive.Obviously he did, did he not?
He can not do wrong, can he?

Does our offense ranking in 2009 compared to 2008 cue you in?
Do you think had he played the most productive and best players that our offense would've regressed the way it did?

~Crash~
02-17-2010, 11:15 AM
He is a complementary receiver. Nice to have. Great pick-up. It was nice to have someone familiar with McDaniels system who can come in and contribute at a good level when more is asked of him. Hence the finale game and others.

great take

~Crash~
02-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Tell it like it is...
Royal was grossly under-utilized last year.
He only had 37 receptions to show for...

for some reason he did drop way to many passes early on . not all his fault but still you got to catch the football .

~Crash~
02-17-2010, 11:19 AM
lets all hope Royal gets better again he is a weapon that should be used .

WolfpackGuy
02-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Gaffney's a solid secondary receiver, but the Broncos are in trouble if he's going to be the man.

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 11:23 AM
Obviously he did, did he not?
He can not do wrong, can he??

Who could he have upgraded?

azbroncfan
02-17-2010, 11:40 AM
Obviously he did, did he not?
He can not do wrong, can he?

Does our offense ranking in 2009 compared to 2008 cue you in?
Do you think had he played the most productive and best players that our offense would've regressed the way it did?

Here is a comment from the most knowledgeable football poster on here early in the year.




Royal is just like all of DEN's WR's right now, they are struggling with the reads in this scheme. The only one who is not lost is Stokely. More than once, Orton has looked to Royal and thrown the ball where he thought he would be only to see Royal run into double coverage.....MEDIATOR

You can't be so dumb that you think MCD would lay his paycheck and career on ego and not playing his best players do you? 2008's offense vs 2009 has been broke down time and time again. They both were very average and last years played much better teams.

strafen
02-17-2010, 11:43 AM
for some reason he did drop way to many passes early on . not all his fault but still you got to catch the football .Come on, man.
Receivers are going to drop the ball, tackles are going to be missed, and fumbles are going to happen...
Do you bench and punish players for that?

strafen
02-17-2010, 11:48 AM
Here is a comment from the most knowledgeable football poster on here early in the year.



You can't be so dumb that you think MCD would lay his paycheck and career on ego and not playing his best players do you? 2008's offense vs 2009 has been broke down time and time again. They both were very average and last years played much better teams.Royal, Hillis and Scheffler. All having problems with the complex and difficult Mcdaniels dink and dunk offense?
Repetition, practice and playing on Sunday is what gets you better at playing on any system, NOT sitting on the bench.
Again, did McDaniels in your opinion play the best players?
Let me answer that for you. No, he did not.

Broncomutt
02-17-2010, 12:15 PM
You can't be so dumb that you think MCD would lay his paycheck and career on ego and not playing his best players do you? .

I'd take Kern over Berger. He outkicked his coverage, but at least he didn't shank every other punt.

I'll take Jack Williams over Fonzie. May be too early to call Fonzie a bust, but he's done nothing to inspire any hope that he won't be. Did you see him make a single play last year? I saw Williams play decently in the Dallas game at least.

And McDaniels has shown he'll leave a tired and injured player on the field, (and even call that players number) rather than substitute a fresh one.

Yah, I've seen McDaniels not play the best available. It seems you have to respect McDaniels or you won't play. Too bad the guy doesn't know respect has to be earned.

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 12:29 PM
I'd take Kern over Berger. He outkicked his coverage, but at least he didn't shank every other punt. Berger offered a pretty significant bump in net avg over Kern.

I'll take Jack Williams over Fonzie. May be too early to call Fonzie a bust, but he's done nothing to inspire any hope that he won't be. Did you see him make a single play last year? I saw Williams play decently in the Dallas game at least. Jack Williams was a 2nd year player who did basically nothing as a rookie.

Yah, I've seen McDaniels not play the best available. It seems you have to respect McDaniels or you won't play. And you think that should be different?

Too bad the guy doesn't know respect has to be earned. He's a head coach in the NFL hired by the guy who pays these players their multi-million dollar contracts. If that's not enough for the players to respect him then we can ship them off to some other team.

Broncomutt
02-17-2010, 12:49 PM
There's a difference between respect and authority Flo. Being handed the reigns of the club gave him authority. Respect is something that cannot be granted, has to be earned.

Mid-season victory laps, taunting opposing players, leaving tired/injured players on the field, public fueds with marquee players, epic collapses and screaming references to an incestual act across every Thanksgiving table in America don't garner respect.

Instead what you get are things like Player's Only meetings. There's a ringing endorsement for the coach!

Boy, I bet that pissed the little man off something fierce! ROFL!

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 02:36 PM
Mid-season victory laps You mean the one that had the entire stadium roaring?

taunting opposing players, Don't know why this has to be gone over again, but Philips charged McDaniels as he was coming out of the tunnel and threatened him with physical violence. When Josh came out and told the media what really happened, Philips quickly apologized.

leaving tired/injured players on the field Huh?

public fueds with marquee players You mean the same feud that started with several well respected veterans including Bailey, Graham and Dawkins approached McD and asked him to do something about Marshall?

epic collapses You think the players will hold that over his head?

screaming references to an incestual act across every Thanksgiving table in America don't garner respect. Not Josh's problem. This is pro football with grown men and foul language is used on the sidelines. It's been that way since pro football has been around. It's not Josh's fault that NFLN was so incompetent that they not only aired that line, but did so after they had several minutes and a commercial break to see what they were doing.

Instead what you get are things like Player's Only meetings. There's a ringing endorsement for the coach!

Boy, I bet that pissed the little man off something fierce! ROFL! Players only meetings are not uncommon in the NFL. I don't know why you would think that pissed off McDaniels.

kamakazi_kal
02-17-2010, 03:01 PM
You mean the one that had the entire stadium roaring?

Don't know why this has to be gone over again, but Philips charged McDaniels as he was coming out of the tunnel and threatened him with physical violence. When Josh came out and told the media what really happened, Philips quickly apologized.

Huh?

You mean the same feud that started with several well respected veterans including Bailey, Graham and Dawkins approached McD and asked him to do something about Marshall?

You think the players will hold that over his head?

Not Josh's problem. This is pro football with grown men and foul language is used on the sidelines. It's been that way since pro football has been around. It's not Josh's fault that NFLN was so incompetent that they not only aired that line, but did so after they had several minutes and a commercial break to see what they were doing.

Players only meetings are not uncommon in the NFL. I don't know why you would think that pissed off McDaniels.

Not that you care but, That's just flat out made up by posters on the OM ..... go read that article again. Marsh was not the target of that meeting just the first to be punished by it.

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 03:09 PM
Yeah I am sure MCD has a problem not playing the best players or most productive.

http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-blender/files/2009/10/bob-eubanks.jpg
BZZZZ! Oh I'm sorry! ... but thanks for playing.


Eddie Royal's rookie season stats were better than ANY of Gaffney's eight seasons in the NFL, even cherry-picking Jabar's best year for each:

Eddie Royal's rookie year: 91 - 980 - 5
Gaffney's best EVER years: 55 ('05), 632 ('04), 5 ('07)

Not even close. But more than just that Eddie was more productive, he has more potential, FAR more potential, that should be obvious. As far as "couldn't get open," well I just don't see it. If you really think Gaffney was getting more separation than Royal, these stats should really change your mind.

It's about choices. Play-callers made choices, and this year those choices marginalized Eddie, it's that simple. It's not as if Royal had all these chances, and passes were broken up or he dropped them ... he had FAR fewer chances than in '08. To permit Eddie Royal to drop from 91-980-5 all the way to 37-345-0 is just a mistake, you're stunting the development of a budding star.

I feel the same way about Correll Buckhalter / Peyton Hillis. It's not a Josh thing, I would think this regardless who was in charge. No way should you sign two 9-year veteran free agents, one with a heinous history of injuries, and give them extensive touches to the detriment of guys who had mega-impacts and showed near-limitless potential as rookies.

HAT
02-17-2010, 03:30 PM
Come on, man.
Receivers are going to drop the ball, tackles are going to be missed, and fumbles are going to happen...
Do you bench and punish players for that?

.
A second year in the system will not make Orton short-hop the ball to his receivers

Double standard much?

strafen
02-17-2010, 03:31 PM
You can't be so dumb that you think MCD would lay his paycheck and career on ego and not playing his best players do you? 2008's offense vs 2009 has been broke down time and time again. They both were very average and last years played much better teams.I appreciate the name calling. I accept it as the standard procedure to show your point is stronger than mine.
Moving on...
Whether Mcdaniels would or will not lay his paycheck and career on the line by not playing his best players is not for me to determine.
The fact of the matter as I know it, as YOU know, and as everybody knows it, is that he in fact did not play the best and most productive players. Period.
Whatever you want to make of that and try to explain away why Mcdaniels did it or couldn't perhaps have knowingly done will not change that fact...

strafen
02-17-2010, 03:33 PM
Double standard much?

Don't get it...

watermock
02-17-2010, 03:36 PM
He has trouble playing with others. He talks about acting responsibly, well, he needs to look in the mirror.

Bowlen should hold him back a grade. He's too big for his britches IMO.

Or maybe too small.

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 03:56 PM
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-blender/files/2009/10/bob-eubanks.jpg
BZZZZ! Oh I'm sorry! ... but thanks for playing.


Eddie Royal's rookie season stats were better than ANY of Gaffney's eight seasons in the NFL, even cherry-picking Jabar's best year for each:

Eddie Royal's rookie year: 91 - 980 - 5
Gaffney's best EVER years: 55 ('05), 632 ('04), 5 ('07)

Not even close. But more than just that Eddie was more productive, he has more potential, FAR more potential, that should be obvious. As far as "couldn't get open," well I just don't see it. If you really think Gaffney was getting more separation than Royal, these stats should really change your mind.

It's about choices. Play-callers made choices, and this year those choices marginalized Eddie, it's that simple. It's not as if Royal had all these chances, and passes were broken up or he dropped them ... he had FAR fewer chances than in '08. To permit Eddie Royal to drop from 91-980-5 all the way to 37-345-0 is just a mistake, you're stunting the development of a budding star.

I feel the same way about Correll Buckhalter / Peyton Hillis. It's not a Josh thing, I would think this regardless who was in charge. No way should you sign two 9-year veteran free agents, one with a heinous history of injuries, and give them extensive touches to the detriment of guys who had mega-impacts and showed near-limitless potential as rookies.

See post #36. Your entire point here is moot because Royal and Gaffney do NOT play the same receiver position. I won't even get into the Hillis thing because at this point, it's beyond stupid that people keep defending him.

strafen
02-17-2010, 04:00 PM
See post #36. Your entire point here is moot because Royal and Gaffney do NOT play the same receiver position. I won't even get into the Hillis thing because at this point, it's beyond stupid that people keep defending him.That's too funny.
The Hillis point is a valid point. Some people here decided to throw the guy under the bus just to side with McDaniels, but it's not just Hillis, it's Scheffler, Stokley, and Royal
See anything wrong with that picture?

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 04:03 PM
See post #36. Your entire point here is moot because Royal and Gaffney do NOT play the same receiver position. I won't even get into the Hillis thing because at this point, it's beyond stupid that people keep defending him.

Stupid? Sad you think this has to do with intelligence, even more sad you stoop to personal attacks.

Doesn't matter which position ... production and chances are what matter. To the extent Gaffney's "position" gets more chances, then Royal should be moved into that position as his stats prove him to be light years a more productive, with the potential to go even higher. Remember, not in ANY of Jabar's eight seasons has he even come close to the catches and yards Royal totaled just as a rookie.

It's not about X, Y or Z position, it's about production. And the numbers don't lie.

Now who's stupid?

HAT
02-17-2010, 04:08 PM
Don't get it...

WR's drop balls, LB's miss tackles, RB's fumble..................


And.....




Wait for it..............



QB's short hop balls.

watermock
02-17-2010, 04:10 PM
That's too funny.
The Hillis point is a valid point. Some people here decided to throw the guy under the bus just to side with McDaniels, but it's not just Hillis, it's Scheffler, Stokley, and Royal
See anything wrong with that picture?

Yeah, you forgot BM.

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 04:16 PM
Stupid? Sad you think this has to do with intelligence, even more sad you stoop to personal attacks.

Doesn't matter which position ... production and chances are what matter. To the extent Gaffney's "position" gets more chances, then Royal should be moved into that position as his stats prove him to be light years a more productive, with the potential to go even higher. Remember, not in ANY of Jabar's eight seasons has he even come close to the catches and yards Royal totaled just as a rookie.

It's not about X, Y or Z position, it's about production. And the numbers don't lie.

Now who's stupid?

#1 - It wasn't a personal attack.

#2 - I never said it had to do with intelligence, but maybe you're quick snap defense shows that even you ultimately know there is no defense for a player who was a perpetual **** up all season long and ended up on the bench behind a guy who had been productive his whole career.

#3 - If you don't believe the positions they play effect the amount of passes they'll see then you simply don't understand football. Players are put into those positions because they have the skillset for it. Royal and Gaffney have different skill sets so they play different positions. In fact Royal's problem likely stems from the fact that he was the only receiver with the deep speed to play the Randy Moss role and we tried to split his time between that and the Wes Welker role, neither of which Gaffney is well suited for by the way.

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 04:16 PM
That's too funny.
The Hillis point is a valid point. Some people here decided to throw the guy under the bus just to side with McDaniels, but it's not just Hillis, it's Scheffler, Stokley, and Royal
See anything wrong with that picture?

Good post ... good to point out that every post in this place has a Josh subtext lurking beneath the surface.

Wow ... Hillis, Scheffler, Royal and Stokley. And, whoever's fault it was, Cutler. The best young offense in Broncos history evaporated in less than a year. We should be able to discuss these personnel changes without being labelled "anti-Josh."

strafen
02-17-2010, 04:18 PM
WR's drop balls, LB's miss tackles, RB's fumble..................


And.....




Wait for it..............



QB's short hop balls.

My point was, a second year on the system will not make Orton short-hop the ball less
The only double standard I see is Orton never been benched or punished for it...

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 04:26 PM
#1 - It wasn't a personal attack.

#2 - I never said it had to do with intelligence, but maybe you're quick snap defense shows that even you ultimately know there is no defense for a player who was a perpetual **** up all season long and ended up on the bench behind a guy who had been productive his whole career.

Calling someone "stupid" is a personal attack, period. And "stupid" is about intelligence, by definition.

And "perpetual ***-up? Do you really want to go there to insult Eddie? What part of 91 catches for 980 yards don't you get? You really want to call him a "***up" merely to defend Josh? A good coach utilizes the talent and resources he has on hand ... league history is filled with examples where coaches changed their approach to fit the talent on hand, and more often than not succeeded when they did so.


#3 - If you don't believe the positions they play effect the amount of passes they'll see then you simply don't understand football. Players are put into those positions because they have the skillset for it. Royal and Gaffney have different skill sets so they play different positions. In fact Royal's problem likely stems from the fact that he was the only receiver with the deep speed to play the Randy Moss role and we tried to split his time between that and the Wes Welker role, neither of which Gaffney is well suited for by the way.

Royal's "problem," to the extent he has one, is that the play-caller chose to throw elsewhere.

And again, since you missed it in my post: "If Gaffney's position gets more chances, then the (more productive) Royal should be moved to that position."

Can't argue with the numbers, Florida ... Gaffney had 8 seasons to match Royal's rookie catch and yardage totals, and he never even came close. That's because Royal is a more talented reciever than Gaffney.

Broncomutt
02-17-2010, 04:27 PM
You mean the one that had the entire stadium roaring?



Yes, the same stadium that was empty by the 4th quarter of the KC game. Tell the truth, would you rather see a victory lap when we clinch a playoff spot for the first time in 3 years, or see one when the coach beats his mentor from another division?


Don't know why this has to be gone over again, but Philips charged McDaniels as he was coming out of the tunnel and threatened him with physical violence. When Josh came out and told the media what really happened, Philips quickly apologized.

Each time you respond to this, Phillips keeps getting crazier. First he yelled, then threatened physical violence, now he's charging McDaniels. One more time and Phillips will be holding a machete!

If McDaniels was so scared (in his own house surrounded by 77,000 people btw:spit:), why didn't he just call security Flo? If our fragile little coach was so intimidated by a player, no wonder he gets so little respect.

Let's just call it what it is. Our head coach letting another player get in his head, minutes before kickoff. Oh and you are correct, Phillips did apologize, right after he laughed his ass off!


Huh?

Please don't argue with me if you haven't watched all the games. Or are you just suppressing this one?



You mean the same feud that started with several well respected veterans including Bailey, Graham and Dawkins approached McD and asked him to do something about Marshall?

Hard pressed to find another rookie coach who's constantly fending off questions about how he treats players and coaches. Maybe the guy should handle his fueds in-house....like most legit NFL head coaches do. I wonder who's next, because there is definitely going to be a next.


You think the players will hold that over his head?

Some players had already vocally quit on him (making an assumption you actually watched the 2nd KC game). I don't believe Sheffler was the only one and the results of the KC game sure seem to support that hypothesis.

If I'm a free agent, I go where the money is first, but if the money is equal, I'll stay away from a team with a percieved cancer of a coach.


Not Josh's problem. This is pro football with grown men and foul language is used on the sidelines. It's been that way since pro football has been around. It's not Josh's fault that NFLN was so incompetent that they not only aired that line, but did so after they had several minutes and a commercial break to see what they were doing.

I agree here that profanity is as much a part of football as the ball itself. No problems with profanity. I also don't hold it against Josh that it was broadcast. I only mention this because it's just another facepalm moment. His fault or not, another facepalm moment brought to you by McDaniels.


Players only meetings are not uncommon in the NFL. I don't know why you would think that pissed off McDaniels.

Haha, ok. They are common for teams that have big problems. They are common for teams that aren't buying in to the crap the coach is selling. That's why they are Player Only.

Flo you remind me of one of those Cutler guys who has an excuse for every interception he throws. That was the receivers fault, that was the lines fault, that was the refs fault. Step back and look at the whole body of work, that's when you start to see it stinks.

Not saying you have to hate the coach, I respect loyalty. I just hate seeing people break out the teflon spray.

strafen
02-17-2010, 04:37 PM
Each time you respond to this, Phillips keeps getting crazier. First he yelled, then threatened physical violence, now he's charging McDaniels. One more time and Phillips will be holding a machete!

Man, I just laughed myself to tears.
That's just too funny!!! :D

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 04:38 PM
Good post ... good to point out that every post in this place has a Josh subtext lurking beneath the surface.

Wow ... Hillis, Scheffler, Royal and Stokley. And, whoever's fault it was, Cutler. The best young offense in Broncos history evaporated in less than a year. We should be able to discuss these personnel changes without being labelled "anti-Josh." You guys are labeled "anti-Josh" because not only have you admitted it as recently as two weeks ago (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2739152&postcount=521), you put an anti-Josh spin on every problem on this team without any thought to logic. Seriously, let's review.

Hillis - Benched by Shanny in 2008. Didn't get any significant playing time until it was down to him and signing Tatum Bell from a friggin mall kiosk. Mediocre 2009 preseason, trouble knowing his formations and assignments during the season along with a couple costly fumbles. Admitted that he could have worked harder during the season.

Scheffler - Openly wished for the season to be over while his teammates were fighting for a playoff spot. Was apparently one of the players several veterans complained about to McD. John Elway said he'd want Scheffler off the team if he had pulled that stunt during his years. Even then he caught a whopping 9 passes less than he did in 2008.

Royal - Banged up during the season and was forced to shuffle his time between two different positions.

Cutler - Trade was ordered by Bowlen despite Josh wanting to make him report for camp.

Stokley - Actually scored 1 more touchdown than he did in 2008 even though his reception total declined due to missed time with injuries and splitting the 3rd receiver role with Gaffney.

What your problem is that you developed a huge man crush on those guys and then Josh rolled into town and demanded that they start acting like professionals instead of the spoiled little coach's pets that they were under Shanahan. Most of them fell into line but one forced his way off the team and another was so out of line that veterans asked the coach to bench them. You're pissed at the coach who gave them a reality check when you should be pissed at the players for being the equivalent of a spoiled teenage girl.

And I love how you like to accuse people of doing "mental gymnastics" to defend Josh when two weeks ago you were telling us that you were "anti-Josh" and now you cry foul when you get painted by your very own brush.

Well congratulations Buff, I think you just won the ****ing gold medal in mental gymnastics.

http://impulsul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/gold-medal.jpg

DenverBrit
02-17-2010, 05:02 PM
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/argument.jpg

strafen
02-17-2010, 05:05 PM
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/argument.jpg

How old are you?

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 05:11 PM
Can't argue with numbers, Florida ....


http://siddiqkhalifah.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/goodtimes.jpg
Silly Florida!


Can you at least admit that your argument is nothing more a defense of Josh? You would not have even dreamed of criticizing Hillis like this a year ago ... at least admit that.

And all these tortured, twisted and varied explanations for why each of these guys' contributions fell off in 2009 - isn't it strange that none of your explanations include Josh? The fact is, plain and simple the fact is, that coaches and play callers make decisions. And Josh's decisions favored Gaffney over Royal and Buckhalter over Hillis. These are facts.

And Shanahan did NOT bench Hillis last year. In fact, once Hillis finally got his chance to play, his carries increased every single week:

09 Mia - 0-0 carries, 7 catches 116 yards
10 Cle - 6-21
11 Atl - 10-44
12 Oak - 17-74
13 Jets - 22-129
14 KC - (after 8 carries, injured making circus catch)
http://www.nfl.com/players/peytonhillis/gamelogs?id=HIL734134&season=2008


These kind of numbers - going up and up and up - indicate you've found a diamond in the rough, one with great potential.

Buckhalter played very well, yes, but his age and history of injury, coupled with Hillis' rookie stats, make the decision to sign him and give him many of the touches Hillis would've/should've had, highly questionable.

BroncoBuff
02-17-2010, 05:14 PM
And thanks for the medal, but I can't see the "mental gymnastics."

My arguments here are simple, 99% of them are about raw numbers, raw stats.

And again, it's hard to argue with numbers.

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 05:14 PM
Yes, the same stadium that was empty by the 4th quarter of the KC game. What does one have to do with the other? You used that ordeal to make Josh look bad and I showed how that was incorrect, which there is video evidence of.

Each time you respond to this, Phillips keeps getting crazier. First he yelled, then threatened physical violence, now he's charging McDaniels. One more time and Phillips will be holding a machete! Uhh, you realize they aren't mutually exclusive, right? Phillips charged McDaniels and threatened to kick his ass. Behavior like this isn't exactly uncommon for Phillips either.

If McDaniels was so scared (in his own house surrounded by 77,000 people btw:spit:), why didn't he just call security Flo? If our fragile little coach was so intimidated by a player, no wonder he gets so little respect. Who said he was scared? I sure didn't, and neither did McDaniels. He did say he was caught off guard and a little jawing took place.

Regardless, it's absolutely comical how you try to lay this all on McDaniels when Phillips initiated the entire episode without provocation.

Please don't argue with me if you haven't watched all the games. Or are you just suppressing this one? I watched every play of every game this year, so why don't you quit trying to play ****ing mind games and just tell us what situation you are talking about.

Hard pressed to find another rookie coach who's constantly fending off questions about how he treats players and coaches. Maybe the guy should handle his fueds in-house....like most legit NFL head coaches do. I wonder who's next, because there is definitely going to be a next. Maybe that's because none of them stepped into a situation where the offensive pets were given free reign to do whatever they wanted. You had John Lynch coming out saying that Cutler was basically allowed to do whatever he wanted under Shanahan, D.J Williams saying the defense felt like second class citizens and when Foxworth was on the team and the NFLPA rep he openly questioned whether Shanahan really let people compete for their jobs.

We ended up hiring a coach who came from the franchise that was well renowned for the fact that they forced players to put the team first and didn't tolerate prima donna attitudes. Looking at it with the benefit of hindsight it's no shock that there was friction there, much less exclusively from offensive players.

Some players had already vocally quit on him (making an assumption you actually watched the 2nd KC game). I don't believe Sheffler was the only one and the results of the KC game sure seem to support that hypothesis. Who quit on him?

I agree here that profanity is as much a part of football as the ball itself. No problems with profanity. I also don't hold it against Josh that it was broadcast. I only mention this because it's just another facepalm moment. His fault or not, another facepalm moment brought to you by McDaniels. If you don't hold it against McDaniels, how can you claim it's a facepalm moment of his? That's an NFLN facepalm moment.

Flo you remind me of one of those Cutler guys who has an excuse for every interception he throws. That was the receivers fault, that was the lines fault, that was the refs fault. Step back and look at the whole body of work, that's when you start to see it stinks.

Not saying you have to hate the coach, I respect loyalty. I just hate seeing people break out the teflon spray. I have looked at the whole body of work, and it's overwhelmingly in McDaniel's favor. Like I said, with the culture we had in Denver and the culture he was bringing from New England, conflict was almost imminent. Most players fell in line and many have nothing but praise for McD, but a few just couldn't deal with it. I don't have any problem losing those players because I support the mindset McD is installing here.

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 05:38 PM
Can you at least admit that your argument is nothing more a defense of Josh? Of course it is. A defense based in solid facts and logic.

You would not have even dreamed of criticizing Hillis like this a year ago ... at least admit that. A year ago he wasn't having a marginal preseason, costing the team timeouts because he didn't know his formations or assignments and making costly fumbles.

He had a few good games in 2008 (when Shanny finally put him on the field) and with them came increased expectations which he and no one else failed to deliver upon.

It's not personal, and I hope Hillis can realize his talent. I'd say Josh feels the same way since he kept Hillis on the roster rather than cutting him like he did to other under performing players.

And all these tortured, twisted and varied explanations for why each of these guys' contributions fell off in 2009 - isn't it strange that none of your explanations include Josh? The fact is, plain and simple the fact is, that coaches and play callers make decisions. And Josh's decisions favored Gaffney over Royal and Buckhalter over Hillis. These are facts. There is nothing twisted or distorted about them. It's pure facts that Hillis was struggling this season. It's facts that we have credible reports about veterans going to Josh over some problem players and Scheffler/Marshall ended up benched. It's fact that Gaffney and Royal have different skill sets and fact that Stokley was sharing time with Gaffney.

What could Josh have really done differently? I'm sure trying to wedge a 2nd year player into two different positions in a scheme he never played before at a position where sophomore slumps are common is not an easy task. Is it really shocking that he tended to lean on a guy who had played within his system for several year? Of course not.

And complaining about Buckhalter over Hillis? Buckhalter has put together a pretty long and productive career that's only blemish is from injuries. His resume is far more impressive than Peyton's.

And Shanahan did NOT bench Hillis last year. In fact, once Hillis finally got his chance to play, his carries increased every single week: Actually he did. Hillis got 3 carries in week 1 and then Larsen was moved into the starting role and Hillis didn't touch the ball again until week 9 when our running back situation was already becoming dire.

Buckhalter played very well, yes, but his age and history of injury, coupled with Hillis' rookie stats, make the decision to sign him and give him many of the touches Hillis would've/should've had, highly questionable. That's a crock of **** Buff and you know it. You don't make a decision to not sign competition because you might have a "diamond in the rough" on the roster when he's a 7th round fullback he had a couple good games the year before. You ALWAYS look for competition and Hillis got outplayed by his.

Seriously, you're just in love with the way Shanny was running this team and you're not going to let go no matter how unsuccessful we were over the past several years of his tenure here.


And thanks for the medal, but I can't see the "mental gymnastics." Oh I don't know. I can't see any mental gymnastics (your term, not mine btw) in admitting you're anti-Josh and then two weeks later crying foul for getting treated as such.

I'm sure you'll find some way to spin yourself out of this though. I'm not going to bother debating it though. Anyone here with half a brain can see the little stunt you tried to pull.

Broncomutt
02-17-2010, 06:25 PM
I watched every play of every game this year, so why don't you quit trying to play ****ing mind games and just tell us what situation you are talking about.


Thanks for the spar Flo :peace:

Florida_Bronco
02-17-2010, 06:27 PM
Thanks for the spar Flo :peace:

Anytime. ;D

azbroncfan
02-17-2010, 08:40 PM
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-blender/files/2009/10/bob-eubanks.jpg
BZZZZ! Oh I'm sorry! ... but thanks for playing.


Eddie Royal's rookie season stats were better than ANY of Gaffney's eight seasons in the NFL, even cherry-picking Jabar's best year for each:

Eddie Royal's rookie year: 91 - 980 - 5
Gaffney's best EVER years: 55 ('05), 632 ('04), 5 ('07)

Not even close. But more than just that Eddie was more productive, he has more potential, FAR more potential, that should be obvious. As far as "couldn't get open," well I just don't see it. If you really think Gaffney was getting more separation than Royal, these stats should really change your mind.

It's about choices. Play-callers made choices, and this year those choices marginalized Eddie, it's that simple. It's not as if Royal had all these chances, and passes were broken up or he dropped them ... he had FAR fewer chances than in '08. To permit Eddie Royal to drop from 91-980-5 all the way to 37-345-0 is just a mistake, you're stunting the development of a budding star.

I feel the same way about Correll Buckhalter / Peyton Hillis. It's not a Josh thing, I would think this regardless who was in charge. No way should you sign two 9-year veteran free agents, one with a heinous history of injuries, and give them extensive touches to the detriment of guys who had mega-impacts and showed near-limitless potential as rookies.

Do you know who Michael Clayton is? I am sure there are a bunch of other sophmore slumpers too I just don't care to think them up.

montrose
02-17-2010, 11:41 PM
Jabar's a great guy to have on the team. Dude is a solid route runner and receiver, made key grabs for the team at critical points in the season and at least at homes games (where I can see the field) he was our most willing and effective blocker. He doesn't have the physical abilities to dominate but can be a very efficent player whom I happy to have on our team.

One thing about Royal, and I know there's a lot of sentiment that we didn't make an effort to get him the ball as much as we should have - and this is true. But I will say that (again at least at home games where I could see), Eddie had a pretty rough time getting off press this season; especially compared to his rookie year. Now there are other ways to get him involved but Eddie was targeted 5.6 times per game compared to Gaffney's 6 - so there wasn't a huge differential especially considering Marshall was targeted 10.2. Hopefully Eddie recovers from the sophomore slump and joins Gaffney and Marshall to form a productive trio in 2010!

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 08:40 AM
Of course it is. A defense based in solid facts and logic.

Trust me, you're not.

I'm citing stats and facts ... you're stating open opinions, for which there is no empirical evidence. Trust me.



Do you know who Michael Clayton is? I am sure there are a bunch of other sophmore slumpers too I just don't care to think them up.

I'm sure you understand that play-callers make choices about which plays to call. Surely you can admit that. So, unless a bunch of passes to Eddie were broken up or dropped, which they were not, this "sophomore slump" is largely based on the choices made by the play-callers. This is just simple deduction.

Josh is free to make choices, I'm not arguing that. But it's clear - in fact beyond debate - that those choices marginalized Royal in favor of Gaffney.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 08:51 AM
Buff,

You really need to read or re-read Montrose's post right above yours. He is citing numbers and stats which you seem to follow religiously and those numbers show that Gaffney and Royal were targeted the same amount....yet Gaffney did a hell of a lot more with those opportunities.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 09:07 AM
Buff,

You really need to read or re-read Montrose's post right above yours. He is citing numbers and stats which you seem to follow religiously and those numbers show that Gaffney and Royal were targeted the same amount....yet Gaffney did a hell of a lot more with those opportunities.

Okay, that's a good counter to my argument ... that they were targeted about the same number of times.

Where is that stat?

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 09:17 AM
Eddie was targeted 5.6 times per game compared to Gaffney's 6

Wherever this stat is, link me to it.

I'll still stand on the point that the CHOICE to target them the same number of times was made by Josh, and I disagree with it based upon Royal's clear statistical superiority to Gaffney, a fact that simply cannot be disputed. again, Gaffney has had 8 seasons to equal the numbers Royal put up as a rookie, and he has NEVER done so.

So based upon that, and based upon their ages, I still disagree with the choices Josh made.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 09:27 AM
Wherever this stat is, link me to it.

I'll still stand on the point that the CHOICE to target them the same number of times was made by Josh, and I disagree with it based upon Royal's clear statistical superiority to Gaffney, a fact that simply cannot be disputed. again, Gaffney has had 8 seasons to equal the numbers Royal put up as a rookie, and he has NEVER done so.

So based upon that, and based upon their ages, I still disagree with the choices Josh made.

You realize coaches don't work on stats, right? This isn't fantasy football Buff.

jhns
02-18-2010, 09:27 AM
Wherever this stat is, link me to it.

I'll still stand on the point that the CHOICE to target them the same number of times was made by Josh, and I disagree with it based upon Royal's clear statistical superiority to Gaffney, a fact that simply cannot be disputed. again, Gaffney has had 8 seasons to equal the numbers Royal put up as a rookie, and he has NEVER done so.

So based upon that, and based upon their ages, I still disagree with the choices Josh made.

Gaffney is a good 3. Royal is a good 2 if used correctly. I agree with you that Royal should have been a much bigger part of game plans. I highly doubt the rookie that mastered Shanhans playbook was suddenly having a ton of trouble learning McDaniels playbook. He was open a lot last season and must not have ever been an early read. I didn't see this trouble with getting off the line either. That is something he excelled at last year. I find it hard to believe it was a big problem now. Maybe it was though. Maybe someone knows a good game to see this in?

Either way, McDaniels still played Royal at 2. He obviously thinks Royal is better as well. Hopefully he figures out ways to use him better next season. I hate seeing talent like that get wasted. We have a very good set of receivers from top to bottom now. Let's start seeing that pay off.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 09:34 AM
He was open a lot last season and must not have ever been an early read. I didn't see this trouble with getting off the line either. That is something he excelled at last year.

Everyone that went to the games and reported what they saw in person seems to disagree.

Either way, McDaniels still played Royal at 2. He obviously thinks Royal is better as well.

Who was the #1 receiver in much of week 16 and all of week 17, Royal or Gaffney?

DBroncos4life
02-18-2010, 09:41 AM
Everyone that went to the games and reported what they saw in person seems to disagree.



Who was the #1 receiver in much of week 16 and all of week 17, Royal or Gaffney?

Who was healthy and who was hurt for week 16 and 17?

jhns
02-18-2010, 09:42 AM
Everyone that went to the games and reported what they saw in person seems to disagree.

Who was the #1 receiver in much of week 16 and all of week 17, Royal or Gaffney?

It is fine that they disagree. Can someone give a good game to see this in? I would love to break down some of it. While TV isn't the best for breaking this stuff down, their replays do give good angles a lot of the time. Maybe I can get educated on what everyone is talking about.

I'm not sure what your second point is about. Gaffney was 1 when replacing a player that was out. Royal started all season. I would say that shows McDaniels thinks Royal is better. Are you trying to tell me he didn't play the best players?

DBroncos4life
02-18-2010, 09:49 AM
By the way Gaffney was targeted 85 times last year. Royal was targeted 69 times. The per game average would make Gaffney 5.3 TPG and Royal would be at 4.9 TPG.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 09:51 AM
Look, people focusing on Royal's struggles are ignoring one key thing here. His struggles go back to last season. Once teams got some film on him and realized how to attack him and shut him down, they did it....with ease it seems.

2008 season

1st 8 starts: 52 receptions for 625 yds and 4 TDs
Last 7 starts: 39 receptions for 355 yds and 1 TD
(missed one game with injury)

Do you see the clear decline? It has little to nothing to do with the new system, new coach, new QB, etc. This goes back to last year and, to this point, Royal's inability to adjust his game around what the defenses are doing to stop him. It seems pretty clear to me.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 10:16 AM
By the way Gaffney was targeted 85 times last year. Royal was targeted 69 times. The per game average would make Gaffney 5.3 TPG and Royal would be at 4.9 TPG.

Now that makes more sense ... I'd still like to see a link.

Even further, the total numbers lend a greater context to the situation, because from them we can discern PERCENTAGES, which matter as much as raw totals, and based upon those numbers Gaffney was targeted about 20% more than Royal.

And still I disagree with that choice, with Josh's decision to target Gaffney 20% more than Royal. It's my right to have that opinion ... and I don't insult you because we diagree, and I should think you (Florida) should be confident enough in your own opinion not to call me stupid merely because we disagree.



___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

montrose
02-18-2010, 10:17 AM
Wherever this stat is, link me to it.

Casey, all you have to do is go to espn.com and the game-by-game box scores have the targets listed. I simply added the targets and divided my the number of games played.

Marshall = 154 Targets in 15 games (10.2 per game)
Gaffney = 96 Targets in 16 games (6 per game)
Royal = 79 Targets in 14 games (5.6 per game)

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 10:20 AM
And still I disagree with that choice, with Josh's decision to target Gaffney 20% more than Royal.


Because of Royal's injury, which caused him to miss over 2 full games, Gaffney played about 20% more than Royal. Pretty hard to target a guy more when he's not on the field due to injury.

jhns
02-18-2010, 10:21 AM
Look, people focusing on Royal's struggles are ignoring one key thing here. His struggles go back to last season. Once teams got some film on him and realized how to attack him and shut him down, they did it....with ease it seems.

2008 season

1st 8 starts: 52 receptions for 625 yds and 4 TDs
Last 7 starts: 39 receptions for 355 yds and 1 TD
(missed one game with injury)

Do you see the clear decline? It has little to nothing to do with the new system, new coach, new QB, etc. This goes back to last year and, to this point, Royal's inability to adjust his game around what the defenses are doing to stop him. It seems pretty clear to me.

The first part of the season averages out to 104 receptions and the second comes out to 89. I wouldn't call that a big dropoff. I wouldn't say people figured out a receiver on pace for 89 receptions. He had his one big game in the first half of the season as well. You take that out and he was on the exact same pace all season (obviously exact is used loosely, show me a single player that had the exact same stats for 2 different parts of a season).

I think your rationale needs some rethinking.

DBroncos4life
02-18-2010, 10:24 AM
Now that makes more sense ... I'd still like to see a link.

Even further, the total numbers lend a greater context to the situation, because from them we can discern PERCENTAGES, which matter as much as raw totals, and based upon those numbers Gaffney was targeted about 20% more than Royal.

And still I disagree with that choice, with Josh's decision to target Gaffney 20% more than Royal. It's my right to have that opinion ... and I don't insult you because we diagree, and I should think you (Florida) should be confident enough in your own opinion not to call me stupid merely because we disagree.



___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&surn=Royal&playerid=4356&group=5
http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&surn=Gaffney&playerid=1040&group=5
http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&surn=Marshall&playerid=3064&group=5

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 10:24 AM
That's not a link ... but obviously I trust you Raj (as much or more than anybody).

STILL ... I disagree with Josh's decision to target Gaffney more than Royal. And ONCE AGAIN, Gaffney has had 8 years in the league (with 3 teams) to match the numbers Eddie put up as a rookie, but he never has. Hasn't even come close. And that's a fact.

And still, it is a decision that the play-called made, to target Gaffney more than Royal, I should think that opinion should respected.



___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 10:26 AM
The first part of the season averages out to 104 receptions and the second comes out to 89. I wouldn't call that a big dropoff. I wouldn't say people figured out a receiver on pace for 89 receptions. He had his one big game in the first half of the season as well. You take that out and he was on the exact same pace all season (obviously exact is used loosely, show me a single player that had the exact same stats for 2 different parts of a season).

I think your rationale needs some rethinking.

Using your logic of removing the best game, etc, then maybe I should factor in that during the last week of the season when we were down by 30 to SD in the 4th quarter, they simply fed Royal the ball continuously to try to get him his 1000 yards. That game tainted his 2nd half numbers big time.

Look, his yards, yards per game and TDs dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in the 2nd half of 2008 and have not recovered since. This is undeniable.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 10:30 AM
Because of Royal's injury, which caused him to miss over 2 full games, Gaffney played about 20% more than Royal. Pretty hard to target a guy more when he's not on the field due to injury.

Hey hey! More statistical support for my side ... I had forgotten that.

I should state here that I respect those who agree with Josh's decision to target Gaffney more than Royal. I disagree with that, but I do respect the opinion that it was the correct choice.

I'd like to also state that my opinion honestly has nothing to do with Josh. In fact had Shanahan stayed and the numbers been the same, I would have HUGELY disagreed, even MORE than now, and would demand to know why Eddie had been banished to Shanahan's doghouse. Instead here, I understand Josh starts from scratch, with a clean slate as head coach, and has EVERY right to make decisions about who gets what touches. I just disagree.







___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

montrose
02-18-2010, 10:30 AM
That's not a link ... but obviously I trust you Raj (as much or more than anybody).

STILL ... I disagree with Josh's decision to target Gaffney more than Royal. And ONCE AGAIN, Gaffney has had 8 years in the league (with 3 teams) to match the numbers Eddie put up as a rookie, but he never has. Hasn't even come close. And that's a fact.

And still, it is a decision that the play-called made, to target Gaffney more than Royal, I should think that opinion should respected.

No worries Casey, I did the math a while ago. Also keep in mind Gaffney was targeted a staggering 19 times in that final KC game in which Brandon and Eddie were out, so that pushes the number up.

I would caution Casey that McDaniels has said, several times during the season, that the coverage of the defense would dictate where the ball goes. I don't think it's a case of Josh sending in a play "for Gaffney" or "for Royal" outside of the occasional screen pass. Again I do have to say that Eddie had a much tougher time getting off press coverage this season and that may have contributed to his lack of production, but I'm not so sure it was McDaniels not wanting to get him the ball. Casey you we're there at camp with us when Eddie seemed to be the focal point of the offense, so I have to believe many of Orton's choices were dicated on coverages. I can't speak for road games but during home games, Eddie seemed to be covered up much of the time - even on some of his receptions when Orton forced the ball in such as the NE and PIT games. My theory is that the new offense may have been a bit of adjustment and with the huge number of option routes, that might have taken away from his instinctive moves to get off the jam. I think he'll be better this season! :Elway:

DBroncos4life
02-18-2010, 10:30 AM
That's not a link ... but obviously I trust you Raj (as much or more than anybody).

STILL ... I disagree with Josh's decision to target Gaffney more than Royal. And ONCE AGAIN, Gaffney has had 8 years in the league (with 3 teams) to match the numbers Eddie put up as a rookie, but he never has. Hasn't even come close. And that's a fact.

And still, it is a decision that the play-called made, to target Gaffney more than Royal, I should think that opinion should respected.



___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards/league/afc

ESPN has Gaffney as targeted 88 times.

jhns
02-18-2010, 10:37 AM
Using your logic of removing the best game, etc, then maybe I should factor in that during the last week of the season when we were down by 30 to SD in the 4th quarter, they simply fed Royal the ball continuously to try to get him his 1000 yards. That game tainted his 2nd half numbers big time.

Look, his yards, yards per game and TDs dropped SIGNIFICANTLY in the 2nd half of 2008 and have not recovered since. This is undeniable.

And the entire offense produced less as the team got extremely injured that season. Royal was on pace for 89 catches in what you showed. While that is a dropoff from the beginning of the season, that is excellent WR play.

I don't care for this argument though. I am asking if anyone knows good games to break down where I can see Royal having trouble with the jam and not getting open? I hate reading about it, especially from people that are just using theories like he got figured out. No offense but that really shows me nothing. I like to study it and see it for myself. No one has ever been able to give examples of the stuff they swear by.

WolfpackGuy
02-18-2010, 10:43 AM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards/league/afc

ESPN has Gaffney as targeted 88 times.

88 times?

I don't remember him being on the field for 88 plays!

LOL

montrose
02-18-2010, 10:44 AM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/receiving/sort/receivingYards/league/afc

ESPN has Gaffney as targeted 88 times.

Well apparently I suck at math then, lol. Actually what might have happened is sometimes they adjust the targets after reviewing the games and I was going by the box scores. Therefore the official stats are:

Marshall = 154 targets in 15 games (10.2 per game)
Gaffney - 88 targets in 16 games (5.5 per game)
Royal = 79 targets in 14 games (5.6 per game)

Therefore, Eddie Royal was targeted more than Jabar Gaffney was.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 10:47 AM
I think Royal's promise (and massive numbers) as a rookie demanded his talent be nurtured, and his involvement highlighted, instead of subrogated to a player who's never proven to be nearly as productive as Royal was as a rookie.

And I think it should be noted that Eddie returned two kicks for touchdowns early in the season. My opinion is that this should have indicated he was a talent that deserved to be utilized, more than he was.





___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

montrose
02-18-2010, 10:55 AM
I think Royal's promise (and massive numbers) as a rookie demanded his talent be nurtured, and his involvement highlighted, instead of subrogated to a player who's never proven to be nearly as productive as Royal was as a rookie.

And I think it should be noted that Eddie returned two kicks for touchdowns early in the season. My opinion is that this should have indicated he was a talent that deserved to be utilized, more than he was.

Josh did say in his end of the year presser (unsolicted speficially to Eddie) that one of his goals is to get Eddie more involved, so it would seem he agrees with your sentiment. I also think, again, Eddie will be better at getting off press this season because of his greater familiarity in this offense but I hope Josh continues to run his offense as a system instead of focusing on getting the ball to specific players. Just my preference, throw the ball to whose open - period.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 11:01 AM
And still I disagree with that choice, with Josh's decision to target Gaffney 20% more than Royal. It's my right to have that opinion ... and I don't insult you because we diagree, and I should think you (Florida) should be confident enough in your own opinion not to call me stupid merely because we disagree.

For that 3rd time now, I never called you stupid. See my exact quote.

I won't even get into the Hillis thing because at this point, it's beyond stupid that people keep defending him.

I think Royal's promise (and massive numbers) as a rookie demanded his talent be nurtured, and his involvement highlighted, instead of subrogated to a player who's never proven to be nearly as productive as Royal was as a rookie.

And I think it should be noted that Eddie returned two kicks for touchdowns early in the season. My opinion is that this should have indicated he was a talent that deserved to be utilized, more than he was. And you ignore the fact that Royal was targeted more and started above Gaffney despite the fact that his performance had been slipping since his rookie year and and Gaffney had spent two previous years in this system giving him a familiarity that none of the other receivers possessed.

This isn't about Josh, stats or anything of the sort despite your attempts to spin it. Royal was given more opportunities than any receiver not named Brandon Marshall and his performance was extremely underwhelming. That's no one's fault but Eddie's. That said, I'm sure we'll see a resurgence in his performance next year, but that remains to be seen.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 11:11 AM
For that 3rd time now, I never called you stupid. See my exact quote.

Your exact quote was: "it's beyond stupid that people keep defending him."

It's not the opinion you're calling stupid there ... you're calling people who hold that opinion stupid. But let's agree to leave this argument behind us.



And you ignore the fact that Royal was targeted more and started above Gaffney despite the fact that his performance had been slipping since his rookie year

That is an opinion, and an opinion only. If given fewer chances, your numbers will obviously suffer.

And STILL, I disagree with the decision to target Gaffney more than Royal. It was a decision I disagree with.



This isn't about Josh, stats or anything of the sort despite your attempts to spin it.

That's what I just said, word for word ... I wish you'd read my entire posts. I would be even more angry if Shanahan had chosen to de-emphasize Royal. I hated his doghouse, and would have screamed bloddy murder - a lot louder than my iopinions in here, has Shanny marginalized Royal in such a manner.

And I'm not "spinning" anything, QUITE to the contrary. I am stating IRREFUTABLE stats, and diagreeing with the decisions that made these facts, well, facts. I wish you could see this.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 11:48 AM
Your exact quote was: "it's beyond stupid that people keep defending him."

It's not the opinion you're calling stupid there ... you're calling people who hold that opinion stupid. But let's agree to leave this argument behind us. What I'm calling stupid is the defense of a 7th round fullback who had trouble getting onto the field under two different coaches when anyone can look objectively at the situation and see why Hillis was on the bench.

If you think that is a personal attack on you, well then I don't know what to tell you other than that's your problem.

That is an opinion, and an opinion only. If given fewer chances, your numbers will obviously suffer.

And STILL, I disagree with the decision to target Gaffney more than Royal. It was a decision I disagree with. The FACT that Royal's numbers were slipping back into 2008 is as indisputable of a FACT as Royal being targeted more than Gaffney. Look at the previous posts. Montrose and Beantown both posted the respective numbers.

And I'm not "spinning" anything, QUITE to the contrary. I am stating IRREFUTABLE stats, and diagreeing with the decisions that made these facts, well, facts. I wish you could see this. Sure you are. You're cherry picking a few things that barely support your argument and latching onto them, calling them irrefutable facts while ignoring the raw numbers and individual testimony when it doesn't fit your narrow little "poor poor Eddie" worldview. It's basically the same exact act we watched you tap dance around with over the Cutler situation.

Are you intentionally being obtuse and/or deceiving? I don't know, but I'd lean more towards no. You're just like alot of people this day and age that latch onto a favorite player and are quick to cry foul when they don't get their stats regardless of the reasons for it. I personally blame fantasy football for this.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 11:51 AM
Are you intentionally being obtuse and/or deceiving?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IuBHzJ5LrXE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IuBHzJ5LrXE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Rabb
02-18-2010, 11:58 AM
the part I love is people implying that the coach somehow instructed the QB to not target Royal

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:25 PM
Royal's numbers were slipping back into 2008 is as indisputable of a FACT ... What I'm calling stupid is the defense of a 7th round fullback who had trouble getting onto the field under two different coaches when anyone can look objectively at the situation and see why Hillis was on the bench.

As I've shown and explained to you, The CORRECT numbers are that Royal's BEST WEEK in 2008 was Week 17. Further, his average catches per game last season was 5.6. In Weeks 13 through 16 he averaged 5.4 catches, right at his average (when you add week 17, he averaged 6.6 catches poer game, WELL ABOVE his season average. So your proposition that he "slipped toward the end of 2008" is demonstrably wrong, in fact he got better aws the season progressed. And please don't cite Montrose and Beantown as advocating wrong numbers ... they're both good numbers-crunchers, and would not make such a mistake.

Nor did Hillis "have trouble getting onto the filed" in 2008. In fact, his carries increased EVERY SINGLE WEEK he played ... Week 10-8 carries, 11-10, 12-17, 13-22, then Week 14-8 carries before being injured making a circus catch to convert an important 3rd down on the game-winning drive. He did have 3 fourth quarter carries back in Week 1, but only after the game was a blowout.

So then, the numbers contradict both of your points. Why can't you just acknowledge this? Can't argue with numbers.

What happened here is that Josh made decisions - decisions to give what last year were Royal/Hillis touches to Gaffney/Buckhalter instead. He has every right to make those decisions. I disagree with them, you defend it. The difference is, you wouldn't have advocated any of this one year ago ... point me to your posts a year ago that suggest you thought Royal was "falling off" or that Hillis had "trouble getting on the field." No, you can't, because your baffling choice to argue against the math is nothing more than a defense of Josh. You have EVERY RIGHT to defend Josh's decisions, tyou're entitled to your opinion, you're just not entitled to make up numbers.


If you think that is a personal attack on you, well then I don't know what to tell you other than that's your problem.

Well then why don't you leave it alone as I suggested?


You're cherry picking a few things that barely support your argument and latching onto them, calling them irrefutable facts while ignoring the raw numbers and individual testimony when it doesn't fit your narrow little "poor poor Eddie" worldview.

I'm not "cherry-picking," I'm quoting cold, hard numbers. You're doing everything you can to avoid the reality of these numbers, including making wrong statements.



___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 12:28 PM
As I've shown and explained to you, The CORRECT numbers are that Royal's BEST WEEK in 2008 was Week 17.

Wait, what?!?

Week 17 = 11 catches for 76 yds and 0 TDs

And 4 catches for 34 yds came in the last 4 plays of the game when we were down by 30 pts and SD was giving up all the underneath stuff without even contesting it. All Cutler was doing was trying to get Eddie his 1000 yards against a defense playing the patented Slowik-like 20 yard "off" coverage.

Week 1 = 9 catches for 146 yds and 1 TD
Week 4 = 9 catches for 104 yds
Week 11 = 6 catches for 164 yds and 1 TD
Week 13 = 5 catches for 84 yds and 1 TD
Week 9 = 7 catches for 70 yds and 1 TD

How exactly was week 17 even close to his best game that year?

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:28 PM
the part I love is people implying that the coach somehow instructed the QB to not target Royal

C'mon, you're better than that.

Nobody said any such thing.

What I said was that the play-caller chose to throw more to Gaffney than to Royal. Again, demonstrably correct.

montrose
02-18-2010, 12:29 PM
Can't we all get along? Go Broncos!

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:31 PM
How exactly was week 17 even close to his best game that year?

Because

that

was

the

week

he

caught

the

most

balls.

Hello?

We're talking about how often he is targeted, this year compared top last year. So most catches is the relevant stat here. And, as I demonstrated, even WITHOUT Week 17, his four weeks before that, weeks 13 through 16, were right on his season average. So the proposition he "dropped off" as 2008 winded down is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, as proven by cold, hard numbers.

24champ
02-18-2010, 12:32 PM
C'mon, you're better than that.

Nobody said any such thing.

What I said was that the play-caller chose to throw more to Gaffney than to Royal. Again, demonstrably correct.

:spit:

You know how looney that sounds?

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:34 PM
:spit:

You know how looney that sounds?

I can't for the life of me understand what you're missing here.

It is a FACT that the play-caller chose to target Gaffmey more than Royal this year. I suppose the QB check-downs could alter those numbers a bit, but not enough to erase that difference.

And yeah montrose, I'm done here. The numbers have spoken.




___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 12:37 PM
Sorry, but I was the first one to introduce the concept of his "dropping off" in 2008 into this discussion, and when I did so I included yards and TDs. Those are the primary parts of his performance that he can control. Grading a guy solely on receptions is insane.


We're talking about how often he is targeted, this year compared top last year. So most catches is the relevant stat here.

What?!? If "targets" are your sole criteria, then why are you pointing to the game with the most receptions but not necessarily the most targets. Those are two completely separate stats and don't necessarily correlate. Especially when he has other 9 reception games.

24champ
02-18-2010, 12:37 PM
I can't for the life of me understand what you're missing here.


I'm missing the part where you have indisputable facts that the play-caller gets to choose who gets the ball. You're just making stuff up Buff. Makes you look silly.


It is a FACT that the play-caller chose to target Gaffmey more than Royal this year.

That's not a fact. Montrose already took care of that one.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:41 PM
I'm missing the part where you have indisputable facts that the play-caller gets to choose who gets the ball. You're just making stuff up Buff. Makes you look silly.

That's not a fact. Montrose already took care of that one.

There are several links that prove this earlier in this very thread, I invite you - hell I URGE you, to go back and look at them, you silly.

And no, Beantown, I don't think the 1 1/2 games Eddie missed move him ahead of Gaffney in number of times they were targeted. But even if that factor makes them close in number of targets, I STILL disagree. I believe Eddie should have been targeted FAR more than Gaffney.

Yet again, in eight seasons - with three different teams - Gaffney has never come anywhere near the numbers Eddie put up as a rookie. That should, in my opinion, mitigate toward targeting Eddie more than Gaffney.

Josh chose otherwise, and that's his right. I disagree. A year ago, you guys would have disagreed too. In fact, many of you guys probably objected to signing Gaffney. At the same time, my opinion about nurturing Royal's talent, and his brilliant, even gaudy numbers as a rookie, was of paramount importance. My opinion, and I'm entitled to it ;D




___________________________

This sensible and respectful discourse is brought to you by: The OrangeMane Bill of Rights! Standing strong for the rights of members since 2010!

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 12:41 PM
And yeah montrose, I'm done here. The numbers have spoken.

Did you miss the numbers that showed Royal being targeted more on a per game basis than Gaffney in 2009? Your entire premise was proven wrong in that post....unless you are punishing the play-callers for not targeting Royal during the 2+ games he was on the sidelines in street clothes due to injury.

Here it is:

Well apparently I suck at math then, lol. Actually what might have happened is sometimes they adjust the targets after reviewing the games and I was going by the box scores. Therefore the official stats are:

Marshall = 154 targets in 15 games (10.2 per game)
Gaffney - 88 targets in 16 games (5.5 per game)
Royal = 79 targets in 14 games (5.6 per game)

Therefore, Eddie Royal was targeted more than Jabar Gaffney was.

Rabb
02-18-2010, 12:42 PM
C'mon, you're better than that.

Nobody said any such thing.

What I said was that the play-caller chose to throw more to Gaffney than to Royal. Again, demonstrably correct.

I am just saying that comments like this make me think that you are implying that there was some grand scheme to have Royal not targeted and I just don't agree with that

What happened here is that Josh made decisions - decisions to give what last year were Royal/Hillis touches to Gaffney/Buckhalter instead.

if I misread what you meant, I apologize and take it all back

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 12:49 PM
What happened here is that Josh made decisions - decisions to give what last year were Royal/Hillis touches to Gaffney/Buckhalter instead.

One could argue that Josh (up until Royal's week 16 injury) made decisions to give Stokley's touches to Gaffney....not necessarily Royal's touches. This fact can also be backed up by statistics.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 12:50 PM
As I've shown and explained to you, The CORRECT numbers are that Royal's BEST WEEK in 2008 was Week 17. Further, his average catches per game last season was 5.6. In Weeks 13 through 16 he averaged 5.4 catches, right at his average (when you add week 17, he averaged 6.6 catches poer game, WELL ABOVE his season average. So your proposition that he "slipped toward the end of 2008" is demonstrably wrong. And please don't cite Montrose and Beantown as advocating wrong numbers ... they're both good numbers-crunchers, and would not make such a mistake. From Beantown.

1st 8 starts: 52 receptions for 625 yds and 4 TDs
Last 7 starts: 39 receptions for 355 yds and 1 TD
(missed one game with injury)

From Montrose.

Marshall = 154 targets in 15 games (10.2 per game)
Gaffney - 88 targets in 16 games (5.5 per game)
Royal = 79 targets in 14 games (5.6 per game)

Therefore, Eddie Royal was targeted more than Jabar Gaffney was.

Those numbers seem pretty solid to me. If they're incorrect, feel free to explain how and what the correct numbers are.

Nor did Hillis "have trouble getting onto the filed" in 2008. In fact, his carries increased EVERY SINGLE WEEK he played ... Week 10-8 carries, 11-10, 12-17, 13-22, then Week 14-8 carries before being injured making a circus catch to convert an important 3rd down on the game-winning drive. He did have 3 fourth quarter carries back in Week 1, but only after the game was a blowout.

So then, the numbers contradict both of your points. Why can't you just acknowledge this? Can't argue with numbers. You're cherry picking again.

Hillis got 3 carries in week 1 against the Raiders. He didn't touch the ball again until week 9 against Miami when our running back woes were already a problem. Also it was sometime shortly after the Raiders game when Larsen was moved into the starting fullback spot OVER Hillis. If you remember at the time too, there was discussion from people here that it had to do as much with Larsen's performance as it did with Hillis struggling with his assignments.

Shanahan effectively left Hillis on the bench for half the season. McDaniels did the same thing. At what point do you start questioning the player and not the coaches?

What happened here is that Josh made decisions - decisions to give what last year were Royal/Hillis touches to Gaffney/Buckhalter instead. He has every right to make those decisions. I disagree with them, you defend it. Except that he didn't make these decisions. The players did effectively. Gaffney was targeted less than Royal despite experience in the system, he was simply far more productive with the chances he got. Buckhalter was competition for Hillis and outplayed him in preseason and during the season, which is par for the course for him considering he's been a productive player his whole career.

Hillis struggled with the mental aspect of the game and lost out on playing time to a superior player. That's the NFL for you.

The difference is, you wouldn't have advocated any of this one year ago Advocated what? Hillis getting outperformed by another player? I've always advocated competition.

point me to your posts a year ago that suggest you thought Royal was "falling off" or that Hillis had "trouble getting on the field." I can point you to a thread where you had to eat a ****load of crow because you didn't even think Hillis would make the practice squad, so do we really want to start dragging that **** out?

Well then why don't you eave it alone as I suggested? You don't get to sit there and take another shot at me and then say "well let's drop it". That's a bull**** move of trying to get the last word in, making it like you're taking the high road and then making the other guy look like an asshole when they inevitably defend themselves.

If you want to drop it then just do it.

24champ
02-18-2010, 12:52 PM
There are several links that prove this earlier in this very thread, I invite you - hell I URGE you, to go back and look at them, you silly.

I've read the whole thread. Your argument is flawed and got debunked soon as Montrose posted this.


Well apparently I suck at math then, lol. Actually what might have happened is sometimes they adjust the targets after reviewing the games and I was going by the box scores. Therefore the official stats are:

Marshall = 154 targets in 15 games (10.2 per game)
Gaffney - 88 targets in 16 games (5.5 per game)
Royal = 79 targets in 14 games (5.6 per game)

Therefore, Eddie Royal was targeted more than Jabar Gaffney was.

Looks reasonable to me, and doesn't look like the coaches had some odd conspiracy against Eddie Royal either.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:53 PM
Marshall = 154 targets in 15 games (10.2 per game)
Gaffney - 88 targets in 16 games (5.5 per game)
Royal = 79 targets in 14 games (5.6 per game)
Okay, even if they were targeted the same number of times (and there were other stats for number of times targeted), I still disagree that this was the proper choice. I think Royal should have been targeted many more rimes than Gaffney, and I'm entitled to that opinion. Josh chose otherwise, which is his right.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 12:54 PM
One could argue that Josh (up until Royal's week 16 injury) made decisions to give Stokley's touches to Gaffney....not necessarily Royal's touches. This fact can also be backed up by statistics.

That makes sense, actually.

But Royal's touches decreased, and I disagree with that choice.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:00 PM
One could argue that Josh (up until Royal's week 16 injury) made decisions to give Stokley's touches to Gaffney....not necessarily Royal's touches. This fact can also be backed up by statistics.

I don't think Buff has nearly the understanding of offensive procedure as he thinks he does. He doesn't seem to understand that the #1 receiver is not always going to be the #1 progression on a given play. He also doesn't seem to realize that even on plays where the #1 receiver is the #1 progression the coverage and defensive formations (among other things) can force the quarterback to check down into his progressions. This circles back around to what we talked about and Royal's apparent struggles beating the coverage.

Long story short, trying to say that "Josh didn't target Royal enough" is a very weak and almost unprovable statement due to the middle man (quarterback) and the variables that could play into it.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:01 PM
The CORRECT numbers are that Royal's BEST WEEK in 2008 was Week 17. Further, his average catches per game last season was 5.6. In Weeks 13 through 16 he averaged 5.4 catches, right at his average (when you add week 17, he averaged 6.6 catches poer game, WELL ABOVE his season average.

1st 8 starts: 52 receptions for 625 yds and 4 TDs
Last 7 starts: 39 receptions for 355 yds and 1 TD
(missed one game with injury)

The last 5 games are, by definition, a better example of how he FINISHED the season than adding the two games - OCTOBER games - that preceded them.

And again, EVEN IF THEY WERE TARGETED THE SAME NUMBER OF TIMES - I disagree with that choice, based on the fact Gaffney has never in 8 years come anywhere near Eddie's numbers as a rookie.

Rabb
02-18-2010, 01:02 PM
I don't think Buff has nearly the understanding of offensive procedure as he thinks he does. He doesn't seem to understand that the #1 receiver is not always going to be the #1 progression on a given play. He also doesn't seem to realize that even on plays where the #1 receiver is the #1 progression the coverage and defensive formations (among other things) can force the quarterback to check down into his progressions. This circles back around to what we talked about and Royal's apparent struggles beating the coverage.

Long story short, trying to say that "Josh didn't target Royal enough" is a very weak and almost unprovable statement due to the middle man (quarterback) and the variables that could play into it.

I think that was my point, well said

unless someone believes that the coach actually told the QB "don't throw it to..." then they only way they can affect someone getting the ball is by not playing them

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:05 PM
Of course it's "provable" ... Eddie was targeted less in 2009 than in 2008.

I disagree with that. Period. I am entitled to that opinion.

And you guys sway like willows, because a year ago you would've laughed at the notion we would sign Jabar Gaffney and he'd get the same number of chances as Royal.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:07 PM
Of course it's "provable" ... Eddie was targeted less in 2009 than in 2008.

By who?

Careful now.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:08 PM
By who?

Careful now.

Wanna bet?

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:09 PM
Wanna bet?

I'm asking "targeted more by whom"?

Bowlen
McDaniels
Orton
Simms
Brandstater
Ellis
Woody Paige

Who is doing this "targeting" you speak of?

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Wanna bet?

5.6 targets per game = 89 targets over 16 games

Eddie had 91 catches last year.

I win ;D

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:19 PM
Who is doing this "targeting" you speak of?

It's chances Beantown, the same numbers you quoted ... nothing else.

Anything else is speculation.


You don't get to sit there and take another shot at me and then say "well let's drop it". That's a bull**** move of trying to get the last word in, making it like you're taking the high road and then making the other guy look like an a-hole when they inevitably defend

So the YOU'RE insisting on the last word? You said, paraphrasing, that whoever holds that opinion is stupid. You said it, so live with it.


Guys, I'm entitled to have the opinion that Eddie wasn't targeted enough and Gaffney was targeted too often. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it ... unlike most of you who would have laughed at such a proposition a year ago.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:19 PM
5.6 targets per game = 89 targets over 16 games

Eddie had 91 catches last year.

I win ;D

I won't even get into the fact that this post makes zero sense, considering there is no context for the numbers.

All I want to know is, how on Earth are you not understanding my question?

I'll spell it out for you. You have spent a few pages now railing on McDaniels for supposedly targeting Gaffney more than Royal. Evidence? Numbers provided by websites like nfl.com, espn and cbssportsline that are solely tracking "QB targets" that have little to nothing to do with what actual play the coaches call. They are not "coaches targets", they are "QB targets". QB targets are affected by several things, like defensive coverage, players falling down or running the wrong routes, defenders falling down or blowing coverage, etc. So, even though Royal could've been the "coach's target" on a specific play, maybe Orton went Gaffney's way instead because Royal got double covered or Gaffney's defender blew his coverage or fell down?

Do you or do you not see the difference in what these numbers (QB targets vs coaches targets) show?

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:20 PM
It's chances Beantown, the same numbers you quoted ... nothing else.

Anything else is speculation.

Shocking. I ask a "who" question and you answer with a "what" that has nothing to do with my question. Read it again, slowly this time.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:26 PM
I won't even get into the fact that this post makes zero sense, considering there is no context for the numbers.
:rofl: That is TOO funny ... you've relied on numbers for your arguments, and now that numbers prove you wrong on another point, suddenly they "have no context"? You made a point "be careful what you say," and I merely showed he had FAR more chances in 2008 ... in facts his number of catches in 2008 look to have been greater than his number of chances in 2009.


You have spent a few pages now railing on McDaniels for supposedly targeting Gaffney more than Royal.

I've not "railed," I've disagreed. More than a few times I said it's his choice, and he's free to make it. I just disagree with targeting Gaffney more, or even the same number of times as Eddie. That's my opinion, period.

I believe Eddie should be targeted far more times that Gaffney, based on him wildly exceeding any season Gaffney has ever had as a pro - something he did as a raw rookie. And because he's younger and I think should be developed.

Rabb
02-18-2010, 01:26 PM
I agree with you on that Buff, I don't think Eddie got the ball enough

jhns
02-18-2010, 01:28 PM
So are we all still going off of conspiracy theories? Does no one have a game or two that they watched and actually saw Royal have difficulty getting off the line or getting seperation? Everyone looks at numbers and makes up random stuff that they think sounds logical to explain the numbers they are looking at. Is that the case here or does someone have something solid to show? I really like breaking this stuff down and it would be great to have a good starting point. I fear that people don't really know what they are talking about though as no one has been able to point out an actual time Royal struggled.

As for the Gaffney/Royal thing. It is Orton. Pretty easy to see. McDaniels wasn't playing Royal ahead of Gaffney all year if Royal wasn't getting open more. Gaffney was on the field less and was targeted more by Orton. If we think for a minute, it is pretty easy to see what the only other factor is...

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:29 PM
Shocking. I ask a "who" question and you answer with a "what" that has nothing to do with my question. Read it again, slowly this time.

I don't care who ... I don't know, and you don't know. It would be sheer speculation to guess.

Why do you first quote these numbers to make a point, and now that I won the "bet" (though you didn't agree to bet), suddenly NOW the numbers need context.

Again, my opinion is that Royal should have been targeted about the same number or more times than he was in 2008. He finished 2008 strong, and I think he deserved the chances.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:30 PM
I agree with you on that Buff, I don't think Eddie got the ball enough

Yeah, that's the relevant point I'm trying to make, thanks :thumbs:

jhns
02-18-2010, 01:31 PM
I believe Eddie should be targeted far more times that Gaffney, based on him wildly exceeding any season Gaffney has ever had as a pro - something he did as a raw rookie. And because he's younger and I think should be developed.

All great offensive coaches will tell you, you have to find ways to get your best players the ball. I agree that Royal is a far better player than Gaffney. Maybe others don't.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:33 PM
:rofl: That is TOO funny ... you've relied on numbers for your arguments, and now that numbers prove you wrong on another point, suddenly they "have no context"? You made a point "be careful what you say," and I merely showed he had FAR more chances in 2008 ... in facts his number of catches in 2008 look to have been greater than his number of chances in 2009..

What? I have provided all the numbers here and yet I'm somehow wrong? I can't interpret my own numbers now? Odd.

You misread my request. I said "be careful what you say" in a non-numbers based topic. I was asking you to name names, not numbers. You got off track and are arguing something else entirely now.

I'll slow it down for you.

Definition of "targeted" in the NFL.

Definition #1 = the sites shown above and those referenced by posters here define "targets" as the number of times a QB throws the ball in the direction of a receiver.

Do you agree or disagree?

Definition #2 = Buff's definition of targeted is the number of times McD has called Royal's number.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you answer "agree" to both, then you have no way of proving your argument at all. Why? Because sites like nfl.com, etc that measure "targets" have no way of knowing who the primary read is or who the coach in theory wants to get the ball on any given play. All they are measuring is who eventually gets it thrown to them, which could be the 4th or 5th read for all they know. Get it?

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:40 PM
What? I have provided all the numbers here and yet I'm somehow wrong? I can't interpret my own numbers now? Odd.

You misread my request. I said "be careful what you say" in a non-numbers based topic. I was asking you to name names, not numbers. You got off track and are arguing something else entirely now.

I'll slow it down for you.

Definition of "targeted" in the NFL.

Definition #1 = the sites shown above and those referenced by posters here define "targets" as the number of times a QB throws the ball in the direction of a receiver.

Do you agree or disagree?

Definition #2 = Buff's definition of targeted is the number of times McD has called Royal's number.

Do you agree or disagree?

If you answer "agree" to both, then you have no way of proving your argument at all. Why? Because sites like nfl.com, etc that measure "targets" have no way of knowing who the primary read is or who the coach in theory wants to get the ball on any given play. All they are measuring is who eventually gets it thrown to them, which could be the 4th or 5th read for all they know. Get it?

:thumbs:

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:42 PM
Definition of "targeted" in the NFL.

Definition #1 = the sites shown above and those referenced by posters here define "targets" as the number of times a QB throws the ball in the direction of a receiver.

Do you agree or disagree?

Definition #2 = Buff's definition of targeted is the number of times McD has called Royal's number.

Do you agree or disagree?

No, I'll go by the numbers montrose and DB4Life posted ... we cannot, with any accuracy at all, identify who caused those stats. Nor would I try.

And STILL my opinion is: Gaffney was targeted too many times and Royal too few.

And base on those numbers, Eddie had more actual CATCHES in 2008 than he had CHANCE in 2009. Again, numbers. Going beyond these numbers is sheer speculation, and I'd prefer not to guess.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:48 PM
I don't care who ... I don't know, and you don't know. It would be sheer speculation to guess.

No it isn't. The answer is Orton. The "who" according to the authors of the websites that publish the "targeted" data is the QB. That is the person who throws the ball in a direction, which results in their decision to call it a "target".

That is why I told you to "be careful". Because I knew that you had no idea where the numbers were coming from or what they truly measured.

Why do you first quote these numbers to make a point, and now that I won the "bet" (though you didn't agree to bet), suddenly NOW the numbers need context.

I asked for context because you simply posted a bunch of numbers in a post and didn't explain them. Now, after reading back several posts, I understand that you meant to show that he had more receptions in 2008 than targets in 2009. That wasn't clear until a few posts later when you explained it. In the original post, it honestly made no sense to me what you were posting because you didn't put years next to the series of numbers.

Again, my opinion is that Royal should have been targeted about the same number or more times than he was in 2008.

You do realize that two things outside of any playcalling made that essentially impossible:

(1) We threw the ball fewer times in 2009 than 2008 and (2) Royal played fewer games in 2009 due to injury.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:51 PM
No, I'll go by the numbers montrose and DB4Life posted ... we cannot, with any accuracy at all, identify who caused those stats. Nor would I try.

Dude. I'M TELLING YOU what those numbers measure. I'm not guessing. Their sole purpose is to show how many times a ball was thrown by the QB (or RB or WR in the case of a trick play) in the direction of a receiver. I'm not interpreting or twisting anything. That is it. That is what the number means. Go to the sites in the links.

Just like a completion figure tells you how many were caught.
Just like an attempt tells you how many were thrown.
This number....targets...tells you how many times a QB threw the ball at a receiver.

This is elementary stuff.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:55 PM
Dude. I'M TELLING YOU what those numbers measure. I'm not guessing.

You are guessing. The plays are called by Josh, that's clear. How can you be certain that Orton changes or skews those numbers by audibles and checkdowns? You can't, that's how.

You're guessing.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 01:59 PM
No amount of numbers, no matter what they are or who "wins" these silly arguments will change my opinion: I think Eddie should have been targeted more often. Period.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 01:59 PM
You are guessing. The plays are called by Josh, that's clear. How can you be certain that Orton changes or skews those numbers by audibles and checkdowns? You can't, that's how.

You're guessing.

Whiskey.

Tango.

Foxtrot?

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 02:05 PM
Listen, there's no empirical evidence to quantify how much or even if Orton's decisions change the number of chances. I'm confident, as you should be, that the p[lays called are FAR more a contributor to his chances than are Orton's audibles and/or checkdowns.

Besides, earlier you guys were relying on the numbers montrose and DB4Life posted, why try to mess with them, especially by applying factors that cannot accurately be quantified?

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:05 PM
You are guessing. The plays are called by Josh, that's clear. How can you be certain that Orton changes or skews those numbers by audibles and checkdowns? You can't, that's how.

You're guessing.

Buff. What are you talking about now?

If you go to one of the websites and look at their number for "targets", it is what it is. It is the # of times Orton threw it in the direction of the receiver. Neither I nor the site are claiming that the play wasn't changed or audibled, etc. Leave that out of it. All it is doing is saying that "this is the number of times ________ threw it to _________". Do you understand that?

YOU are the one who has been trying to attribute more to and read more into that number than there is and we have been calling you out about it.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:07 PM
Listen, there's no empirical evidence to quantify how much or even if Orton's decisions change the number of chances.

We've been saying this since post number one, Buff. You were the one who took these numbers and tried to use them and them alone to prove your point that McD wasn't calling his number enough....even though that's not at all what the numbers showed.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 02:08 PM
If you go to one of the websites and look at their number for "targets", it is what it is. It is the # of times Orton threw it in the direction of the receiver.

That is absolutely correct. I'm merely stating the plays called are FAR more the causative factor for those numbers than are decisions contrary to that play call made by Orton.

Josh is far more responsible for the number of touches than is Orton.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:11 PM
I'm merely stating the plays called are FAR more the causative factor for those numbers than are decisions contrary to that play call made by Orton.

Josh is far more responsible for the number of touches than is Orton.

That would be very tough to prove.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 02:13 PM
But this is a pointless debate over silly stats and numbers, none of which change my opinion.

My opinion remains: Eddie should have had more touches, and Jabar fewer, based upon the facts that in none of Gaffney's 8 years in the league, with 3 different teams, has he come anywhere near Eddie's production as a rookie.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Listen, there's no empirical evidence to quantify how much or even if Orton's decisions change the number of chances. I'm confident, as you should be, that the p[lays called are FAR more a contributor to his chances than are Orton's audibles and/or checkdowns. You originally didn't say we can't quantify how much Orton skews the numbers. You outright questioned whether it happens at all. That's so far out in left field I would never expect you to make that type of assertion.

Besides, earlier you guys were relying on the numbers montrose and DB4Life posted, why try to mess with them, especially by applying factors that cannot accurately be quantified? The point we're making is that you cannot claim that Josh (who you're arguing against) didn't target Royal enough because you don't know what happened between the play call going into Orton and the pass being thrown.

Let's create a simple flow chart here to illustrate the point.

Josh sends play into the QB ----> ??? ----> Pass thrown.

The question marks signify everything that happens between those two steps. We can't possibly know what is going on there, so claiming that Josh didn't target Royal enough is factually incorrect on the grounds that you don't have the information required to come to that conclusion.

Make sense?

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 02:15 PM
That would be very tough to prove.

So you think it is possible that Orton audibling and checking down to or from Eddie was more responsible for the number of chances than the plays called?

Good luck with that ;D

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 02:18 PM
We can't possibly know what is going on there, so claiming that Josh didn't target Royal enough is factually incorrect on the grounds that you don't have the information required to come to that conclusion.

Make sense?

No, it's not "factually incorrect" because, as you have accurately stated, we don't have the facts to make it correct or incorrect.

Make sense?

And again, if you wish to speculate that Orton audibling and checking down to or from Eddie was more responsible for the number of chances than the plays that were called, good luck with that. But I seriously doubt Orton changed the intent of Josh's plays very often.

None of this changes my opinion, guys ... none of it.

Beantown Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:20 PM
So you think it is possible that Orton audibling and checking down to or from Eddie was more responsible for the number of chances than the plays called?

Good luck with that ;D

No, no, no.

You are not acknowledging the dozens of other possibilities for why a play designed for Eddie might not go to Eddie. This isn't basketball where a play called for a guy goes to that guy basically every time. This is football.

Defensive coverage
Double coverage on Eddie
A defender blowing an assignment
A guy falling down

Any other number of factors can contribute to Orton going somewhere else with the ball. Check downs are just one of many.

BroncoBuff
02-18-2010, 02:22 PM
No, no, no.

You are not acknowledging the dozens of other possibilities for why a play designed for Eddie might not go to Eddie. This isn't basketball where a play called for a guy goes to that guy basically every time. This is football.

Defensive coverage
Double coverage on Eddie
A defender blowing an assignment
A guy falling down

Any other number of factors can contribute to Orton going somewhere else with the ball. Check downs are just one of many.

Yes, but you're missing the fact that all of these factors apply equally to Gaffney.

My opinion hasn't changed, nor will it: Royal had too few chances, and Gaffney too many.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:25 PM
No, it's not "factually incorrect" because, as you have accurately stated, we don't have the facts to make it correct or incorrect.

Make sense? Then call it intellectually dishonest, or any similar term.

And again, if you wish to speculate that Orton audibling and checking down to or from Eddie was more responsible for the number of chances than the plays that were called, good luck with that. But I seriously doubt Orton changed the intent of Josh's plays very often. That's not what we said. We simply said it skews the numbers and as such you can't accurately lay blame on anyone. YOU questioned whether it skewed the numbers at all.

None of this changes my opinion, guys ... none of it. That's fine. We're more than happy to keep telling you how wrong you are despite that.

Florida_Bronco
02-18-2010, 02:30 PM
Yes, but you're missing the fact that all of these factors apply equally to Gaffney. Actually they don't. It's not hard to realize that due to Gaffney's experience in the system that he would not be as susceptible to things like running the wrong route, not adjusting the route properly in conjunction with zone or man coverage or one of any other little things that could effect the outcome of the play.

and Gaffney too many. Says who? Gaffney had arguably his best season statistically. If he had failed to produce with the chances he was provided then you would be correct, but he didn't and you're not.

Face it. Royal got out performed this year.

azbroncfan
02-18-2010, 02:37 PM
Bronco Buff is another Butler/Shanny homer that was happy with mediocre 8-8 seasons and accepted mediocrity.

Kaylore
02-18-2010, 02:54 PM
Bronco Buff is another Butler/Shanny homer that was happy with mediocre 8-8 seasons and accepted mediocrity.

And then magically became incensed we produced the same record the next year. It was completely acceptable with an easier record in '08 and then in '09 suddenly it was the worst year we've ever had.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 11:16 AM
Actually they don't. It's not hard to realize that due to Gaffney's experience in the system that he would not be as susceptible to things like running the wrong route...

That makes sense actually.


Says who? Gaffney had arguably his best season statistically. If he had failed to produce with the chances he was provided then you would be correct, but he didn't and you're not.

Face it. Royal got out performed this year.

Yes, he had his best season statistically, he was damned good for us. And yes, he stats numbers exceeded Royal's. But both these points work equally well for my argument as they do yours. I think Royal should have been thrown to more than Gaffney, a lot more. Some of the chances I think should have been Royal's instead were Gaffneys, and I disagree with those choices.

And yet again, in none of Gaffney's 8 years in the league with 3 different teams has he ever come within shouting distance of Royal's numbers as a raw rookie. Based on that alone, plus the age difference, I think Royal should have had lots more action that Gaffney.


And Khan, don't be angry about this and don't exaggerate, I'm not "incensed" about anything. I simply don't like all our young offensive talent being marginalized in favor of older free agents, and I'm not alone. Josh has every right to play and go to whomever he wishes, I just disagree. And yes, we did finish 8-8, but we were not an 8-8 team as the season wound down, nowhere near that ... in fact we were probably the worst team in the league when the season ended. Don't be in denial about that. Shanahan's teams, as bad as they swooned late in the season, none of them ever fell that far that fast. You have to really be in denial not to recognize that.

Beantown Bronco
02-19-2010, 11:25 AM
And yet again, in none of Gaffney's 8 years in the league with 3 different teams has he ever come within shouting distance of Royal's numbers as a raw rookie. Based on that alone, plus the age difference, I think Royal should have had lots more action that Gaffney.

You keep bringing this up, but a lot of that has to do with the different routes they run. Gaffney tends to run the deeper routes and he was behind Moss and Welker in NE, so naturally his reception total is going to be lower. His yards per reception average is significantly better than Royal's though as a result of those deeper routes.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 11:49 AM
You keep bringing this up, but a lot of that has to do with the different routes they run. Gaffney tends to run the deeper routes and he was behind Moss and Welker in NE, so naturally his reception total is going to be lower. His yards per reception average is significantly better than Royal's though as a result of those deeper routes.

8 years and he didn't even come close, Beantown. That's a hekuva lot more than the type of routes he's running. And Eddie had Marshall, Stokley and Scheffler here, so you can't credibly use Moss/Welker as the reason why Jabar has never had the numbers. Didn't have them in Houston either.

Even in this season, Gaffney's best ever, he came nowhere near what Royal did as a raw rookie.

And let's say Florida is right, that maybe Eddie was out of position or was slow to catch on to the playbook (which seems unlikely, as he obviously caught on to the complicated Shanahan playbook instantaneously as a rookie), even if that's true, why didn't we go more to him as the season wore on, when we really needed a boost? Josh made choices about how much to involve Eddie, and I disagree with them.

Now I do like Gaffney actually, a lot, especially as a #3 receiver ... but my opinion remains that Royal was under-used, and there is ample support for that opinion.

Beantown Bronco
02-19-2010, 12:24 PM
8 years and he didn't even come close, Beantown. That's a hekuva lot more than the type of routes he's running.

Gaffney only started 7 games this year and he put up 75% of the yardage Eddie did in full time duty in 2008. You're right. It has nothing to do with the routes they are running.

And Eddie had Marshall, Stokley and Scheffler here, so you can't credibly use Moss/Welker as the reason why Jabar has never had the numbers.

Really? You're throwing in a third guy and they still don't combine for over 200 receptions every year like Moss and Welker. Sorry.

Didn't have them in Houston either.

Are we really going to count "Houston, the early years"? When Gaffney was there, Jerry Rice would've had a tough time getting more than 60 receptions with that level of quarterbacking.

Even in this season, Gaffney's best ever, he came nowhere near what Royal did as a raw rookie.

1. He only had 7 starts.
2. We threw the ball more in 08 and Gaffney had nowhere near the number of targets Royal did as a rookie.

Look at the last two games, where Gaffney was actually featured. 21 receptions for 282 yds and 2 TDs. He made a statement IMO.

And let's say Florida is right, that maybe Eddie was out of position or was slow to catch on to the playbook (which seems unlikely, as he obviously caught on to the complicated Shanahan playbook instantaneously as a rookie), even if that's true, why didn't we go more to him as the season wore on, when we really needed a boost?

He got hurt.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 12:31 PM
Gaffney only started 7 games this year and he put up 75% of the yardage Eddie did in full time duty in 2008. You're right. It has nothing to do with the routes they are running.
You were the one who brought up routes! "but a lot of that has to do with the different routes they run."


Are we really going to count "Houston, the early years"? When Gaffney was there, Jerry Rice would've had a tough time getting more than 60 receptions with that level of quarterbacking.
Excuses, excuses.

I'm glad to see you respect Cutler that much though :thumbsup:



1. He only had 7 starts.
2. We threw the ball more in 08 and Gaffney had nowhere near the number of targets Royal did as a rookie.

Look at the last two games, where Gaffney was actually featured. 21 receptions for 282 yds and 2 TDs. He made a statement IMO.

He got hurt.
Starting or not starting, hurt or not hurt, AGAIN: I think we should have used Eddie a lot more than we did.

I can't imagine you're going to change my mind on that.

Beantown Bronco
02-19-2010, 12:34 PM
You were the one who brought up routes! "but a lot of that has to do with the different routes they run."


Buff, I was just being sarcastic when I wrote "You're right. It has nothing to do with the routes they are running."

When one guy plays a ton less than the other and has far fewer receptions but almost the same number of yards, by definition it is because he is running deeper routes (or he is getting insane yards after the catch - which Gaffney isn't). This is simple stuff.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 12:44 PM
None of these arguments or stats matter, not even the gaudy numbers Royal put up as a rookie.

You're right, this is simple stuff. My opinion remains: We should have used Royal a LOT more.

In fact, he might've even given our offense the boost it needed down the stretch. He was a first-down machine in '08, we could've used that as we wilted and missed the playoffs.

HAT
02-19-2010, 12:58 PM
Does anyone know if Buff thinks Royal should've been more involved in the offense....And perhaps Gaffney less?

Just curious.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 01:02 PM
Does anyone know if Buff thinks Royal should've been more involved in the offense....And perhaps Gaffney less?

Just curious.

Isn't is strange how we derail such a simple thought as that?

I still believe many in this thread and on this board will defend whatever happens ... after the fact. If these stats/results were known before the season started - especially when Royal was dazzling them in training camp - they would've been pretty upset, "why didn't we use Eddie more?!" would have been their universal question. The difference is, I'm saying it after the fact, I'm not bending my opinion the way the wind blows ;D

Beantown Bronco
02-19-2010, 01:04 PM
How is pointing out that Royal was hurt and physically didn't take the field the last 10 or so quarters of the season de-railing your point that he should've been looked to more "down the stretch"?

That's kind of like arguing that Marshall should've been looked to more in week one of 2008 when he was suspended.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 01:14 PM
Sway sway sway ... I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to search your posts, but I feel certain you felt otherwise before the season began.

And otherwise about Shanahan ... and Scheffler ... and Cutler ... and Hillis ... and many more situations that have changed since, that you have willingly and conveniently bent your opinion to align with. Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

What a powerful backbone you have!

Beantown Bronco
02-19-2010, 01:20 PM
Sway sway sway ... I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to search your posts, but I feel certain you felt otherwise before the season began.

And otherwise about Shanahan ... and Scheffler ... and Cutler ... and Hillis ... and many more situations that have changed since, that you have willingly and conveniently bent your opinion to align with. Don't feel bad, you're not the only one.

What a powerful backbone you have!

What are you talking about now? I'm not bending anything here. We didn't have Gaffney before this season so there is no way on Earth I could've possibly had an opinion about his play with us before now. This is a freaking appreciation thread. It's not like I would've made one about a NE Patriot randomly.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 01:24 PM
What are you talking about now? I'm not bending anything here. We didn't have Gaffney before this season so there is no way on Earth I could've possibly had an opinion about his play with us before now. This is a freaking appreciation thread. It's not like I would've made one about a NE Patriot randomly.

No no, I appreciate Gaffney too, very much.

I'm talking about all the tortured reasons "why" greatly reducing Eddie's role was the right decision. And the rest I mentioned ... it's just interesting to see so many people "loving" moves they would have mocked as jokes the week before they happened. There has been a LOT of that around here.

BroncoBuff
02-19-2010, 01:29 PM
And so many people defending - with angry attacks - the same moves they would have laughed off as jokes the week before they happened.

Again, there's been LOTS of that around here the last year or so.

Sad really, sticking to your guns is a rare commodity here.

Best example recently is Mike Nolan. Guys would have gone through a brick wall for him the week before he left ... but once he was gone, "he sucked anyway!"

It'd be hilarious if it weren't so sad :~ohyah!:

HAT
02-19-2010, 01:57 PM
I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't really give a **** about who gets touches.

Royal or Gaffney or Marshall or Stokely
Moreno or Buck
Larsen or Hillis
Scheffler or Graham

Take what the defense gives.

There's maybe 10-15 skill position guys in the entire league that are truly irreplaceable. That being the case, why care about the name or the number?

I simply want the Broncos WR's to perform, their RB's to perform, their TE's to perform, etc.

Rabb
02-19-2010, 02:02 PM
I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't really give a **** about who gets touches.

Royal or Gaffney or Marshall or Stokely
Moreno or Buck
Larsen or Hillis
Scheffler or Graham

Take what the defense gives.

There's maybe 10-15 skill position guys in the entire league that are truly irreplaceable. That being the case, why care about the name or the number?

I simply want the Broncos WR's to perform, their RB's to perform, their TE's to perform, etc.

I generally am in the same camp HAT, with the only caveat that I believe you have to get the ball to the special players and Royal is one of the special players, but that's just my opinion

same as Marshall, I think the more touches guys like Marshall, Moreno, Royal get...the better things turn out in general

Florida_Bronco
02-19-2010, 02:03 PM
I'm talking about all the tortured reasons "why" greatly reducing Eddie's role was the right decision.

Indisputable fact #1: Royal was targeted more than Gaffney.

Indisputable fact #2: Gaffney was far more productive with less chances.

Eddie Royal: 37 Rec for 345 yards and 0 touchdowns

Jabar Gaffney: 54 rec for 732 yards and 2 touchdowns

Conclusion: Based on superior production, increasing Gaffney's role was the correct move.

There ya go Buff. Rock hard numbers that support the opposite of your conclusion.

BroncoBuff
02-20-2010, 04:31 PM
Conclusion: Based on superior production, increasing Gaffney's role was the correct move.

There ya go Buff. Rock hard numbers that support the opposite of your conclusion.

My only "conclusion" is that we should've targeted Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis far more than we did. FAR more often than we used them last season, because they earned it. The corollary that Gaffney got more targets as Royal (more in raw numbers, the same when factoring in games missed) is not relevant to the main point, as evidenced by the point made that Gaffney took touches, perhaps more touches, from Stokley.

And yet again, the sad part is the results-oriented support. Whatever happens, you're in favor of. After the fact. The two biggest stars in training camp, based on the reports you can look up if you like, were Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis. Had anybody told you then that Royal's touches would be slashed and Hillis basically benched all season, you would've laughed. Literally laughed and would have attacked anybody who suggested such as a fool. But now, because that's actually what happened, suddenly you're in favor of it!

That's my problem with all this result-oriented support ... whatever actually happens, you will argue was the right thing to do. It's cowardly, and utterly lacking in backbone. Guys who NOW say Hillis is "dumb" or that Royal "couldn't get open" or that Nolan "sucked anyway" these guys are spineless.

Me, I'll stick to my guns and support the people I believe in. Including Royal, Hillis and Nolan ;D

Blueflame
02-20-2010, 04:36 PM
OK... let's take "the coach" out of the discussion (hence the emotional responses) and what Buff's trying to say is that in order for Eddie Royal to reach his full potential as a football player, he really needs to get the chance to touch the ball. Not at all controversial now, is it?

Beantown Bronco
02-20-2010, 05:42 PM
OK... let's take "the coach" out of the discussion (hence the emotional responses) and what Buff's trying to say is that in order for Eddie Royal to reach his full potential as a football player, he really needs to get the chance to touch the ball. Not at all controversial now, is it?

If that was what he said, nobody would have a problem with it. However, that's not what he said. Here is what he just said:

My only "conclusion" is that we should've targeted Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis far more than we did. FAR more often than we used them last season, because they earned it.

How could Royal get even MORE targets in 2009 than he did in 2008 when you take into account these two things:

1. We threw the ball less overall in 2009.
2. Royal missed 2 and a half games with injuries in 2009.

Simple math dictates that it would've been basically impossible to target Royal more times in 2009 than 2008 given those two facts.

DenverBrit
02-20-2010, 05:48 PM
My only "conclusion" is that we should've targeted Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis far more than we did. FAR more often than we used them last season, because they earned it. The corollary that Gaffney got more targets as Royal (more in raw numbers, the same when factoring in games missed) is not relevant to the main point, as evidenced by the point made that Gaffney took touches, perhaps more touches, from Stokley.

And yet again, the sad part is the results-oriented support. Whatever happens, you're in favor of. After the fact. The two biggest stars in training camp, based on the reports you can look up if you like, were Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis. Had anybody told you then that Royal's touches would be slashed and Hillis basically benched all season, you would've laughed. Literally laughed and would have attacked anybody who suggested such as a fool. But now, because that's actually what happened, suddenly you're in favor of it!

That's my problem with all this result-oriented support ... whatever actually happens, you will argue was the right thing to do. It's cowardly, and utterly lacking in backbone. Guys who NOW say Hillis is "dumb" or that Royal "couldn't get open" or that Nolan "sucked anyway" these guys are spineless.

Me, I'll stick to my guns and support the people I believe in. Including Royal, Hillis and Nolan ;D

As Gaffney was very familiar with the new offense being installed, and Royal was learning his second new system in as many seasons, it shouldn't be a surprise that Gaffney saw the ball as often as he did.

Which was about the same per game as Royal.

I'd expect Royal to have a better upcoming season.

As for Hillis, who knows why he didn't get the playing time.

We sure don't know, despite the declarations otherwise.

Florida_Bronco
02-20-2010, 06:05 PM
My only "conclusion" is that we should've targeted Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis far more than we did. FAR more often than we used them last season, because they earned it. The corollary that Gaffney got more targets as Royal (more in raw numbers, the same when factoring in games missed) is not relevant to the main point, as evidenced by the point made that Gaffney took touches, perhaps more touches, from Stokley.

No Buff, they didn't EARN anything beyond what they were given. What they did in 2008 doesn't matter now. What they did in training camp doesn't matter and what they did in preseason doesn't matter. Both of them failed to perform well this year and one of them (Hillis) was a flat out liability early on in the season.

And yet again, the sad part is the results-oriented support. Whatever happens, you're in favor of. After the fact. The two biggest stars in training camp, based on the reports you can look up if you like, were Eddie Royal and Peyton Hillis. Had anybody told you then that Royal's touches would be slashed and Hillis basically benched all season, you would've laughed. Literally laughed and would have attacked anybody who suggested such as a fool. But now, because that's actually what happened, suddenly you're in favor of it! Results are the only thing that matters and your strawman arguments won't change that. I know this may be hard for you, the rest of the Cutler widows and the fantasy football fanboys to comprehend, but a vast majority of us root for the laundry. We don't care whether player A or player B is the one producing, as long as someone is producing.

And guess what? The most productive players got their chances.

That's my problem with all this result-oriented support ... whatever actually happens, you will argue was the right thing to do. It's cowardly, and utterly lacking in backbone. Guys who NOW say Hillis is "dumb" or that Royal "couldn't get open" or that Nolan "sucked anyway" these guys are spineless.

Me, I'll stick to my guns and support the people I believe in. Including Royal, Hillis and Nolan ;D I don't know of anyone who ever claimed Nolan sucked, and anyone who does surely doesn't have a clue to begin with. Supporting "your" players is fine, but when you suggest that they should get more chances than more productive players (much less that they've "earned" it) expect to, once again, have your argument completely blown away by people who actually understand the game.

OK... let's take "the coach" out of the discussion (hence the emotional responses) and what Buff's trying to say is that in order for Eddie Royal to reach his full potential as a football player, he really needs to get the chance to touch the ball. Not at all controversial now, is it? Controversial? No. Blatantly false? Yes.

Eddie Royal had his chance to make plays. He caught 33 of them and did very little with them. That "feed them the ball" argument doesn't work for wide receivers. In fact I'd say the only position you can make that claim for is running back.

watermock
02-20-2010, 06:53 PM
Results are the only thing that matters and your strawman arguments won't change that. I know this may be hard for you, the rest of the Cutler widows and the fantasy football fanboys to comprehend, but a vast majority of us root for the laundry. We don't care whether player A or player B is the one producing, as long as someone is producing.

And guess what? The most productive players got their chances.


Like Jordan overe Hillis, Moreno over Buck, Quinn/Graham over Scheff and Gaffney over Marshall and/or Royal??

Blueflame
02-20-2010, 10:28 PM
No Buff, they didn't EARN anything beyond what they were given. What they did in 2008 doesn't matter now. What they did in training camp doesn't matter and what they did in preseason doesn't matter. Both of them failed to perform well this year and one of them (Hillis) was a flat out liability early on in the season.

Results are the only thing that matters and your strawman arguments won't change that. I know this may be hard for you, the rest of the Cutler widows and the fantasy football fanboys to comprehend, but a vast majority of us root for the laundry. We don't care whether player A or player B is the one producing, as long as someone is producing.

And guess what? The most productive players got their chances.

I don't know of anyone who ever claimed Nolan sucked, and anyone who does surely doesn't have a clue to begin with. Supporting "your" players is fine, but when you suggest that they should get more chances than more productive players (much less that they've "earned" it) expect to, once again, have your argument completely blown away by people who actually understand the game.

Controversial? No. Blatantly false? Yes.

Eddie Royal had his chance to make plays. He caught 33 of them and did very little with them. That "feed them the ball" argument doesn't work for wide receivers. In fact I'd say the only position you can make that claim for is running back.

No. It is not "blatantly false" to say that if a WR is to ever achieve his full potential, he needs the opportunity to touch the ball. That's simple logic.

strafen
02-20-2010, 10:30 PM
No Buff, they didn't EARN anything beyond what they were given. What they did in 2008 doesn't matter now. What they did in training camp doesn't matter and what they did in preseason doesn't matter. Both of them failed to perform well this year and one of them (Hillis) was a flat out liability early on in the season.


Controversial? No. Blatantly false? Yes.

Eddie Royal had his chance to make plays. He caught 33 of them and did very little with them. That "feed them the ball" argument doesn't work for wide receivers. In fact I'd say the only position you can make that claim for is running back.Hey man. Let me start by saying you're one of the few here who I've argued/debated with that has kept an even keel throughout without insults but stating your point nicely.
That said, I still disagree with you ROFL!

I know you bring a good point that Gaffney made the best of his given chances and Royal may not have.
The same thing can be said about Hillis, Sheffler, and Stokley as they relate to Moreno, Graham and Gaffney/Lloyd.

The way I see it is that either group of players would've equally had a chance to produce at a high level if given a dedicated time to do so.
In the case of the "McDaniels guys" -let's put a label on it for illustration purposes only- they were more apt to get all the attention and playing time than the "Shanahan guys"
I don't think McDaniels would've gone wrong either way. I still think the "Shanny guys" would've edged the "McDaniels guys" in production all things considered and being equal.

I don't think McDaniels made his choice about what group of players to play based on the merits of their performance or lack thereof, but rather by his own personal choice.

Now, that's open to a lot of interpretation and suggest that his decision was solely based on one guy beating the other guy out for playing time. I'm having a hard time buying that.

He made that decision to go with the guys he chose to go with based perhaps on how they would fit their system better without enough duly time to prove his experiment. He stuck with what he first thought of being the right choice..

We all saw those guys perform in 2008. Everybody loved and were happy with the promise they showed. Now, these same people are throwing those guys under the bus just because McDaniels chose not to play them, therefore the guys must suck.
We saw the decline in production was proportionally related to the playing time on the field.
Yes, they saw playing time, but not as "regulars" it was more as sporadic playing time, and any time you have that situation, players are going to lose a feel for the game by not having enough continuity to build from...

BroncoBuff
02-20-2010, 10:42 PM
Eddie Royal had his chance to make plays. He caught 33 of them and did very little with them. That "feed them the ball" argument doesn't work for wide receivers. In fact I'd say the only position you can make that claim for is running back.

It was 37, not 33 ... how are we supposed to have an honest debate if you can't get the most basic facts right?

And yes, I think Hillis deserved to be "fed the ball." As I corrected you earlier, Hillis was never "benched" in 2008 as you said, rather once he got a chance to play, his touches and his production went up and up and up. And, as I corrected you earlier, Royal did not "fall off" as 2008 ended ... in fact, his catches per game for the last 5 games exceeded his average the first 11.

Guys, we just disagree ... nobody is "wrong" nor "blatantly wrong" just because they disagree with you. You guys have EVERY RIGHT to applaud the marginalizing of Royal and Hillis. I just disagree.

Drek
02-21-2010, 03:10 AM
It was 37, not 33 ... how are we supposed to have an honest debate if you can't get the most basic facts right?

And yes, I think Hillis deserved to be "fed the ball." As I corrected you earlier, Hillis was never "benched" in 2008 as you said, rather once he got a chance to play, his touches and his production went up and up and up. And, as I corrected you earlier, Royal did not "fall off" as 2008 ended ... in fact, his catches per game for the last 5 games exceeded his average the first 11.

Guys, we just disagree ... nobody is "wrong" nor "blatantly wrong" just because they disagree with you. You guys have EVERY RIGHT to applaud the marginalizing of Royal and Hillis. I just disagree.

Hillis was benched early in the 08 season in favor of Larsen at FB, FYI. The rumor was that Shanahan didn't like how he was looking in practice, and was trying to send a message.

Hillis was actually given a good sized role for a FB/short yardage back early in the season, he just generally **** the bed when called on. He didn't look comfortable in the system, didn't seem to know where and what he was supposed to do, and as a result couldn't get the job done.

As he started to learn the system and show some spark at the end of our @KC game we'd already established the Moreno/Buckhalter RB rotation and in the following weeks would see our OL get beat down pretty hard. McDaniels obviously was looking for chances to try building his confidence, hence letting him pick up a lot of garbage time carries against KC in that first game, but making him a bigger part of the offense just didn't work out because this team was fighting for their playoff lives and couldn't afford rolling the dice on Hillis and having him make another mental mistake.

On the subject of Royal, while I'm personally not a huge fan of the role he was used in this year it was sadly the best move for the overall team. Josh McDaniels offense doesn't really have a set #1, #2, and #3 WR. Each of the three top WRs have unique roles. The X WR, what Royal spent most of the year as, is the deep threat. This is the job Randy Moss has flourished in for the Pats. The Y WR is your more traditional 2nd guy lined up wide. This was Gaffney's role in NE and as a result was marginalized there, but it was the best fit for both Marshall and Orton so it became the featured target here. Then you have the Z, slot guy, what Wes Welker excels at and what we all hoped to see Royal take on. This year we used a combination of Gaffney, Stokley, and a little Royal in that job.

The assignments within those roles was all based on what was best for Marshall (the intermediate WR role where he gets the ball 10-15 yards down field and has a chance to make a play) and Orton (who's deep ball is still inconsistent). To make a system focused around the role Marshall was going to play it was essential to have a legit speed thread like Royal opposite him to help open up coverage.

This didn't work out real well in my opinion because Orton couldn't take advantage of Royal's deep routes like Brady does with Moss (obviously, we didn't throw 50 passing TDs), and at the same time Stokley and Gaffney where inferior slot options. But it was the only way to maximize production for the known quantity elite WR, Marshall.

I'd expect us to pursue a field stretching WR this off season so that Royal can take over the slot role. If Marshall remains he'll still be the intermediate routes guy, if not that will likely become Gaffney's job. He flourished there in our last game.

The real key to the passing offense is if McDaniels can do the same thing for Orton's deep ball that he did for Brady's. Orton's got more to work with at this point than Brady did when McDaniels started with him, but Brady has proven himself to be one of the most coachable QBs in NFL history, making massive overhauls to every aspect of his game over the course of his career.

If McDaniels doesn't see Orton making those same strides we'll likely start looking for an alternative. We might anyways even if he does show moderate progress. McDaniels isn't going to let himself be tied to the improvement (or lack thereof) shown by a single player. If Kevin O'Connell or Brady Quinn can be picked up cheap I'd expect us to make a move for one of them, putting them directly behind Orton with a legitimate shot to take the job.

Florida_Bronco
02-21-2010, 07:55 AM
No. It is not "blatantly false" to say that if a WR is to ever achieve his full potential, he needs the opportunity to touch the ball. That's simple logic.

Except it's not simple logic. There has never been any situation in football where someone can claim that continually feeding a player the ball will improve their in-game performance except for running back where some players can pound the defense and then break big plays later in the game. Terrell Davis was a good example of this. Receivers simply don't get those number of touches a game.

And as I mentioned, Royal got his touches. 37 of those not counting punt and kick returns. On those 37 catches he failed to produce anything noteworthy so what argument is there for feeding him the ball more? I know it probably pisses you off that the guy who outproduced him is a former Patriot but such is life.

Cito Pelon
02-21-2010, 10:18 AM
To recap:

Beantown: Gaffney was a good contributor.
Montrose: Yeah, not bad.
kamakazi: No way.
Dragster: ORTON SUCKS.
Florida: Gaffney was ok with me.
KipCorrington: He's only good 'cause McD will run the other guys out of town.
BroncoBuff: Royal was better.
Florida: Gaffney and Royal are apples and oranges.
DenverBrit: Gaffney was good in his own right.
Dragster: But Royal should have been better.
Buff: And Buckhalter. Heinous injuries. Why? Hillis-hate, that's why.
Broncomutt: Little Josh is a sissy.
Buff: Apples aren't oranges, yes. Numbers! And Bill of Rights! Trust me!

And that's just the first 3 pages.

BroncoBuff
02-21-2010, 11:14 AM
Hillis was benched early in the 08 season in favor of Larsen at FB, FYI. The rumor was that Shanahan didn't like how he was looking in practice, and was trying to send a message.
I hadn't heard that ... he wasn't listed as starter in the opener at Oakland, and had just 3 carries, all in the 4th quarter (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008090801/2008/REG1/broncos@raiders#tab:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay).

Then nothing until ... Miami 116 yards receiving Week 9, and each week thereafter his carries went up and up, 8-10-17-22, before being injured converting a first down with a circus catch.

THAT'S the Peyton Hillis I'm describing.


Hillis was actually given a good sized role for a FB/short yardage back early in the season, he just generally **** the bed when called on. He didn't look comfortable in the system, didn't seem to know where and what he was supposed to do, and as a result couldn't get the job done.

He had just 4 total carries in the first 3 games, that didn't seem like a good sized role to me. RBs need touches to get rolling I think, and the most he got was 2, until the KC game, when like you said, he had 7 carries for a 6.7 yard average. Maybe it was garbage time, but still - it was the only game all year he had more than 2 carries, and he had 2 carries just once. That was the only game he was given any chance at all to carry the ball.

Mental mistakes could explain this stuff I suppose, though that's mostly speculation on our part. What is not speculation is that, for whatever reason, he never got a real shot this year.

And there's the philosophy argument too ... I greatly prefer giving promising young players touches than older free agents, especially with injury histories like Buckhalters'. Buckhalter did kick ass for us, but I still would have preferred Hillis be developed.

BroncoBuff
02-21-2010, 11:16 AM
On the subject of Royal, while I'm personally not a huge fan of the role he was used in this year it was sadly the best move for the overall team. Josh McDaniels offense doesn't really have a set #1, #2, and #3 WR. Each of the three top WRs have unique roles. The X WR, what Royal spent most of the year as, is the deep threat. This is the job Randy Moss has flourished in for the Pats. The Y WR is your more traditional 2nd guy lined up wide. This was Gaffney's role in NE and as a result was marginalized there, but it was the best fit for both Marshall and Orton so it became the featured target here. Then you have the Z, slot guy, what Wes Welker excels at and what we all hoped to see Royal take on. This year we used a combination of Gaffney, Stokley, and a little Royal in that job.

That makes sense ... but I would still advocate that Royal should have been moved from X to Z, so as to develop and build on his brilliant rookie season.

Drek
02-21-2010, 11:55 AM
I hadn't heard that ... he wasn't listed as starter in the opener at Oakland, and had just 3 carries, all in the 4th quarter (http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2008090801/2008/REG1/broncos@raiders#tab:analyze/analyze-channels:cat-post-playbyplay).

Then nothing until ... Miami 116 yards receiving Week 9, and each week thereafter his carries went up and up, 8-10-17-22, before being injured converting a first down with a circus catch.

THAT'S the Peyton Hillis I'm describing.

It was like week 3 or 4, after starting at FB (which isn't really a starting position in the NFL anymore, its about as often utilized as the #2 TE, and less than the slot WR) for the first few weeks he got bumped to #2 FB in favor of Larsen.

And I know what Peyton Hillis you're talking about. They guy who should've been a bigger, more athletically gifted version of Kevin Faulk in this offense. But when he got early appearances in the season he made several big mistakes. He failed to look back for a pass on 3rd and short that when he finally turned damn near hit him in the face, he fumbled a kick-off, he cost the team a timeout because he didn't know his assignment, etc..

The problem with Hillis wasn't him running the ball, the problem was everything else. You couldn't trust him as a receiver despite his great hands because he was unsure of the routes. You couldn't trust him in pass pro because he didn't know his assignments. He's never been a great lead blocker for the run and probably never will be. So you put it all together and ask yourself - is someone that one dimensional really worth having on the field over Moreno or Buckhalter? Defenses do study film on these guys. If all you do is use Hillis as a short yardage pounder then teams are going to bring 8 or 9 guys in the box every down he's in and stuff the run all day long. Our interior OL wasn't good enough to let them do that and still win at the line of scrimmage.

McDaniels had the same problem with Hillis as Shanahan. The guy just isn't real fast picking up an offensive system. That is probably largely due to his athletic skills making him a perfect jack of all trades back, so everyone tries to coach him up as that kind of player. In '08 Shanahan eventually needed to feed Hillis the ball as a runner because we had no one left. In '09 that wasn't necessary. So now Hillis gets a second camp and pre-season to learn the system and make a better go of it.

That makes sense ... but I would still advocate that Royal should have been moved from X to Z, so as to develop and build on his brilliant rookie season.

It wouldn't have been possible last year. If you don't have Royal's speed making safeties play back at least some then Marshall has safety help over the top on him as soon as he gets 5 yards down field and an 8th man flat out lives in the box. Stokley can't get of jams well enough to be that guy and Gaffney just isn't fast enough.

McDaniels needs to go out and add a legit X WR for this offense and move Royal to Z this off season, but last year the best way to win fast was riding Marshall in the intermediate role and contort everything else around what best suits him in that role. When Marshall is gone we won't have that luxury/burden anymore and the offense will have to realign itself to something that will hopefully make better use of Royal and be more balanced in general.

Rabb
02-21-2010, 01:05 PM
It was like week 3 or 4, after starting at FB (which isn't really a starting position in the NFL anymore, its about as often utilized as the #2 TE, and less than the slot WR) for the first few weeks he got bumped to #2 FB in favor of Larsen.

And I know what Peyton Hillis you're talking about. They guy who should've been a bigger, more athletically gifted version of Kevin Faulk in this offense. But when he got early appearances in the season he made several big mistakes. He failed to look back for a pass on 3rd and short that when he finally turned damn near hit him in the face, he fumbled a kick-off, he cost the team a timeout because he didn't know his assignment, etc..

The problem with Hillis wasn't him running the ball, the problem was everything else. You couldn't trust him as a receiver despite his great hands because he was unsure of the routes. You couldn't trust him in pass pro because he didn't know his assignments. He's never been a great lead blocker for the run and probably never will be. So you put it all together and ask yourself - is someone that one dimensional really worth having on the field over Moreno or Buckhalter? Defenses do study film on these guys. If all you do is use Hillis as a short yardage pounder then teams are going to bring 8 or 9 guys in the box every down he's in and stuff the run all day long. Our interior OL wasn't good enough to let them do that and still win at the line of scrimmage.

McDaniels had the same problem with Hillis as Shanahan. The guy just isn't real fast picking up an offensive system. That is probably largely due to his athletic skills making him a perfect jack of all trades back, so everyone tries to coach him up as that kind of player. In '08 Shanahan eventually needed to feed Hillis the ball as a runner because we had no one left. In '09 that wasn't necessary. So now Hillis gets a second camp and pre-season to learn the system and make a better go of it.



It wouldn't have been possible last year. If you don't have Royal's speed making safeties play back at least some then Marshall has safety help over the top on him as soon as he gets 5 yards down field and an 8th man flat out lives in the box. Stokley can't get of jams well enough to be that guy and Gaffney just isn't fast enough.

McDaniels needs to go out and add a legit X WR for this offense and move Royal to Z this off season, but last year the best way to win fast was riding Marshall in the intermediate role and contort everything else around what best suits him in that role. When Marshall is gone we won't have that luxury/burden anymore and the offense will have to realign itself to something that will hopefully make better use of Royal and be more balanced in general.

great post Drek

BroncoBuff
02-21-2010, 01:10 PM
It was like week 3 or 4, after starting at FB (which isn't really a starting position in the NFL anymore, its about as often utilized as the #2 TE, and less than the slot WR) for the first few weeks he got bumped to #2 FB in favor of Larsen.

And I know what Peyton Hillis you're talking about. They guy who should've been a bigger, more athletically gifted version of Kevin Faulk in this offense. But when he got early appearances in the season he made several big mistakes. He failed to look back for a pass on 3rd and short that when he finally turned damn near hit him in the face, he fumbled a kick-off, he cost the team a timeout because he didn't know his assignment, etc..

The problem with Hillis wasn't him running the ball, the problem was everything else. You couldn't trust him as a receiver despite his great hands because he was unsure of the routes. You couldn't trust him in pass pro because he didn't know his assignments. He's never been a great lead blocker for the run and probably never will be. So you put it all together and ask yourself - is someone that one dimensional really worth having on the field over Moreno or Buckhalter? Defenses do study film on these guys. If all you do is use Hillis as a short yardage pounder then teams are going to bring 8 or 9 guys in the box every down he's in and stuff the run all day long. Our interior OL wasn't good enough to let them do that and still win at the line of scrimmage.

McDaniels had the same problem with Hillis as Shanahan. The guy just isn't real fast picking up an offensive system. That is probably largely due to his athletic skills making him a perfect jack of all trades back, so everyone tries to coach him up as that kind of player. In '08 Shanahan eventually needed to feed Hillis the ball as a runner because we had no one left. In '09 that wasn't necessary. So now Hillis gets a second camp and pre-season to learn the system and make a better go of it.



It wouldn't have been possible last year. If you don't have Royal's speed making safeties play back at least some then Marshall has safety help over the top on him as soon as he gets 5 yards down field and an 8th man flat out lives in the box. Stokley can't get of jams well enough to be that guy and Gaffney just isn't fast enough.

McDaniels needs to go out and add a legit X WR for this offense and move Royal to Z this off season, but last year the best way to win fast was riding Marshall in the intermediate role and contort everything else around what best suits him in that role. When Marshall is gone we won't have that luxury/burden anymore and the offense will have to realign itself to something that will hopefully make better use of Royal and be more balanced in general.

Yeah, that is good stuff. As usual.

Blueflame
02-21-2010, 01:11 PM
Except it's not simple logic. There has never been any situation in football where someone can claim that continually feeding a player the ball will improve their in-game performance except for running back where some players can pound the defense and then break big plays later in the game. Terrell Davis was a good example of this. Receivers simply don't get those number of touches a game.

And as I mentioned, Royal got his touches. 37 of those not counting punt and kick returns. On those 37 catches he failed to produce anything noteworthy so what argument is there for feeding him the ball more? I know it probably pisses you off that the guy who outproduced him is a former Patriot but such is life.

I never said anything whatsoever about "feeding him the ball". I said if he doesn't have the opportunity to touch the ball, he won't achieve his full potential... and that's a fact. He showed a lot of promise in his rookie season but experienced a "sophomore slump". Hopefully he picks back up in his 3rd year.

DBroncos4life
02-21-2010, 03:07 PM
If defenses would have studied film and started stacking the line with 8-9 guys when Hills was in we could have hit them with a play action fake. I don't even like Hills, but I do think he could have been useful in set up plays.

Drek
02-21-2010, 03:25 PM
If defenses would have studied film and started stacking the line with 8-9 guys when Hills was in we could have hit them with a play action fake. I don't even like Hills, but I do think he could have been useful in set up plays.

Yeah, he'd be real useful at getting Orton killed.

Most teams blitz more when they start stacking the box. Hillis had problems in '08 when asked to pick up pass pro assignments, and those problems only got worse in the early part of '09 when he looked completely lost in his early season opportunities.

So whats the excuse for Hillis when we run play action against the Cowboys and Demarcus Ware breaks three of Orton's ribs thanks to a missed assignment on Hillis' part?

This isn't the 1970's. One dimensional players get targeted and attacked. That is exactly what would happen if this team tried to rely on the '09 Hillis in any legitimate capacity.

DBroncos4life
02-21-2010, 03:35 PM
Yeah, he'd be real useful at getting Orton killed.

Most teams blitz more when they start stacking the box. Hillis had problems in '08 when asked to pick up pass pro assignments, and those problems only got worse in the early part of '09 when he looked completely lost in his early season opportunities.

So whats the excuse for Hillis when we run play action against the Cowboys and Demarcus Ware breaks three of Orton's ribs thanks to a missed assignment on Hillis' part?

This isn't the 1970's. One dimensional players get targeted and attacked. That is exactly what would happen if this team tried to rely on the '09 Hillis in any legitimate capacity.
I don't need an excuse for something that never happened. Like I said I don't like Hillis. I don't need to make any excuse for him period. All I said is if defenses stacked the line like that against us just because he was in the backfield then we have the advantage. Hopefully he would be capable of executing the play. That is what makes other teams great and us average. That is also why I think players like Faulk and Bush are under-rated by fans. They get the job done. Hillis hasn't that often, but maybe McD can find away to work with Hillis and get him to a level where he is valuable to the team.

Florida_Bronco
02-21-2010, 04:01 PM
I never said anything whatsoever about "feeding him the ball". I said if he doesn't have the opportunity to touch the ball, he won't achieve his full potential... and that's a fact.

I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that the argument doesn't hold valid when talking about a wide receiver. A running back, yeah that would work.

And like I said, Royal had 37 catches and did basically nothing with them. Kind of hard to justify giving him more looks when Gaffney was giving superior production.

He showed a lot of promise in his rookie season but experienced a "sophomore slump". Hopefully he picks back up in his 3rd year. Amen. I do think that once we can stick Royal into that Z receiver role that Drek is talking about we'll see a massive jump in production from him, probably exceeding even his rookie year totals.

Drek
02-22-2010, 03:22 AM
I don't need an excuse for something that never happened. Like I said I don't like Hillis. I don't need to make any excuse for him period. All I said is if defenses stacked the line like that against us just because he was in the backfield then we have the advantage. Hopefully he would be capable of executing the play. That is what makes other teams great and us average. That is also why I think players like Faulk and Bush are under-rated by fans. They get the job done. Hillis hasn't that often, but maybe McD can find away to work with Hillis and get him to a level where he is valuable to the team.
Its a hypothetical, and there are ample Hillis apologists who try and explain away his inability to execute for the first several games of the '09 season.

What Hillis needs is extra time to learn the system. He's asked to do everything a versatile FB and a versatile RB are asked to do. That isn't something you just pick up overnight. Given time he can be a super-utility back like Kevin Faulk, but he needs time to learn all those roles and he needs the dedication to make that role work for him.

Bronco Boy
04-14-2010, 07:39 AM
Here's to seeing more Gaffney in 2010!

bronco militia
04-12-2012, 01:06 PM
http://cdn.ksk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/gaffneytweet.jpg