PDA

View Full Version : Hey Anyone Not Want to Talk about Tebow for a Bit and Discuss our New Wideouts?


prunch
04-26-2010, 05:39 PM
I for one, am quite excited about both of them. While many will note we are replacing Marshall, I must say Thomas looks like a handful for any defense and Decker looks like he will be Mr. Clutch .... 3 drops in a whole year!

Thomas looks like Marshall with some straight line speed, great balance and a big, big man. Big matchup issue like Marshall was.

I think 2011 season will see a bunch of production from these guys, probably not so much 2010 due to learning curve.

Rabb
04-26-2010, 05:40 PM
can we talk about Tebow throwing to them?

prunch
04-26-2010, 05:42 PM
No that would be cheating

atomicbloke
04-26-2010, 05:42 PM
No reason why they cant be good in 2010. Royal was really good his first year. It is more likely for WR to make an impact the first season than many other positions.

prunch
04-26-2010, 05:43 PM
No reason why they cant be good in 2010. Royal was really good his first year. It is more likely for WR to make an impact the first season than many other positions.

You reckon? ... I thought the randy moss, eddie royal type rookie seasons were an exception in wideouts

cmhargrove
04-26-2010, 05:47 PM
Can either one of the catch "lefty?"

LRtagger
04-26-2010, 05:59 PM
Thomas is a monster on the WR screens and he blocks well.

His hands are a bit inconsistent, but no more so then Marshall.

I think we picked up a great prospect.

I think between Royal, McKinley, Thomas and Decker we have a really good young group moving forward.

mwill07
04-26-2010, 06:00 PM
You reckon? ... I thought the randy moss, eddie royal type rookie seasons were an exception in wideouts

they are. It's very rare for a WR to excel as a rookie.

Dedhed
04-26-2010, 06:18 PM
I for one, am quite excited about both of them. While many will note we are replacing Marshall, I must say Thomas looks like a handful for any defense and Decker looks like he will be Mr. Clutch .... 3 drops in a whole year!

Thomas looks like Marshall with some straight line speed, great balance and a big, big man. Big matchup issue like Marshall was.

I think 2011 season will see a bunch of production from these guys, probably not so much 2010 due to learning curve.

I'd be excited about either of these guys individually, but I'm extremely excited about the pair of them. I think if they both can hack it they are the perfect complement to each other, and to Eddie in the slot.

If Decker gets healthy before camp, I can see him having a greater impact as a rookie with Thomas developing into a beast over the next year. But they have the perfect combination of skills to be great together.

And I think Royal could be the greatest benefactor working underneath these two.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2010, 07:01 PM
And I think Royal could be the greatest benefactor working underneath these two.can we talk about Tebow throwing to them?



I'd like to hear from Drek or montrose or SoCal about specific X, Y and Z WR spots, what each spot does, and how these guys fit in.

One of them or Med or eddie or Khan or one of the X'x and O's guys should really start a thread breaking down the Josh offense and how these pieces might fit.

Now THAT would be a thread worth reading.

gunns
04-26-2010, 07:04 PM
I think Decker is going to be better than Thomas. Just my forecast for the future.

BroncoBuff
04-26-2010, 07:25 PM
Decker will probably excel in the Wes Welker role.

You know, because he's white.

s0phr0syne
04-26-2010, 07:37 PM
I think it's highly likely that Decker catches on more quickly than Thomas; his style of play already involved knowing how to get open using tricks of the trade as opposed to athleticism. However, I still think that Thomas will be productive in stretching the field this year itself, as that isn't necessarily a veteran skill so much as it is brute speed.

I love the Thomas pick, but I find it really questionable in many ways. He was the one WR I really wanted, but I still can't quite make a good rational argument for him. His physical quantities are unknown since they couldn't be measured in the pre-draft process due to injury. His skills as a wide receiver are very hard to evaluate since he himself admitted that he basically only ran a few routes on game tape. So I wonder what the staff really used to evaluate him?

Can't wait to see what kind of YAC he can muster though. And some vicious run blocks that spring our backs for more 20+ yard carries

no-pseudo-fan
04-26-2010, 07:52 PM
There were a few reasons I wanted Thomas over Dez:

Dez is not only a risk off the field, but if you will notice, he is actually playing too heavy.

Dez hasn't played football since October.

Dez is not as fast, big or as strong as Thomas.

Thomas is unselfish.

That being said, we will use Thomas in routes that he is comfortable with. We will send him along with another WR on certain route combos that will be designed to open one or the other.

Last of all, Tebow will make him work harder.

Archer81
04-26-2010, 08:06 PM
I think what is going to be the most fun is watching them "get it" at the end of the season. Decker and Thomas have the ability to make an impact right away, and their height and weight should make them good red zone targets.

:Broncos:

cutthemdown
04-26-2010, 08:21 PM
I think we might even see an over the shoulder catch this yr. Not 100 of them lol, but at least 2-3.

cutthemdown
04-26-2010, 08:28 PM
x y z mainly are just to designate what part of the field the WR is going to be on.

x- generally the strong side
y- the slot or inside wr
z- weakside wr

But I could have those mixed up. When it comes to the route tree it's hard to say what Josh wants to do. Some accomplished WR will run every route in the book from all 3 spots. Boldin goes in the slot, outside, or at least he did.

Marshall obviously didn't run a lot of 9 routes because he was poor with his back to qb. Royal not really long enough to get deep. Hard to throw to short guys deep.

Mogulseeker
04-26-2010, 08:38 PM
x y z mainly are just to designate what part of the field the WR is going to be on.

x- generally the strong side
y- the slot or inside wr
z- weakside wr

But I could have those mixed up. When it comes to the route tree it's hard to say what Josh wants to do. Some accomplished WR will run every route in the book from all 3 spots. Boldin goes in the slot, outside, or at least he did.

Marshall obviously didn't run a lot of 9 routes because he was poor with his back to qb. Royal not really long enough to get deep. Hard to throw to short guys deep.

Dude, I'm really excited about a no-fullback setup with three-wide. Royal would be in the slot, but that would pretty much be a starter anyway.

With Decker in the X-spot and Thomas as the Z, think of the route combos between Decker and Royal.

Thomas can stretch the field and Thomas and Decker and block for Eddie on the screens, curl flats, etc.

But on any given play, with Royal and Thomas we have a deep threat that has to be checked.

I like our situation at WR.

FireFly
04-26-2010, 08:53 PM
No reason why they cant be good in 2010. Royal was really good his first year. It is more likely for WR to make an impact the first season than many other positions.

I would argue RB probably has a greater chance of making an immediate impact.

FireFly
04-26-2010, 08:54 PM
I think Decker is going to be better than Thomas. Just my forecast for the future.

Seconded :strong:

But I actually think that Thomas will come out stronger early on

misturanderson
04-26-2010, 09:11 PM
they are. It's very rare for a WR to excel as a rookie.

It may be more rare than say LBs, Rbs or Safeties to excel as rookies, but I don't think that it's any more rare for a WR to excel as a rookie than it is for any rookie to excel as a rookie.

ayjackson
04-26-2010, 10:14 PM
I feel like I had my cake and ate it this year in the draft. It's usually my mind saying "build the lines" and my heart saying "pick some glamour/skill guys". This year I got both - Walton and Beadles for the trenches and Thomas and Decker for some flash. I couldn't be happier. Throw in a toy-Tebow and a couple value corners and....well there you go, I wet myself again!

TheReverend
04-26-2010, 10:19 PM
x y z mainly are just to designate what part of the field the WR is going to be on.

x- generally the strong side
y- the slot or inside wr
z- weakside wr

But I could have those mixed up. When it comes to the route tree it's hard to say what Josh wants to do. Some accomplished WR will run every route in the book from all 3 spots. Boldin goes in the slot, outside, or at least he did.

Marshall obviously didn't run a lot of 9 routes because he was poor with his back to qb. Royal not really long enough to get deep. Hard to throw to short guys deep.

Generally speaking, you have that right. It's refreshing to see someone label it properly

R8R H8R
04-26-2010, 10:20 PM
My hope for Thomas is that he becomes the WR that Lelie never did.

Lomax
04-26-2010, 11:33 PM
x y z mainly are just to designate what part of the field the WR is going to be on.

x- generally the strong side
y- the slot or inside wr
z- weakside wr

But I could have those mixed up. When it comes to the route tree it's hard to say what Josh wants to do. Some accomplished WR will run every route in the book from all 3 spots. Boldin goes in the slot, outside, or at least he did.

Marshall obviously didn't run a lot of 9 routes because he was poor with his back to qb. Royal not really long enough to get deep. Hard to throw to short guys deep.

This is off. X is the flanker, who lines up on the LOS. Y is the split end on the strong side. Z is the slot.

OABB
04-26-2010, 11:36 PM
This thread needs more tebow. I just Got to have more tebow.

cutthemdown
04-27-2010, 12:19 AM
This is off. X is the flanker, who lines up on the LOS. Y is the split end on the strong side. Z is the slot.

I'm no expert but can't the WR that lines up on LOS change. I mean don't you see formations where they change that up? I know you have to have 7 on the LOS but I don't think it says that the WR that is on LOS has to be on the SS or the weakside, or even the slot.

But you are probably right I got them mixed up. What's important is Broncos didn't have any young WR particualry good at playing with there backs to the QB. Hopefully these new WR will be more techinical in there routes and more versatlile in how they get downfield.

Marshall was more then run out 7 yrd, turn, catch the ball, turn straight arm defender, run for 4-5 yrds then get tackled. He wasn't very slick when it came to catching the ball behind the defense.

Frisian
04-27-2010, 12:25 AM
I have always been a glass half full type of fan, but this draft has me more excited than ever for the season to start.
I love both of our these receivers. I think we are building a classy team that will be fun to watch

Old Dude
04-27-2010, 09:10 AM
Thomas and Decker, judging by ther wonderlic scores, are a couple of very bright guys. Combined with their physical tools and their opportunities to see action here, I think that they are going to be fast learners.

And yes, it's going to be fun rooting on a couple of guys who aren't prima donnas or trouble-makers.

TheReverend
04-27-2010, 09:12 AM
This is off. X is the flanker, who lines up on the LOS. Y is the split end on the strong side. Z is the slot.

No, it's not.

X is actually the SPLIT END and it's the SE that lines up on the LOS

Y is the tight end spot, but also refers to the slot split out termed "Y open"

Z is the flanker who plays off the LOS

Chris
04-27-2010, 09:17 AM
No, it's not.

X is actually the SPLIT END and it's the SE that lines up on the LOS

Y is the tight end spot, but also refers to the slot split out termed "Y open"

Z is the flanker who plays off the LOS

Where can I learn X's and O's like this online?

TheReverend
04-27-2010, 09:19 AM
Where can I learn X's and O's like this online?

I have no idea. Get younger and play is the best advice I can give?

SportinOne
04-27-2010, 09:24 AM
Thomas looks pretty good. Not quite as physical as Marshall but makes up for it by being quite a bit faster. Excited to see how he does.

Decker on the other hand... He has so many good attributes but the guy is probably slower than Tony Scheffler. All i'm saying.

Also, Brandon Lloyd didn't look too bad out there last year. I wouldn't count on Thomas or Decker starting for quite a while.

SportinOne
04-27-2010, 09:26 AM
I have no idea. Get younger and play is the best advice I can give?

lol... or just google it. I'm sure it's not that hard to A. find, B. learn

Rohirrim
04-27-2010, 09:28 AM
http://www.spreadoffense.com/multimedia/ssp_images/Chris_JailBreak_Screen_3.jpg

http://www.spreadoffense.com/ssp/home

;D

Rohirrim
04-27-2010, 09:37 AM
I like this one:

http://www.spreadoffense.com/multimedia/ssp_images/Spread_Shovel_Option_Diagram.jpg

DawnBTVS
04-27-2010, 10:03 AM
I really like the depth at WR that the Broncos have right now. You have proven role players who can provide 10-35 catches in Jabar Gaffney, Brandon Stokley, and Brandon Lloyd while you have a slot threat in Eddie Royal and two rookies who can step in immediately in Thomas and Decker. Then, you also have McKinley who's had a year to develop from last year.

That's 7 receivers and now you have added size too. I don't think one can say that Orton/Quinn/Brandstater/Tebow won't have a lot of weapons to choose from between the WRs, RBs, and even the TEs.

Drek
04-27-2010, 10:32 AM
No, it's not.

X is actually the SPLIT END and it's the SE that lines up on the LOS

Y is the tight end spot, but also refers to the slot split out termed "Y open"

Z is the flanker who plays off the LOS

This is what's generally used.

But it gets real ****ed up with some offenses, like the spread McDaniels runs. I've heard McDaniels refer to Moss as playing the X WR role in New England for example, but he's also lined up off the LOS before which is typical of a Z, and he's often on the TE side which is also typical of the Z.

I've seen him do with with Welker as well, referring to him as both the Y and the Z. This is probably a result of Welker being their #2 WR though, so in 2 WR packages he's the Z and in 3 WR packages he goes to the slot and is the Y. That is when Moss most often lines up as the Z, so the role reversals make some sense there.

Going by this more traditional way of breaking it down I think the general concept of our draft is to use Thomas in a similar role to Randy Moss as our deep threat, Royal in the Welker role as our #2 WR but moving to the slot on 3 WR packages, and Decker with be developed behind Gaffney as the #3 WR, which for McDaniels typically means seeing the field as the X in 3 WR sets.

TheReverend
04-27-2010, 10:55 AM
This is what's generally used.

But it gets real ****ed up with some offenses, like the spread McDaniels runs. I've heard McDaniels refer to Moss as playing the X WR role in New England for example, but he's also lined up off the LOS before which is typical of a Z, and he's often on the TE side which is also typical of the Z.

I've seen him do with with Welker as well, referring to him as both the Y and the Z. This is probably a result of Welker being their #2 WR though, so in 2 WR packages he's the Z and in 3 WR packages he goes to the slot and is the Y. That is when Moss most often lines up as the Z, so the role reversals make some sense there.

Going by this more traditional way of breaking it down I think the general concept of our draft is to use Thomas in a similar role to Randy Moss as our deep threat, Royal in the Welker role as our #2 WR but moving to the slot on 3 WR packages, and Decker with be developed behind Gaffney as the #3 WR, which for McDaniels typically means seeing the field as the X in 3 WR sets.

EVERY team does this. This isn't middle school football. Do you want your primary read to have a free release, or do you want your primary read to option route off the coverage, are we using motion?, or do you want _____ (insert 10,000 scenarios), and it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Drek
04-27-2010, 11:51 AM
EVERY team does this. This isn't middle school football. Do you want your primary read to have a free release, or do you want your primary read to option route off the coverage, are we using motion?, or do you want _____ (insert 10,000 scenarios), and it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I know, it just makes it impossible to label specific players in terms of those roles, since you can hear McDaniels refer to them by different titles himself.

Trying to peg them down as X, Y, and Z attached to specific players doesn't work, and it especially doesn't work with how much McDaniels loves to bump his #2 guy into the slot (or at least did in NE).

We played a more traditional X, Y, and Z setup here last year than what McDaniels has called previously and this draft class looks like a big move towards changing that.