PDA

View Full Version : Broncos beefy, green, not as old as touted


Rulon Velvet Jones
09-16-2010, 11:05 AM
A LOOK AT 2010 NFL KICKOFF WEEKEND ROSTERS;
TEXAS LEADS ALL COLLEGES WITH 40 NFL PLAYERS

LONGHORNS LEAD THE WAY: The University of Texas has the most players on NFL Kickoff 2010 rosters with 40, the NFL announced today. Last year, Texas ranked third with 37 players on Kickoff Weekend rosters.

A total of 242 colleges were represented on Kickoff 2010 Weekend rosters. The top 10 colleges with the most players in the NFL:

COLLEGE PLAYERS COLLEGE PLAYERS
Texas 40 Florida 33
Miami 38 Georgia 33
Southern California 36 Tennessee 33
Louisiana State 35 California 31
Ohio State 34 Michigan 29

Following is a breakdown by position of colleges with the most players in the NFL:

POS. SCHOOL PLAYERS POS. SCHOOL PLAYERS
C Boston College, Iowa, Louisiana State, Mississippi, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Oregon State 2 DT Michigan State, Penn State, Tennessee,
Texas A&M 5
G Alabama, Nebraska, Texas 4 DE Georgia 6
T Miami 5 LB Miami 9
TE Miami 4 DB Ohio State 10
QB Southern California 4 P Ball State, Tennessee 2
RB Louisiana State 5 K Florida State, North Carolina, Washington State 2
WR Florida, Ohio State 6


THE TALL AND SHORT OF IT: On NFL Kickoff rosters, there were 259 players weighing 200 pounds or less, 313 players under six feet tall, and 377 players weighing at least 300 pounds.


Chicago and Cincinnati each have 12 players weighing 200 pounds or less, the league’s highest total in that category. Atlanta has the most players under six-feet tall with 14. Dallas has 17 players weighing 300 pounds or more, the most in the league. Following is a team-by-team player dimension breakdown based on 2010 Kickoff rosters:
AFC

TEAM 200 LBS. OR LESS UNDER 6-FEET 300-POUNDERS
Baltimore 7 9 14
Buffalo 10 11 13
Cincinnati 12 11 12
Cleveland 4 11 11
Denver 11 10 15
Houston 7 9 9
Indianapolis 9 13 11
Jacksonville 10 9 10
Kansas City 9 8 9
Miami 5 8 12
New England 8 13 12
NY Jets 5 11 13
Oakland 7 8 13
Pittsburgh 9 11 13
San Diego 7 9 14
Tennessee 10 10 8

NFC

TEAM 200 LBS. OR LESS UNDER 6-FEET 300-POUNDERS
Arizona 9 9 13
Atlanta 9 14 9
Carolina 8 12 7
Chicago 12 10 10
Dallas 4 7 17
Detroit 9 10 11
Green Bay 7 7 14
Minnesota 7 7 12
New Orleans 9 10 9
NY Giants 7 5 13
Philadelphia 8 11 14
St. Louis 7 9 12
San Francisco 8 7 12
Seattle 10 13 13
Tampa Bay 6 9 10
Washington 9 12 12


HEIGHT, WEIGHT & AGE AVERAGES FOR 2010 AFC & NFC ROSTERS

AFC
Team Height Weight Age Experience Rookie & 1st year Players Age 30 & Over
Baltimore 6.15 253.64 * 26.77 4.89 8 9
Buffalo 6.15 246.81 26.51 4.28 11 9
Cincinnati 6.19 251.53 26.25 4.08 9 8
Cleveland 6.17 250.60 27.49 * 5.23 * 6 18 *
Denver 6.16 248.98 26.43 4.19 15 * 11
Houston 6.18 249.26 25.98 3.91 10 5
Indianapolis 6.10 246.06 26.08 4.09 12 10
Jacksonville 6.06 + 242.98 25.58 + 3.60 11 8
Kansas City 6.15 246.43 25.98 4.04 13 8
Miami 6.22 253.62 25.77 3.47 + 13 4 +
New England 6.13 247.87 26.34 4.19 13 12
NY Jets 6.17 251.72 27.06 4.85 11 12
Oakland 6.23 * 248.28 26.51 4.32 10 11
Pittsburgh 6.15 247.70 26.43 5.17 9 17
San Diego 6.17 251.81 27.11 4.92 4 + 11
Tennessee 6.18 241.51 + 26.19 4.11 10 8
AFC Average 6.16 248.68 26.44 4.30 10.3 9.7
NFC Average 6.17 247.57 26.46 4.40 10.6 10.1
All NFL Average 6.16 248.13 26.45 4.35 10.5 9.9

* AFC high
+ AFC low



NFC
Team Height Weight Age Experience Rookie & 1st year Players Age 30 & Over
Arizona 6.18 247.23 26.55 4.36 12 11
Atlanta 6.14 245.66 26.70 4.53 12 12
Carolina 6.13 + 243.30 25.15 + 3.30 + 12 5 +
Chicago 6.15 242.25 + 27.15 5.42 10 13
Dallas 6.22 * 255.98 * 26.30 4.30 13 10
Detroit 6.17 247.00 26.34 4.36 7 9
Green Bay 6.16 250.43 25.92 4.06 11 7
Minnesota 6.19 248.28 27.38 5.28 6 + 14
New Orleans 6.14 242.38 26.66 4.68 9 10
NY Giants 6.22 * 247.53 26.36 4.40 8 8
Philadelphia 6.13 + 251.09 26.00 3.89 12 6
St. Louis 6.17 248.98 26.04 3.66 14 9
San Francisco 6.18 247.64 26.74 5.02 10 15 *
Seattle 6.14 247.91 26.66 4.32 10 10
Tampa Bay 6.17 244.60 25.58 3.43 15 * 7
Washington 6.16 250.79 27.70 * 5.43 * 8 15 *
NFC Average 6.17 247.57 26.46 4.40 10.6 10.1
AFC Average 6.16 248.68 26.44 4.30 10.3 9.7
All NFL Average 6.16 248.13 26.45 4.35 10.5 9.9

* NFC high
+ NFC low


Sorry if that's hard to read.

All in all, it shows that Denver brings some beef, having the 2nd most 300-lbers in the league (15, compared to Cowboys with 17). Average age is 26.43, right in line with the NFL average. They support an AFC-high 15 rookie or 1st-year players and employ 11 guys over the age of 30 (slightly above league average, but far from teams like the Steelers[17] or Browns [18]).

It's good to see the amount of size growing on this team and there are numbers to support that they aren't necessarily an "old" team. The defense seems to hold the higher number of "old" guys on this team, but there is youth waiting to support the future. Keep turning that over through the draft and FA and these vets will eventually give way to strong, young players that aren't necessarily green when it's their time to play.

Dedhed
09-16-2010, 11:14 AM
Hopefully that size pays off as the season wears on. As we all know, we've been undersized for a decade or more, and we've faded down the stretch in pretty much every one of those years.

Maybe with the beef to bully teams, we'll see the opposite trend this year.

PRBronco
09-16-2010, 11:18 AM
15 300 pounders is glorious.

The Joker
09-16-2010, 11:21 AM
The offense is very young, Daniel Graham is the only player who sees significant playing time who is over the age of 30.

The defense is an old unit though, no getting around it. All our starting DB's are in their 30's, two of our starting D-Line are in their 30's. We have some young DB's who might develop into players one day (McBath looks the best bet of the bunch if he can stay healthy), but nothing really to get excited about on the D-Line. If we don't address the DL at least twice with our first 4 picks next year, I'll be annoyed. We need young talent there, and soon.

The bright spot is our LB's. Dumervil, DJ and Ayers look like they could be fixtures in the D for years to come.

We have 4 picks in the first three rounds next year. If any more than one of them is spent on offense then I'll be pretty pissed off.

Drek
09-16-2010, 11:22 AM
You could have put those tables in as code and not had them look like ****, FYI.

But appreciated info, very interesting and definitely a great discussion to have. Raw numbers can be a bit disingenuous, but when you consider that the supposedly "old" DL has a starter and the primary backup in their mid-20's it is largely backed up by observation.

Rulon Velvet Jones
09-16-2010, 11:23 AM
You could have put those tables in as code and not had them look like ****, FYI.

I would have if I'd known how to, obviously. Feel free to do so.

gyldenlove
09-16-2010, 11:47 AM
Why isn't Purdue listed on QB? they have 2 and both are starters.

Traveler
09-16-2010, 11:49 AM
We have 4 picks in the first three rounds next year. If any more than one of them is spent on offense then I'll be pretty pissed off.

Even with the acquisition of Maroney, RB should be addressed in the second or third rounds IMO.

Moreno remains the starter. Buckhalter is probably in his last stint with the team. Lendale White & Maroney might be kept on as our big short yardage backs.

We need a RB with speed to put pressure on the edges.

Having said that, I would be upset if they used all their choices on defense.

mkporter
09-16-2010, 11:50 AM
Sorry if that's hard to read.


Looks interesting. Do you have the link so we can see in the original format?

TonyR
09-16-2010, 11:54 AM
Even with the acquisition of Maroney, RB should be addressed in the second or third rounds IMO.

They could also consider a RT to replace Harris in the first few rounds unless he gets healthy this year.

Drek
09-16-2010, 11:58 AM
I would have if I'd known how to, obviously. Feel free to do so.

Didn't include your source URL.

Drek
09-16-2010, 12:01 PM
They could also consider a RT to replace Harris in the first few rounds unless he gets healthy this year.

Zane Beadles. He was rough on Sunday but its the first action he's pretty much ever seen at RT and he had to go against a former pro-bowler with limited help.

Beadles is here because the FO saw him as a guy who'd either win a starting job out of camp or be a good backup to four of the five starting OL positions, maybe even all 5 if he picks up some time at center.

Rulon Velvet Jones
09-16-2010, 12:01 PM
Didn't include your source URL.

I received it in an NFL email. It was in a .doc.

PRBronco
09-16-2010, 12:08 PM
.

Beadles is here because the FO saw him as a guy who'd either win a starting job out of camp or be a good backup to four of the five starting OL positions, maybe even all 5 if he picks up some time at center.

Zane Beadles = Bruce Matthews? :O You know you're thinking it :D

Rohirrim
09-16-2010, 12:11 PM
I had to admit, it was pretty impressive watching the Ratbirds throw all that weight around against the Jets. It just wore them down.

Drek
09-16-2010, 12:44 PM
I received it in an NFL email. It was in a .doc.

Well, you can basically put the following around it, minus the asterisks:
[*code]

[*/code]

And it should maintain formatting. But the quoted sections in your post do not contain the original formatting data so someone who doesn't have the original .doc would be SOL.

DeuceOfClub
09-16-2010, 12:46 PM
AFC

TEAM 200 LBS. OR LESS UNDER 6-FEET 300-POUNDERS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore 7 9 14
Buffalo 10 11 13
Cincinnati 12 11 12
Cleveland 4 11 11
Denver 11 10 15
Houston 7 9 9
Indianapolis 9 13 11
Jacksonville 10 9 10
Kansas City 9 8 9
Miami 5 8 12
New England 8 13 12
NY Jets 5 11 13
Oakland 7 8 13
Pittsburgh 9 11 13
San Diego 7 9 14
Tennessee 10 10 8

Swedish Extrovert
09-16-2010, 01:05 PM
If we don't address the DL at least twice with our first 4 picks next year, I'll be annoyed.

Uh-oh

TonyR
09-16-2010, 01:07 PM
Zane Beadles.

Wouldn't you prefer he end up at G? Don't you think he's better suited inside?

gtown
09-16-2010, 01:27 PM
AFC

TEAM 200 LBS. OR LESS UNDER 6-FEET 300-POUNDERS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore 7 9 14
Buffalo 10 11 13
Cincinnati 12 11 12
Cleveland 4 11 11
Denver 11 10 15
Houston 7 9 9
Indianapolis 9 13 11
Jacksonville 10 9 10
Kansas City 9 8 9
Miami 5 8 12
New England 8 13 12
NY Jets 5 11 13
Oakland 7 8 13
Pittsburgh 9 11 13
San Diego 7 9 14
Tennessee 10 10 8


It would be interesting to see how these lighter teams have done down the stretch the last few years. I am not sold that having a heavier team = more wins after week nine.

Drek
09-16-2010, 01:29 PM
Wouldn't you prefer he end up at G? Don't you think he's better suited inside?

Why? He played primarily LT in college. He's got a very diverse, well rounded skill set.

If Stanley Daniels has established himself as the long term LG (he's only 25) Beadles should be groomed to be a jack of all trades with the potential long term role coming as Ryan Harris' replacement.

TonyR
09-16-2010, 01:32 PM
Why?

Primarily because I recall the pre-draft scouting grading him out fairly high as a pro guard prospect but not as well as a pro tackle prospect.

cutthemdown
09-16-2010, 01:32 PM
Beadles didn't look very good but we will have to wait and see. The oline is a total mess and most likely is going to submarine the first part of the season.

The bad new is later when we play they good teams it could really get ugly.

Dedhed
09-16-2010, 01:40 PM
Wouldn't you prefer he end up at G? Don't you think he's better suited inside?

Absolutely. I don't think they have any intention of keeping him on the edge once Harris is healthy; and I would be shocked if the long term plan doesn't have him playing inside.

Dedhed
09-16-2010, 01:47 PM
Beadles didn't look very good but we will have to wait and see. The oline is a total mess and most likely is going to submarine the first part of the season.

The bad new is later when we play they good teams it could really get ugly.
I'm not too worried about the OL in all honesty. We had two players in their first NFL game, and one was playing out of position. Clady is less than 100% both in his knee and in conditioning.

Even Clady looked rough in his first real game, but adjusted quickly. I think that between Clady getting healthy, Harris getting back in the lineup, and developing some continuity, the improvement will be noticeable every week.

Chris
09-16-2010, 02:08 PM
t sounds reactionary to say this but we need a Mccluster type in the draft next year ;)

The MVPlaya
09-18-2010, 03:59 AM
Why? He played primarily LT in college. He's got a very diverse, well rounded skill set.

If Stanley Daniels has established himself as the long term LG (he's only 25) Beadles should be groomed to be a jack of all trades with the potential long term role coming as Ryan Harris' replacement.

Problem with that is if/when Tebow starts, I'm not sure you'd want Beadles protecting your blind side, with his short arms and all. Ideally you'd want a super star at RT with a left handed QB.