PDA

View Full Version : Zone Blocking Scheme


Al Wilson
09-27-2010, 07:08 PM
Anybody else think we should've left it as it was and never changed it to a power blocking scheme ?? I dunno about everyone else, but it's so frustrating having to watch us struggle to run the ball. I don't understand why McDaniels even ****ed around and changed it when it was working best for us ... I'm tired of this 50 yard rushing per game crap.

Kaylore
09-27-2010, 07:10 PM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.

bowtown
09-27-2010, 07:12 PM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.

Plus our short yardage/goaline running was equally as bad with the ZBS.

Al Wilson
09-27-2010, 07:12 PM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.
I'm talking about the running game Kaylore ... why not just zone block when you're running the ball? I like the man to man pass protection, but why not just zone block when running the ball like before ??

WolfpackGuy
09-27-2010, 07:13 PM
Plus our short yardage/goaline running was equally as bad with the ZBS.

:spit:

bowtown
09-27-2010, 07:14 PM
:spit:

Ummm did you watch the Broncos in 2007 and 2008?

WolfpackGuy
09-27-2010, 07:16 PM
Anybody else think we should've left it as it was and never changed it to a power blocking scheme ?? I dunno about everyone else, but it's so frustrating having to watch us struggle to run the ball. I don't understand why McDaniels even ****ed around and changed it when it was working best for us ... I'm tired of this 50 yard rushing per game crap.

A team went 18-0 with this very same offense.

And got smacked the **** down in the Super Bowl because the defense knew they didn't have to fear the run.

dsmoot
09-27-2010, 07:17 PM
Anybody else think we should've left it as it was and never changed it to a power blocking scheme ?? I dunno about everyone else, but it's so frustrating having to watch us struggle to run the ball. I don't understand why McDaniels even ****ed around and changed it when it was working best for us ... I'm tired of this 50 yard rushing per game crap.

You don't have to remember far back. We stunk it up the last 3 years or so in the red zone with zone blocking under Shanny. It worked great in 97/98 because we had outstanding players on the OL. When the talent level dropped so did the red zone effectiveness. In tight spaces, you have to move the guy across from you, pure and simple. Finesse doesn't get it done. That is why we struggled with physical teams. I think when McD came to Denver, it stood out like a sore thumb. Hence the transition to physical OL - similar to NE.

briane
09-27-2010, 07:17 PM
Happy Birthday Crushaholic!

bowtown
09-27-2010, 07:17 PM
A team went 18-0 with this very same offense.
And got smacked the **** down in the Super Bowl because the defense knew they didn't have to fear the run.

I bolded the stupid part of your argument.

WolfpackGuy
09-27-2010, 07:20 PM
Ummm did you watch the Broncos in 2007 and 2008?

So this is better?

Hell, at least those teams could score a rushing TD once in awhile from farther than 1 yard out.

bowtown
09-27-2010, 07:21 PM
So this is better?

Hell, at least those teams could score a rushing TD once in awhile from farther than 1 yard out.

No they couldn't, not on the ground. And where did I say it is better?

Dagmar
09-27-2010, 07:22 PM
A team went 18-0 with this very same offense.

And got smacked the **** down in the Super Bowl because the defense knew they didn't have to fear the run.

How can you say that as a bad thing? Are you so blinded by immaturity and hatred?

Dedhed
09-27-2010, 07:24 PM
Anybody else think we should've left it as it was and never changed it to a power blocking scheme ?? I dunno about everyone else, but it's so frustrating having to watch us struggle to run the ball. I don't understand why McDaniels even ****ed around and changed it when it was working best for us ... I'm tired of this 50 yard rushing per game crap.
You have watched the short yardage and red zone performances over the last decade right?

Look, the OL is young and in the very beginning stages of a new system. People need to relax. These things take time, but I love the direction we're headed, and vastly prefer big beefy OL to the finesse scheme that we were running.

The league has passed the ZBS by, and we saw the futility of trying to hold onto it for comfort's sake over the last decade.

Al Wilson
09-27-2010, 07:29 PM
You have watched the short yardage and red zone performances over the last decade right?

Look, the OL is young and in the very beginning stages of a new system. People need to relax. These things take time, but I love the direction we're headed, and vastly prefer big beefy OL to the finesse scheme that we were running.

The league has passed the ZBS by, and we saw the futility of trying to hold onto it for comfort's sake over the last decade.
Yes I have watched us struggle on short yardage and red zone running the ball when we played the ZBS. However, we currently have 3 big starters (Harris, Clady and Kuper) who are powerful and more than capable of playing this scheme (and I do think they are better at it instead of the power scheme). Why not just zone block when running the ball with this offensive line instead of trying to teach them something they weren't accustomed to or isn't working.

broncocalijohn
09-27-2010, 07:29 PM
I'm talking about the running game Kaylore ... why not just zone block when you're running the ball? I like the man to man pass protection, but why not just zone block when running the ball like before ??

So bring another set of 4 guys that are 30 pounds lighter to let the other team know we are running and it will be a ZBS. Sure, that will work.

Dedhed
09-27-2010, 07:30 PM
A team went 18-0 with this very same offense.


You can't really be dumb enough to use this as a reason not to run this offense are you?

Seriously, please tell me you forgot your

B/C if that really is what you're saying, well, there just aren't words to describe how dumb that is.

Seriously. That's dumb. Like hand in a running blender, knife in a toaster, hairdryer in a bath tub, stupid.

Like, it really doesn't get dumber. Like painful to think that you're allowed near a computer dumb.

Seriously.

bowtown
09-27-2010, 07:32 PM
You can't really be dumb enough to use this as a reason not to run this offense are you?

Seriously, please tell me you forgot your

B/C if that really is what you're saying, well, there just aren't words to describe how dumb that is.

Seriously. That's dumb. Like hand in a running blender, knife in a toaster, hairdryer in a bath tub, stupid.

Like, it really doesn't get dumber. Like painful to think that you're allowed near a computer dumb.

Seriously.

Plus NE didn't get "smacked the **** down" in the Super Bowl. Apparently he didn't watch that either.

Lev Vyvanse
09-27-2010, 07:32 PM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.

Was that in 2008 when we were 1st sacks given up or 2005 and 2004 when we were 3rd in sacks given up?

Al Wilson
09-27-2010, 07:32 PM
So bring another set of guys that are 30 pounds lighter to let the other team know we are running and it will be a ZBS. Sure, that will work.
No. Stay with the same guys. Remember Shanahan drafted Harris, Kuper and Clady and they're pretty damn good playing the ZBS. I'm definitely sure the other 2 guys (Walton and Beadles would do well too).

This is just my opinion and I stand by it. It's dissapointing to see this team struggle to run the ball

Br0nc0Buster
09-27-2010, 07:34 PM
what was the problem with our offense with Shanny?
move the ball down the field but struggle in the redzone

what is our problem on offense now?
move the ball down the field but struggle in the redzone

I fail to see how a zone blocking scheme would help that when we used to run it and had the same problems

personally I think PBS and ZBS both have their pros and cons, I think both can work

but implying a ZBS to help with redzone woes doesnt seem like a good strategy

WolfpackGuy
09-27-2010, 07:36 PM
You can't really be dumb enough to use this as a reason not to run this offense are you?

Seriously, please tell me you forgot your

B/C if that really is what you're saying, well, there just aren't words to describe how dumb that is.

Seriously. That's dumb. Like hand in a running blender, knife in a toaster, hairdryer in a bath tub, stupid.

Like, it really doesn't get dumber. Like painful to think that you're allowed near a computer dumb.

Seriously.

Feel better?

Dedhed
09-27-2010, 07:37 PM
Yes I have watched us struggle on short yardage and red zone running the ball when we played the ZBS. However, we currently have 3 big starters (Harris, Clady and Kuper) who are powerful and more than capable of playing this scheme (and I do think they are better at it instead of the power scheme). Why not just zone block when running the ball with this offensive line instead of trying to teach them something they weren't accustomed to or isn't working.

Actually, we have 0 big OL at 100%, and one of those (the best run blocker) hasn't seen the field at all. Add in 2 rookies, and regardless of the scheme there are going to be struggles.

The ZBS doesn't work in the NFL any more. You're basically asking whether we should commit to continued mediocrity in favor of struggling now for a chance at actually being competitive for championships again in the long run.

I'll take the latter.

WolfpackGuy
09-27-2010, 07:38 PM
Plus NE didn't get "smacked the **** down" in the Super Bowl. Apparently he didn't watch that either.

14 points by the greatest offense the league had ever seen.

Brady eating turf every other play.

Did you watch it?

Missouribronc
09-27-2010, 07:38 PM
Just turn your television on tonight, and you'll see why its not smart to try to use a ZBS system in a pass-heavy offense. Rodgers gets killed because of it. As did Plummer in 2007.

Zone blocking was specifically designed to counteract the 4-3 movement in the 90s, and it flourished. It was strictly designed to counteract the idea of four guys directly on the line of scrimmage, with defenders sitting in the same specific assignment lanes play after play. It was perfect against the Tampa Two and other 4-3 schemed defenses.

Now that the 3-4 has taken hold again, its no surprise that strictly ZBS run-blocking systems have failed to produce, especially in the red zone. Defenders are switching gaps, and with just three down linemen, there's more players on the defense that aren't immediately engaged, making cut back blocks more difficult.

While none of us like the execution of the current system, moving away from a completely ZBS oriented system was necessary.

gyldenlove
09-27-2010, 07:49 PM
It all comes down to talent, if you have 5 great offensive linemen you can run any system you want. Look at how Seattle ran the zone system and got to the super bowl because they had all-pros.

Unfortunately if you don't have at least 2 all-pros on your line you are more limited and have to choose what you want to be good at. We choose to have bigger linemen who can pass protect 1 on 1, and in return we give up some of the mobility necesary to zone block effectively. Other teams choose to give up the ability to block 1 on 1 effectively in the passing game to get more mobility and help their run game.

With the shift towards more 3-4 and the bigger defensive linemen that brings the smaller zone blocking teams find it harder to run consistently and harder to pass block because you can no longer be sure that you can occupy a defender and then move on to the next zone.

Power blocking is hard because it entails 1 on 1 a lot which means the talent difference between offensive line and defensive line will be exposed, so if your offensive line is not more powerful than the defensive line they will not create gaps.

Missouribronc
09-27-2010, 08:12 PM
Not many teams are going to have two All-Pros on their offensive line. The good news is that Denver has one, though he's battling injury to begin this season. Clady is versatile like Hutchinson, which is who I'm guessing you're referring to.

The issue now is getting the bookend tackle back in Harris and the interior line getting sured up.

Every team uses some ZBS, so its not completely gone, and McDaniels said that himself after the game. Using both power and zone could keep defenses off balance. I wish McDaniels would go more power, but with personnel, he obviously can't do that right now.

LRtagger
09-27-2010, 08:23 PM
A team went 18-0 with this very same offense.

greatest offense the league had ever seen.


What exactly am I missing here :kiddingme

The Giants played out of their minds that game. Good on them. It doesn't discredit the offense or the power blocking scheme. They still won 18 straight games and broke all sorts of records.

And that same offense won 3 super bowls in four years.

You are doing a poor job trying to discredit the scheme.

Cito Pelon
09-27-2010, 08:30 PM
Denver is running a hybrid ZBS, same as many teams do.

UberBroncoMan
09-27-2010, 08:48 PM
Just going to throw out that we were one of the LEAST SACKED TEAMS in the NFL when running ZBS for those saying the pass protection sucked. What sucked with ZBS was pushing in on the goal line.

lostknight
09-27-2010, 08:56 PM
We will not win games with a 2.0 yards per attempt rushing attack. Won't happen. Kyle Orton could rip of his neckbeard, and reveal himself to be Tom Brady and Peyton Mannings love child, and we would still loose the game.

lostknight
09-27-2010, 08:57 PM
Just going to throw out that we were one of the LEAST SACKED TEAMS in the NFL when running ZBS for those saying the pass protection sucked. What sucked with ZBS was pushing in on the goal line.

To be fair, we still were one of the least sacked teams last year, as well as the team with the lowest number of pressures. This offensive line is really damn good at protection, and that's all that Josh is really asking them to do.

Runners are on their own, at least this year we actually use a fullback now and then to help out.

Lev Vyvanse
09-27-2010, 09:05 PM
To be fair, we still were one of the least sacked teams last year, as well as the team with the lowest number of pressures. This offensive line is really damn good at protection, and that's all that Josh is really asking them to do.

Runners are on their own, at least this year we actually use a fullback now and then to help out.

We were middle of the pack. If you don't like the Broncos in 2008, 2005 and 2004 look at the Texans before and after the ZB scheme.

mwill07
09-27-2010, 09:06 PM
It all comes down to talent, if you have 5 great offensive linemen you can run any system you want. Look at how Seattle ran the zone system and got to the super bowl because they had all-pros.

Unfortunately if you don't have at least 2 all-pros on your line you are more limited and have to choose what you want to be good at. We choose to have bigger linemen who can pass protect 1 on 1, and in return we give up some of the mobility necesary to zone block effectively. Other teams choose to give up the ability to block 1 on 1 effectively in the passing game to get more mobility and help their run game.

With the shift towards more 3-4 and the bigger defensive linemen that brings the smaller zone blocking teams find it harder to run consistently and harder to pass block because you can no longer be sure that you can occupy a defender and then move on to the next zone.

Power blocking is hard because it entails 1 on 1 a lot which means the talent difference between offensive line and defensive line will be exposed, so if your offensive line is not more powerful than the defensive line they will not create gaps.
this is what I'm thinking. Talent/experience working together is more important that scheme.

Cito Pelon
09-27-2010, 09:12 PM
this is what I'm thinking. Talent/experience working together is more important that scheme.

Hey, weren't you saying what a hopelessly slow of foot QB Orton is? I remember something like that from you.

loborugger
09-27-2010, 09:20 PM
A lot of good points made in the thread, so I wont repeat them. Instead, I will just say this. The ZBS was great for getting us 6 yards on 1st and 10. It was also great for getting us 2 yards on 3rd and 3. So I am not overly disappointed in seeing it go.

Taco John
09-27-2010, 09:24 PM
I've thought it was a mistake since we first did it. However, I don't think a quarterback like Orton could have flourished in a ZBS scheme.

Taco John
09-27-2010, 09:25 PM
A lot of good points made in the thread, so I wont repeat them. Instead, I will just say this. The ZBS was great for getting us 6 yards on 1st and 10. It was also great for getting us 2 yards on 3rd and 3. So I am not overly disappointed in seeing it go.

It was also great for getting us two superbowl trophies.

Archer81
09-27-2010, 09:26 PM
It was also great for getting us two superbowl trophies.


Yup, it was.


:Broncos:

mwill07
09-27-2010, 09:27 PM
Hey, weren't you saying what a hopelessly slow of foot QB Orton is? I remember something like that from you.

really doubt it. I don't think I post enough here to be remembered, but that doesn't sound familiar.

loborugger
09-27-2010, 09:31 PM
Yup, it was.


:Broncos:

Werd.

We had a HOF QB, a HOF level RB (had he stuck around long enough), and HOF/ROF quality players on the OL in a couple of positions with Zimm, Stink, and Nails. And Gibbs was a great assessor of talent. All that put together created a moment in time.

Archer81
09-27-2010, 09:34 PM
Werd.

We had a HOF QB, a HOF level RB (had he stuck around long enough), and HOF/ROF quality players on the OL in a couple of positions with Zimm, Stink, and Nails. And Gibbs was a great assessor of talent. All that put together created a moment in time.


I will say this about Mike Shanahan.

Those first four seasons were pure magic. The man could do no wrong. He gave us superbowl titles.

But the ZBS is not the scheme that fits today's NFL. We needed the change. May fortune smile on our dusty cow town once again.

:Broncos:

mwill07
09-27-2010, 09:35 PM
Werd.

We had a HOF QB, a HOF level RB (had he stuck around long enough), and HOF/ROF quality players on the OL in a couple of positions with Zimm, Stink, and Nails. And Gibbs was a great assessor of talent. All that put together created a moment in time.

don't forget the HOF TE and ROF WR's (should be, anyways).

Al Wilson
09-27-2010, 09:38 PM
I've thought it was a mistake since we first did it. However, I don't think a quarterback like Orton could have flourished in a ZBS scheme.
I didn't mention ZBS for pass blocking. I don't care if they play man to man pass blocking, but why not zone block when running the ball? Isn't it so much better than what we have been seeing so far ? It's so sad ...

Cito Pelon
09-27-2010, 10:09 PM
really doubt it. I don't think I post enough here to be remembered, but that doesn't sound familiar.

My fault.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=2685461&highlight=slowest#post2685461

That was mr007.

Sorry.

All these variations on Bronco/Elway/TD screen names get me confused.

colonelbeef
09-27-2010, 10:13 PM
What exactly am I missing here :kiddingme

The Giants played out of their minds that game. Good on them. It doesn't discredit the offense or the power blocking scheme. They still won 18 straight games and broke all sorts of records.

And that same offense won 3 super bowls in four years.

You are doing a poor job trying to discredit the scheme.


No, it didn't. Completely false.

Those teams had balance, and were more reliant on good field position and a defense capable of turning the ball over. Brady was an afterthought.

Wes Mantooth
09-27-2010, 11:42 PM
Anybody else think we should've left it as it was and never changed it to a power blocking scheme ?? I dunno about everyone else, but it's so frustrating having to watch us struggle to run the ball. I don't understand why McDaniels even ****ed around and changed it when it was working best for us ... I'm tired of this 50 yard rushing per game crap.

Does not mix with what we are doing now.

LongDongJohnson
09-28-2010, 01:09 AM
its not the scheme its the players and their execution.

Look at shanny right now with his redskins. we all know shanny is the master of zone blocking but the redskins right now are one of the worst running teams in the NFL. He even has the mighty bobby turner on his side. yet they still suck.

Our offensive line is starting 2 rookies and a first year player. This is the first time they are starting together. They need some games to gel. its probably going to take the entire season before they are fully comfortable. however we should hopefully see week to week improvements.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 02:24 AM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.

Wrong.

Since 2003, this is how we've ranked in the league in pass protection according to Football Outsiders who adjust for the opponents pass rush:

2003 11th
2004 3rd
05 4th
06 9th
07 14th
08 4th

Only one year when the pass protection was average, other than that the ZBS was fine and typically very very good across multiple QBs, different OL and injuries to our OL.

I'm sure you already know that ZB isn't used in pass protection so it just comes down to how talented the OL are in pass protection rather than the run blocking system.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 02:43 AM
I didn't mention ZBS for pass blocking. I don't care if they play man to man pass blocking, but why not zone block when running the ball? Isn't it so much better than what we have been seeing so far ? It's so sad ...

It's not the system.

We still run plays based off the ZBS. Look at the play action passes, that trick play against Seattle and the entire OL was pulling in a counter direction from where Orton rolled out.

The problem has to do with coaching AND talent.

Sure we could run the ZBS between the 20's and then switch to a power game inside the redzone and IF it was as easy as that then every team including ourselves would be doing it.

The problem comes down to injuries to Harris/Kuper, players like Beadles out of position at RT, and no continuity along the OL.

But ALSO it comes down to coaching. These guys can coach up the OL into good pass protectors, use I/H formations to help in pass protection, design routes to get that ball out in less than 3 seconds and so on.

But right now, it's clear watching the interior that these guys are not getting leverage, not manuevering their defenders and failing to push the pile or get to the 2nd level quickly in the run game.

That's on coaching as well as the players.

I haven't watched Graham/Quinn precisely so I don't know what they're being asked to do on run plays so I can't comment on our TEs and how they're run blocking.

But the one guy that has stood out is Larsen who really puts his body on the line and hustles to be in the right place. He's not physically imposing but a great example of a guy who's getting the most out of his ability in his role as fullback.

When he hobbled off early in the Indy game it affected our run game.

LRtagger
09-28-2010, 04:43 AM
No, it didn't. Completely false.

Those teams had balance, and were more reliant on good field position and a defense capable of turning the ball over. Brady was an afterthought.

The conversation is in regards to ZBS vs PBS.

Did the Pats run straight ZBS when they won the SBs?



I'll answer for you. No.

LRtagger
09-28-2010, 04:44 AM
It was also great for getting us two superbowl trophies.

Very true, but I believe those were the last Super Bowls won by a team that ran zone blocking exclusively.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 05:01 AM
I think the ZBS if used well, Denver can go a large ways to fixing the current run game.

The biggest problem by far with our running game is that there are open defenders constantly around the line of scrimmage or in the back field.

This means that on most carries, no matter who the RB is, they have no clear lanes to run through and have defenders right there to bring them down. Sure, sometimes lanes have been open but the RBs have missed them but that happens to all RBs in all teams.

The whole point of the ZBS is that it negates stuffed/negative run plays because defenders can't just beat their man and go upfield since the whole line is moving at a slant in unison.

We've now lost two of the best coaches in Dennison/Turner and it clearly shows because the OL can't even do the fundamentals right in the run game.

Houston was nearly last in the league in the running game last year, in yards and average.

Now some no name RB along with pretty much the same OL has resulted in Houston having one of the top running games in the NFL.

Quick, how many OL can you name in Houston? Are they stocked with guys like Clady, Kuper, Harris or Graham?

They've already done that hard part in getting Dennison from us, and then in the offseason in drills, conditioning, practice and the results are there to see.

Just like our lack of results.

I don't blame McDaniels because Turner/Dennison left. Those guys wanted out and got out.

BUT I do blame McDaniels for not having viable replacements in an area where he's not an expert. I hate to say this, but when Shanahan was here and Gibbs left, there was always a plan in place for Dennison to learn and replace Gibbs and it worked great.

There was no such plan B with McDaniels and as a head coach he has that responsibility.

Rock Chalk
09-28-2010, 05:19 AM
Actually, we have 0 big OL at 100%, and one of those (the best run blocker) hasn't seen the field at all. Add in 2 rookies, and regardless of the scheme there are going to be struggles.

The ZBS doesn't work in the NFL any more. You're basically asking whether we should commit to continued mediocrity in favor of struggling now for a chance at actually being competitive for championships again in the long run.

I'll take the latter.

The ZBS works just fine in the NFL.

There are about 6 or 7 teams that use it primarily now, all are good run blocking teams, most struggle to protect on pass plays.

The key is to finding the right linemen that are big enough to use the PBS and athletic and fast enough to also run the ZBS. That's what we had from about 96 to 01, and why we were so damn effective at everything. Since then however, it has been difficult to find the type of guys that can actually play both. Clady, Kuper are two outstanding linemen that can, but can Harris? I think so but he cant stay healthy. Walton and Beadles may be able to but they are young still.

Give these guys some time to mesh together and I think we are going to make huge strides running the ball.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 05:33 AM
It was also great for getting us two superbowl trophies.

Over a decade ago with one of the greatest OLs ever assembled. It's been ineffective ever since.

chex
09-28-2010, 05:38 AM
Over a decade ago with one of the greatest OLs ever assembled. It's been ineffective ever since.

Pretty much. What did ZBS get us since? Oh yeah, one playoff win.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 05:53 AM
BUT I do blame McDaniels for not having viable replacements in an area where he's not an expert. I hate to say this, but when Shanahan was here and Gibbs left, there was always a plan in place for Dennison to learn and replace Gibbs and it worked great.

There was no such plan B with McDaniels and as a head coach he has that responsibility.
This makes no sense to me. We have a head coach who's changing every area of this team, and people expect every transition to happen immediately and flawlessly. It's absurd.

When Gibbs left, he left veteran guys to Dennison who had been running the same scheme for 15 years. That's called continuity. That doesn't come in 1 season, regardless of who the coach is.


It drives me nuts that people still think the Broncos were a contender under Shananhan and the outdated schemes he wanted to run; including the ZBS.

They look back with rose colored glasses to '97 and '98 when we had the best QB ever and a HOF RB, one of the greatest OLs in history as the reality of what Shanahan was and use it to prop up lame duck arguments for why we should stick with what Shanahan did.

Yet they gloss over the last 12 years, and Shanahan's utter mediocrity, as if it never happened. If the NFL stood for the Nostalgic Football League, they might have a leg to stand on, but this team was floundering under Shanny and in desperate need of change.

To now say, in the very first stages of transition, that the standard of mediocrity is preferable is brutally short sighted and more than a little inane to me.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 06:06 AM
This makes no sense to me. We have a head coach who's changing every area of this team, and people expect every transition to happen immediately and flawlessly. It's absurd.

No offense but you're exaggerating here. Most people were patient with Orton/Moreno/Ayers last year along with our 3-4 defense.

No one expects miracles overnight and I'm on record as saying that McDaniels deserves the full three years before he can be judged.

But it's pretty clear when a mistake has been made and not planning for an improved ground game when it was struggling last year is on the head coach.

I think every Bronco fan can understand this since we've had years of chopping and changing defensive coordinators/schemes virtually every off season when Shanahan was here and we know what results.

I don't want the same things happening with the running game and that starts with the HC.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 06:29 AM
But it's pretty clear when a mistake has been made and not planning for an improved ground game when it was struggling last year is on the head coach.

I don't want the same things happening with the running game and that starts with the HC.

How is he not planning for an improved ground game?

He just drafted a slew of players who better suit the scheme he wants to run, brought in coaches who know how to coach the new scheme, and is in the midst of fully transitioning from the ZBS that was so ineffective both last year and under Shanahan.

barryr
09-28-2010, 06:36 AM
This makes no sense to me. We have a head coach who's changing every area of this team, and people expect every transition to happen immediately and flawlessly. It's absurd.

When Gibbs left, he left veteran guys to Dennison who had been running the same scheme for 15 years. That's called continuity. That doesn't come in 1 season, regardless of who the coach is.


It drives me nuts that people still think the Broncos were a contender under Shananhan and the outdated schemes he wanted to run; including the ZBS.

They look back with rose colored glasses to '97 and '98 when we had the best QB ever and a HOF RB, one of the greatest OLs in history as the reality of what Shanahan was and use it to prop up lame duck arguments for why we should stick with what Shanahan did.

Yet they gloss over the last 12 years, and Shanahan's utter mediocrity, as if it never happened. If the NFL stood for the Nostalgic Football League, they might have a leg to stand on, but this team was floundering under Shanny and in desperate need of change.

To now say, in the very first stages of transition, that the standard of mediocrity is preferable is brutally short sighted and more than a little inane to me.

So true. After the Super Bowl wins, the franchise went a decade with 1 playoff win under Shanahan. Numerous DC and special team changes resulted in not much change with those units struggles as well. Poor drafting on the defensive side of the ball didn't help matters. Having to bring in Cleveland Brown rejects to fill the DL didn't result in big improvement either. People need to stop rewriting history and pretend Shanahan left a contender for McDaniels to ride and he just has screwed it up.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 07:04 AM
How is he not planning for an improved ground game?

He just drafted a slew of players who better suit the scheme he wants to run, brought in coaches who know how to coach the new scheme, and is in the midst of fully transitioning from the ZBS that was so ineffective both last year and under Shanahan.

1. When two rookies are asked to start along the OL you're already admitting there are going to be issues up front.

How often did we insert two rookies into the OL before?

2. Lloyd/Gaffney/Royal aren't blocking WRs.
3. Quinn is pretty much useless.
4. Moreno isn't a workhorse back yet we waited until week 1 to stop dicking around with rejects and traded for a back who McD thought would actually contribute when we already had a power back in Hillis.

We gave away Hillis for basically a project QB, and ended sending a 4th for a dance machine in Maroney plus a useless 6th.

5. Dennison left in January

Again, these issues were known well before the season started and didnt' just come up in the last few weeks.

Again, I'm not saying it's all on the coaches but also a talent/injury issue.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 07:29 AM
1. When two rookies are asked to start along the OL you're already admitting there are going to be issues up front.

How often did we insert two rookies into the OL before?You understand what words like "transition" and "change" mean right? If you can conjure players from nowhere I'm sure every coach in the league, otherwise you draft them or rely on veteran "rejects" which you're apparently hugely opposed to.

2. Lloyd/Gaffney/Royal aren't blocking WRs.So what? Are Moss, Edelman, and Welker blocking WRs
3. Quinn is pretty much useless.Every team in the league misses on players. Shanahan never did of course, but other than Shanny every coach has draft mistakes.
4. Moreno isn't a workhorse back yet we waited until week 1 to stop dicking around with rejects and traded for a back who McD thought would actually contribute when we already had a power back in Hillis.

We gave away Hillis for basically a project QB, and ended sending a 4th for a dance machine in Maroney plus a useless 6th.Please don't rehash this here. Hillis was useless in this system, and blew his chance to be a part of it, that is the fact. What he does in Cleveland or anywhere else has no bearing on that fact.

Because of the transition of the OL, it's way too early evaluate Moreno.

5. Dennison left in JanuaryI don't get your point with this.

TonyR
09-28-2010, 08:32 AM
1. When two rookies are asked to start along the OL you're already admitting there are going to be issues up front.
How often did we insert two rookies into the OL before?


I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The issues were already there and the rookies were drafted in an effort to improve the situation. Should we have stuck with the vets who couldn't play at a high level any more? Are you longing for the days of Ben Hamilton?

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The issues were already there and the rookies were drafted in an effort to improve the situation. Should we have stuck with the vets who couldn't play at a high level any more? Are you longing for the days of Ben Hamilton?

I don't get it either. The argument here seems to be that we needed change, but we can't afford to change because it will mean growing pains.

lostknight
09-28-2010, 09:33 AM
I'm sure you already know that ZB isn't used in pass protection so it just comes down to how talented the OL are in pass protection rather than the run blocking system.

This. In big stinking black letters. There is a reason why the o-line (which was considered one of the best in the NFL prior to Shanny's departure) is still good at pass protection - because we are not asking them to do all that much new.

On the other hand, the way this team runs the ball has changed dramatically, and for the worst by every conceivable metric.

lostknight
09-28-2010, 09:37 AM
You understand what words like "transition" and "change" mean right?


The rebuilding meme strikes again. It's not Josh's fault, because they had to change, despite the fact that he inherited a insanely powerful offense, he had to blow it up over two years.


Please don't rehash this here. Hillis was useless in this system, and blew his chance to be a part of it, that is the fact. What he does in Cleveland or anywhere else has no bearing on that fact.


Sorry, Hillis is a far more damning indictment on McDaniels then anything else. Mike Shanahan made him a featured part of the offense for the games before he was injured, and Cleveland just ran all over one of the best rushing defenses in the league with him. Only McDaniels couldn't figure out what to do with him.


Because of the transition of the OL, it's way too early evaluate Moreno.

I think that's fair for Moreno, but again, it's a damning indictment on McDaniels. Why devastate something that was working very well in favor of something that required all of his players to learn again, and to basically make them rookies for a year? Even worse, with transitions, you should be better in the second year then the first. The opposite is holding true. That's a very scary regression.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 09:46 AM
The rebuilding meme strikes again. It's not Josh's fault, because they had to change, despite the fact that he inherited a insanely powerful offense, he had to blow it up over two years. And yet for all Josh's apparent ineptitude and Shanahan's "insanely powerful offense" Josh equalled Shanahan's record in his first year as a head coach. Given that Shanny is far superior, and Josh dumped all the talent on this team, how is that possible.



Sorry, Hillis is a far more damning indictment on McDaniels then anything else. Mike Shanahan made him a featured part of the offense for the games before he was injured, and Cleveland just ran all over one of the best rushing defenses in the league with him. Only McDaniels couldn't figure out what to do with him.Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

Hillis was Shanny's 7th and final option at RB before resigning Tatum "cell phone" Bell. Get real.

TonyR
09-28-2010, 09:53 AM
There is a reason why the o-line (which was considered one of the best in the NFL prior to Shanny's departure) is still good at pass protection - because we are not asking them to do all that much new.

And then the play of some of the players on that line, most notably Casey Wiegmann and Ben Hamilton, deteriorated and they had to be replaced. And they are doing something new: running a different offense and protecting a different QB.

Hulamau
09-28-2010, 10:16 AM
Plus our short yardage/goaline running was equally as bad with the ZBS.

Bingo the last few years of the Shanny era with dime store RB and too small linemen.

You still need topflight OLine and a quality RB with the Zone . .Sure you can run up and down the field all day in between the 20s but it always seems to bog down in the redzone after our better RBs departed and we didnt get any bigger on the OLine...

footstepsfrom#27
09-28-2010, 10:26 AM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.
Except that we're not that big...average sized now I'd say. In any case it's an improvement but with youth comes mistakes so it's going to take time. What people don't understand is that you can't just take guys drafted for one system and plug them into another. The stretch zone system had to go because the rest of the league has either immitated it (and they're drafting from the same pool we were) or they've figured it out by now.

Bronco Yoda
09-28-2010, 10:45 AM
Just turn your television on tonight, and you'll see why its not smart to try to use a ZBS system in a pass-heavy offense. Rodgers gets killed because of it. As did Plummer in 2007.

Zone blocking was specifically designed to counteract the 4-3 movement in the 90s, and it flourished. It was strictly designed to counteract the idea of four guys directly on the line of scrimmage, with defenders sitting in the same specific assignment lanes play after play. It was perfect against the Tampa Two and other 4-3 schemed defenses.

Now that the 3-4 has taken hold again, its no surprise that strictly ZBS run-blocking systems have failed to produce, especially in the red zone. Defenders are switching gaps, and with just three down linemen, there's more players on the defense that aren't immediately engaged, making cut back blocks more difficult.

While none of us like the execution of the current system, moving away from a completely ZBS oriented system was necessary.


good post

DawnBTVS
09-28-2010, 10:47 AM
So what? Are Moss, Edelman, and Welker blocking WRs.

Just wanted to say that all three of those guys are quietly solid blockers, especially on WR Screens (which New England uses a lot, often to Welker).

One of the positives of bringing over Gaffney was that he blocked well on screen plays and drafting Demaryius Thomas was done in part because he played in a heavy option run offense and showed he was willing to/could block in the run game.

Was meant for both you and Fontaine, didn't want you to think I was focusing on you.

RunSilentRunDeep
09-28-2010, 10:49 AM
For my 1000th post, here's an eye-opening stat:

The number to the right of each team represents the combined career starts for the two guards, two tackles and center with the most starts in the current season. 29 teams have at least double the starting experience.

And despite the youth, Denver is 5th in QB hits per pass attempt.

Rk, Team, Exp
1. New York Giants, 539
2. Green Bay Packers, 427
3. Dallas Cowboys, 420
4. Kansas City Chiefs, 405
5. New York Jets, 390
6. Detroit Lions, 383
7. Indianapolis Colts, 359
8. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 349
9. Minnesota Vikings, 341
10. Washington Redskins, 340
11. Arizona Cardinals, 333
12. New England Patriots, 325
13. Chicago Bears, 312
14. Cleveland Browns, 312
15. Atlanta Falcons, 310
16. Pittsburgh Steelers, 302
17. Jacksonville Jaguars, 290
18. Tennessee Titans, 287
19. Seattle Seahawks, 276
20. Baltimore Ravens, 273
21. Oakland Raiders, 235
22. Carolina Panthers, 234
23. New Orleans Saints, 230
24. Cincinnati Bengals, 218
25. San Diego Chargers, 216
26. St. Louis Rams, 195
27. Houston Texans, 185
28. Philadelphia Eagles, 184
29. Miami Dolphins, 179
30. Buffalo Bills, 138
31. San Francisco 49ers, 114
32. Denver Broncos, 88

BTW, is there some type of Animal Farm thing going on with who can start a new thread? Doesn't let me anymore.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 11:00 AM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.

Fun fact! Broncos QBs were sacked 34 times last year and received 64 hits. The year prior only 11 sacks were allowed. In fact, the Denver Broncos haven't been sacked that many times since the Brian Griese led 2002 team.

Plus our short yardage/goaline running was equally as bad with the ZBS.

Fun fact! Last year Denver rushed for 95 first downs and 9 TDs... a dramatic plunge from the injury plagued RB season of 2008 that rushed for 103 first downs and 15 TDs. In fact, if you'd like to find a season comparable in short yardage/goalline failure, keep lookin because you have to go all the way back to the TD limbo year in 2001 which netted 7 TDs and 106 first downs

fontaine
09-28-2010, 12:46 PM
You understand what words like "transition" and "change" mean right? If you can conjure players from nowhere I'm sure every coach in the league, otherwise you draft them or rely on veteran "rejects" which you're apparently hugely opposed to.

This is completely wrong.

Our running game was not broke.
We had two coaches in Turner and Dennison who were experts in taking late round draft picks and turning them into viable starters. A system in place that was coached into Kuper/Harris/Clady/Graham making them very very effective players.

What we needed was a new center/guard combo and a RB when we were stocked full of high draft picks.

Not a whole scale "transition" or "change."

That was a choice McDaniels made, it wasn't forced upon him like the Cutler/Marshall trade.

Now, our running game is broke.

I can FULLY understand changing of the passing offense with Cutler/Marshall going out the door. I can FULLY understanding transitioning to a 3-4 and you don't hear me complaining about our QB or defense.

What is an undeniable fact is that our ZBS just needed two new OL and a RB, something Turner/Dennison excelled at bringing in.

McDaniels chose to change the entire system from what worked pretty well to what has been getting worse every game.

Retire #30!!!
09-28-2010, 01:16 PM
This is an honest question, but does anybody think that some of the running game failure might be the constant carousel for the RB's and OL?

Training camp no Clady, Moreno, Buck. Beadles and Batiste switching between LT and LG. Then Clady's back and Batiste to LG, Harris hurt, Beadles to RT Kup hurt for a game Hocstein in. Then Moreno out, Kup back, Maroney in. It'd be nice if we had the same running back run behind the same OL for at least two weeks in a row.

I remember plenty of quotes where the RB's say they need to get in sync with the OL.

Missouribronc
09-28-2010, 01:20 PM
Solution: Open bigger holes. :strong:

fontaine
09-28-2010, 01:21 PM
You understand what words like "transition" and "change" mean right? If you can conjure players from nowhere I'm sure every coach in the league, otherwise you draft them or rely on veteran "rejects" which you're apparently hugely opposed to.

Apparently Houston disagrees:

2009: 30/31st in the league in yards per game, yard per carry

New OL/Coordinator in Dennison, new RB, changes along the G position
2010: 4th/5th in the league in yards per game, yards per carry.

How many pro-bowlers, 1st/2nd day picks do they have along the OL/RB position?

I don't mind that McDaniels has ****ed up the running game. Mistakes happen to young HCs. I'm only interested in how he's going to make it better and by my count his last move was trading a 4th for a dance machine and an even worse running game.

bowtown
09-28-2010, 01:36 PM
Fun fact! Broncos QBs were sacked 34 times last year and received 64 hits. The year prior only 11 sacks were allowed. In fact, the Denver Broncos haven't been sacked that many times since the Brian Griese led 2002 team.

Fun fact! Last year Denver rushed for 95 first downs and 9 TDs... a dramatic plunge from the injury plagued RB season of 2008 that rushed for 103 first downs and 15 TDs. In fact, if you'd like to find a season comparable in short yardage/goalline failure, keep lookin because you have to go all the way back to the TD limbo year in 2001 which netted 7 TDs and 106 first downs

Well I'm not exactly sure how 15 rushing TDs in 2008 refutes my argument that our ZBS sucked on the goal line, but what the hell, I'll play:

Fun Fact!

In 2008, of that whopping 15 rushing TDs, only 10 of them were scored inside the 10 yard line, and only 7 of those inside the 5. Those 10 TDs were scored across 7 games... with three of them coming in our season opener rout of the Raiders.

In 2009, of those 9 paltry rushing TDs, only 7 of them were scored inside the 10, and only 6 were inside the 5. Those 7 TDs were scored across 6 different games.

ALSO, just to throw it out there, I really don't have to go back as far as you suggest in order to find that kind of goal line failure, in fact I only really have to go back to 2007, when of our 10 rushing TDs, again only 7 were inside the 10.

If I'm feelng up to it, maybe I'll do 1st downs later tonight, but I'm not really sure how you can make the argument that our goal line running dropped off significantly from 07 and 08 to 09. All I said is that under the ZBS our short distance and goal line running was equally as bad. I maintain that statement to be true.

Finally I'll leave you with this:

In three games so far this year, we have 3 TDs inside the 5. That puts us on pace for 16. Stats are silly.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 02:05 PM
Well I'm not exactly sure how 15 rushing TDs in 2008 refutes my argument that our ZBS sucked on the goal line, but what the hell, I'll play:

Fun Fact!

In 2008, of that whopping 15 rushing TDs, only 10 of them were scored inside the 10 yard line, and only 7 of those inside the 5. Those 10 TDs were scored across 7 games... with three of them coming in our season opener rout of the Raiders.

In 2009, of those 9 paltry rushing TDs, only 7 of them were scored inside the 10, and only 6 were inside the 5. Those 7 TDs were scored across 6 different games.

ALSO, just to throw it out there, I really don't have to go back as far as you suggest in order to find that kind of goal line failure, in fact I only really have to go back to 2007, when of our 10 rushing TDs, again only 7 were inside the 10.

If I'm feelng up to it, maybe I'll do 1st downs later tonight, but I'm not really sure how you can make the argument that our goal line running dropped off significantly from 07 and 08 to 09. All I said is that under the ZBS our short distance and goal line running was equally as bad. I maintain that statement to be true.

Finally I'll leave you with this:

In three games so far this year, we have 3 TDs inside the 5. That puts us on pace for 16. Stats are silly.

Sooooo......

Your point is that we were only slightly worse in short yardage situations with a healthy stable of RBs and a #12 overall pick carrying than the ball than we were with 7 bargain basement RBs on the IR the previous year?

bowtown
09-28-2010, 02:12 PM
Sooooo......

Your point is that we were only slightly worse in short yardage situations with a healthy stable of RBs and a #12 overall pick carrying than the ball than we were with 7 bargain basement RBs on the IR the previous year?

Actually I'm asserting that we were slightly worse in a ZBS hybrid system with the same coaches and half the same line as we had for the previous year, and in 07 when we were equally as bad. I make no assertions that our running game is good right now, and it is actually far worse than we were under the zbs between the 20s. All I said is that our goal line running game has sucked under the zbs and continues to suck under a young pbs. Hopefully as we get more experience with the new scheme that will change, but i'm not going to pretend like we tore up the Taj Mahal to build a shack.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 02:21 PM
Actually I'm asserting that we were slightly worse in a ZBS hybrid system with the same coaches and half the same line as we had for the previous year, and in 07 when we were equally as bad. I make no assertions that our running game is good right now, and it is actually far worse than we were under the zbs between the 20s. All I said is that our goal line running game has sucked under the zbs and continues to suck under a young pbs. Hopefully as we get more experience with the new scheme that will change, but i'm not going to pretend like we tore up the Taj Mahal to build a shack.

Who said we did?

Point blank: We have made zero steps forward (and several backwards) thus far in this endeavor. That needs to be fixed. Yesterday.

bowtown
09-28-2010, 02:27 PM
Who said we did?

Point blank: We have made zero steps forward (and several backwards) thus far in this endeavor. That needs to be fixed. Yesterday.

Many of the posters in this thread who cling to the ZBS like it's 1997 and Zimmerman is tearing open holes like he's Bob in a sheep pasture.

Your second point I agree on.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 02:33 PM
Many of the posters in this thread who cling to the ZBS like it's 1997 and Zimmerman is tearing open holes like he's Bob in a sheep pasture.

Your second point I agree on.

Might be another mild exaggeration... and it wasn't long ago we were rushing for 2500+ yards and 25 TDs in a season...

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 02:41 PM
Apparently Houston disagrees:

2009: 30/31st in the league in yards per game, yard per carry

New OL/Coordinator in Dennison, new RB, changes along the G position
2010: 4th/5th in the league in yards per game, yards per carry.

How many pro-bowlers, 1st/2nd day picks do they have along the OL/RB position?

I don't mind that McDaniels has ****ed up the running game. Mistakes happen to young HCs. I'm only interested in how he's going to make it better and by my count his last move was trading a 4th for a dance machine and an even worse running game.

Which would you guess takes longer: getting 1 guy in synch with a familiar system, or getting 5 guys in synch with a new system?

This is a little like asking which is harder: training a new employee in a company that's been around for 14 years, or starting a new business?

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 02:48 PM
2008 under Shanahan and the vaunted ZBS: 1862 rushing yards
2009 under McDaniels and a hybrid PBS/ZBS: 1836 rushing yards


I wouldn't consider that a precipitous drop in production.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 02:58 PM
2008 under Shanahan and the vaunted ZBS: 1862 rushing yards
2009 under McDaniels and a hybrid PBS/ZBS: 1836 rushing yards


I wouldn't consider that a precipitous drop in production.

Don't act ignorant.

Could just as well say this:

2008 under Shanahan and the vaunted ZBS: 1862 rushing yards, 4.8 ypc, 15 TDs, 103 first downs, 11 sacks allowed, 7 IR'd RBs
2009 under McDaniels and a hybrid PBS/ZBS: 1836 rushing yards, 4.2 ypc, 9 TDs, 95 first downs, 6 fumbles, 34 sacks allowed, 0 IR'd RBs

I WOULD consider that a precipitous drop in production.

footstepsfrom#27
09-28-2010, 03:00 PM
Apparently Houston disagrees:

2009: 30/31st in the league in yards per game, yard per carry

New OL/Coordinator in Dennison, new RB, changes along the G position
2010: 4th/5th in the league in yards per game, yards per carry.

How many pro-bowlers, 1st/2nd day picks do they have along the OL/RB position?

I don't mind that McDaniels has ****ed up the running game. Mistakes happen to young HCs. I'm only interested in how he's going to make it better and by my count his last move was trading a 4th for a dance machine and an even worse running game.
That's not a fair comparison since we all know the talent sought for a SZB team is ignored by team's running conventional power blocking schemes. Hence, since only about a half dozen teams run the SZB now, RB's and OL who fit that scheme will last much longer in the draft than they would if the other 26 teams were seeking that skill set. It takes more than one season to not only rebuild an O-line, but to do so while switching schemes. Let's see what happens by next year before we rule the running game transition a failure. Guys got to stay healthy as well. That concerns me more than the stats at the moment. We're starting a LT who is still hurting, a 1st year starter at LG, a rookie Center and injuries on the right side have killed us.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 03:01 PM
Who said we did?

Point blank: We have made zero steps forward (and several backwards) thus far in this endeavor. That needs to be fixed. Yesterday.

We're basically 3 games into this endeavor, and without our best personnel to boot.

Hardly time to throw in the towel if you ask me.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 03:02 PM
Which would you guess takes longer: getting 1 guy in synch with a familiar system, or getting 5 guys in synch with a new system?

This is a little like asking which is harder: training a new employee in a company that's been around for 14 years, or starting a new business?

Look I know what you're saying. I'm not against or for a particular scheme.

I just believe that if you take something that works well and dismantle it you expect something better.

So far we're not better, we're getting worse. No amount of discussion is going to change that.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 03:02 PM
Don't act ignorant.

Could just as well say this:

2008 under Shanahan and the vaunted ZBS: 1862 rushing yards, 4.8 ypc, 15 TDs, 103 first downs, 11 sacks allowed, 7 IR'd RBs
2009 under McDaniels and a hybrid PBS/ZBS: 1836 rushing yards, 4.2 ypc, 9 TDs, 95 first downs, 6 fumbles, 34 sacks allowed, 0 IR'd RBs

I WOULD consider that a precipitous drop in production.

This is a rushing attack discussion.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 03:06 PM
Look I know what you're saying. I'm not against or for a particular improvement.

I just believe that if you take something that works well and dismantle it you expect something better.

So far we're not better, we're getting worse. No amount of discussion is going to change that.
My point is that it wasn't working well any more, and that if you're tearing down a crappy house you can't expect a shiny new one to be there before you've even cleaned up the scraps from demolishing the old one.

Yes, we look like crap right now, but you have to look at the blue prints, not the pile of rubble. That's the stage we're at. Thinking otherwise is unrealistic.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 03:08 PM
This is a rushing attack discussion.

So take the sacks out of the equation. Still a steep production drop.

Fwiw, let me preface this with I don't mind the shift and I certainly don't think all of this is on the OL or the scheme. A very large chunk of this comes from play calling tendencies and the performance of our passing game. This should work out in the long run and become more effective as Orton continues to throw balls DEEP.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 03:10 PM
2,539
2,152
1,957
1,862

Anyone notice a trend in the effectiveness of the ZBS under Shanahan during his last 4 years here?

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 03:12 PM
So take the sacks out of the equation. Still a steep production drop.

See post above for an example of "steep production drop".

footstepsfrom#27
09-28-2010, 03:14 PM
Was that in 2008 when we were 1st sacks given up or 2005 and 2004 when we were 3rd in sacks given up?
Plumber and Cutler have a lot greater mobility than Orton...obviously.

The problem with running both systems is there are very few linmen (Clady) who could excel at both.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 03:18 PM
2,539
2,152
1,957
1,862

Anyone notice a trend in the effectiveness of the ZBS under Shanahan during his last 4 years here?

Are you putting your best possible effort into isolating one group of numbers that best support your opinion and removing them from any context whatsoever?

fontaine
09-28-2010, 04:16 PM
That's not a fair comparison since we all know the talent sought for a SZB team is ignored by team's running conventional power blocking schemes. Hence, since only about a half dozen teams run the SZB now, RB's and OL who fit that scheme will last much longer in the draft than they would if the other 26 teams were seeking that skill set. It takes more than one season to not only rebuild an O-line, but to do so while switching schemes. Let's see what happens by next year before we rule the running game transition a failure. Guys got to stay healthy as well. That concerns me more than the stats at the moment. We're starting a LT who is still hurting, a 1st year starter at LG, a rookie Center and injuries on the right side have killed us.

The injury argument is pretty much invalid at this point when we utterly failed in all aspects of the running game against Indy who are down multiple defenders and a pretty weak run defense.

Even with all the injuries 2.5 yards per carry and 67 total running yards per game is absolutely inexcuseable.

fontaine
09-28-2010, 04:20 PM
My point is that it wasn't working well any more, and that if you're tearing down a crappy house you can't expect a shiny new one to be there before you've even cleaned up the scraps from demolishing the old one.

That's just wrong. The problem with our running game was we couldn't handle huge DTs and good 3-4 defenses in the red zone.

The problem right now and for most of last year is that we can't run the ball period.

I'm willing to be patient and wait to see what Kuper and Harris can do because otherwisee at 2.5 yards per carry (DEAD LAST in the nfl) we'll be finished before we even got started.

Teams will figure out our passing game by mid season and start pressing our WRs, flooding the secondary because our running game is no threat.

WolfpackGuy
09-28-2010, 04:26 PM
2,539
2,152
1,957
1,862

Anyone notice a trend in the effectiveness of the ZBS under Shanahan during his last 4 years here?


Had more to do with passing the ball more rather than losing effectiveness...

Al Wilson
09-28-2010, 04:45 PM
2,539
2,152
1,957
1,862

Anyone notice a trend in the effectiveness of the ZBS under Shanahan during his last 4 years here?
Easy, Shanahan's last 2 years we were passing the ball a lot more with Cutler under center. Look at the yard per carry, 4.8 ...

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 04:54 PM
Shanahan's last 2 years we were passing the ball a lot more with Cutler under center....

You forgot to say "To no great effect" or "To the team's detriment" or "bringing about his departure from Denver".

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 04:59 PM
Are you putting your best possible effort into isolating one group of numbers that best support your opinion and removing them from any context whatsoever?

No. Nor am I attempting to argue that the ZBS was anywhere near as effective as it was when we were lucky enough to have a couple of HOFers on it.

There's a reason the ZBS is a dying breed in the NFL. Get over it, and deal with rebuilding in a way that has a chance at long term success.

TheReverend
09-28-2010, 06:46 PM
No. Nor am I attempting to argue that the ZBS was anywhere near as effective as it was when we were lucky enough to have a couple of HOFers on it.

There's a reason the ZBS is a dying breed in the NFL. Get over it, and deal with rebuilding in a way that has a chance at long term success.

Well, you take the injuries, talent quality, run:pass ratio etc in context, it certainly was effective all the way through. Also, one of it's most successful years was 2005 (2003 should absolutely qualify as well) when Nalen is the only person involved that could be considered HOF, so not sure what you're trying to get at there.

And because we stopped doing it, it's dying?

It's not dying... it's hands down as big as it's ever been.

extralife
09-28-2010, 07:21 PM
No because pass pro sucked with those tiny linemen. If there's one thing you should appreciate about our line it's that we are big and hard to pass rush. In a pass happy league I'd rather be good pass blockers than run blockers.

Yeah, that pass protection sure did suck when Jay Cutler was sacked ten times in 2008.

Dedhed
09-28-2010, 07:49 PM
Well, you take the injuries, talent quality, run:pass ratio etc in context, it certainly was effective all the way through. Also, one of it's most successful years was 2005 (2003 should absolutely qualify as well) when Nalen is the only person involved that could be considered HOF, so not sure what you're trying to get at there.

And because we stopped doing it, it's dying?

It's not dying... it's hands down as big as it's ever been.

I was referring more to this in regards the the death of the ZBS:

In fact, the '98 Broncos were the last zone-blocking team to have won a Super Bowl.

Read more: Battle of systems: Seahawks' zone vs. Broncos' power - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16107288#ixzz10skqYwYy

Missouribronc
09-28-2010, 07:58 PM
Well, you take the injuries, talent quality, run:pass ratio etc in context, it certainly was effective all the way through. Also, one of it's most successful years was 2005 (2003 should absolutely qualify as well) when Nalen is the only person involved that could be considered HOF, so not sure what you're trying to get at there.

And because we stopped doing it, it's dying?

It's not dying... it's hands down as big as it's ever been.

No its not. The pass is dominating the game right now, and the ZBS is not run by the top run teams.

mwill07
09-28-2010, 08:27 PM
For my 1000th post, here's an eye-opening stat:

The number to the right of each team represents the combined career starts for the two guards, two tackles and center with the most starts in the current season. 29 teams have at least double the starting experience.

And despite the youth, Denver is 5th in QB hits per pass attempt.

Rk, Team, Exp
1. New York Giants, 539
2. Green Bay Packers, 427
3. Dallas Cowboys, 420
4. Kansas City Chiefs, 405
5. New York Jets, 390
6. Detroit Lions, 383
7. Indianapolis Colts, 359
8. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 349
9. Minnesota Vikings, 341
10. Washington Redskins, 340
11. Arizona Cardinals, 333
12. New England Patriots, 325
13. Chicago Bears, 312
14. Cleveland Browns, 312
15. Atlanta Falcons, 310
16. Pittsburgh Steelers, 302
17. Jacksonville Jaguars, 290
18. Tennessee Titans, 287
19. Seattle Seahawks, 276
20. Baltimore Ravens, 273
21. Oakland Raiders, 235
22. Carolina Panthers, 234
23. New Orleans Saints, 230
24. Cincinnati Bengals, 218
25. San Diego Chargers, 216
26. St. Louis Rams, 195
27. Houston Texans, 185
28. Philadelphia Eagles, 184
29. Miami Dolphins, 179
30. Buffalo Bills, 138
31. San Francisco 49ers, 114
32. Denver Broncos, 88

BTW, is there some type of Animal Farm thing going on with who can start a new thread? Doesn't let me anymore.

great post. REP

ETA: anyone know of any other teams to start the season with three first year lineman?

Also - who here thinks it's reckless of McD to not bring in some vet lineman to help out here?

fontaine
09-29-2010, 02:03 AM
great post. REP

ETA: anyone know of any other teams to start the season with three first year lineman?

Also - who here thinks it's reckless of McD to not bring in some vet lineman to help out here?


Definitely. In the past we drafted OL for the future, sat them for their first or second seasons and only until they knew the offense would they start.

I remember getting Holland (?) to come in as a veteran and the same with Weigmann and both those guys did a solid job instead of thrusting younger players in their rookie seasons.

Mediator12
09-29-2010, 08:48 AM
I was referring more to this in regards the the death of the ZBS:

In fact, the '98 Broncos were the last zone-blocking team to have won a Super Bowl.

Read more: Battle of systems: Seahawks' zone vs. Broncos' power - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_16107288#ixzz10skqYwYy

The Zone BS is more prevalent today than ever. Not sure what you are going at here. And, INDY in 2006 won the SB while using the ZBS. I have no idea where people get their INFO anymore. And, INDY won that game over CHI with its Ground game, not Mannings arm.

BTW, the 98 Broncos were the last SB winner that had a relevant RB leading the attack ;D The RB has become an Irrelevant position in the current pass happy NFL.

TonyR
09-29-2010, 08:55 AM
...who here thinks it's reckless of McD to not bring in some vet lineman to help out here?

It's funny, McD sometimes gets bashed for making the team old on defense by bringing in aging vets, particularly along the D-line, rather than bringing along youth, and then he also gets bashed for bringing along youth on the O-line instead of bringing in aging vets. You can't really have it both ways. Who should he have brought in for the O-line? Flozell Adams, is that who you wanted? If some of our young OL players had played poorly, or if you could name some vets we should have brought in, your point would be more valid.

Mediator12
09-29-2010, 09:00 AM
great post. REP

ETA: anyone know of any other teams to start the season with three first year lineman?

Also - who here thinks it's reckless of McD to not bring in some vet lineman to help out here?

Reckless is a subjective term in this area. Veteran OL does not = a better OL. What is proven is OL chemistry affects OL play more than experience.

And right Now, INDY is starting 3 first year OL. And, one was an UDFA at LT.

Spider
09-29-2010, 09:05 AM
problem with ZBS is the same problem as the run and shoot , in the red zone .....

Mediator12
09-29-2010, 09:09 AM
problem with ZBS is the same problem as the run and shoot , in the red zone .....

The ZBS is best used by better OL. When DEN had TD and Elway, they were balanced enough to be more effective in the red Zone. The real problem is when you get sub par OL running it, you are effective between the 20's and not so effective when teams use the endzone as a boundary and can move their safeties closer in run support.

mwill07
09-29-2010, 09:36 AM
It's funny, McD sometimes gets bashed for making the team old on defense by bringing in aging vets, particularly along the D-line, rather than bringing along youth, and then he also gets bashed for bringing along youth on the O-line instead of bringing in aging vets. You can't really have it both ways. Who should he have brought in for the O-line? Flozell Adams, is that who you wanted? If some of our young OL players had played poorly, or if you could name some vets we should have brought in, your point would be more valid.

I have no idea. Here's a list of 2010 free agent linemen. (http://www.kffl.com/static/nfl/features/freeagents/fa.php?option=OL&y=2010) out of 142 players, the only ones we brought in was Maurice Williams (cut in June) and Stanley Daniels (Batiste is not on this list for some reason). We also resigned Hochstein and Kuper.

I'm fine with drafting some youth for the OL - it's great, and what we needed. It would have been nice to have some more veterans here though to help the rooks along. My understanding, though, is what makes an OL good is experience, and especially experience playing together.

I'm very much a McD supporter - I'm not here to hate. However, I think there are some areas where criticism is valid and warranted - trading Hillis, the 2009 draft, and heading into 2010 with a severely inexperienced OL.

Let me toss out a name of someone available, seasoned, talented, and knows the system. He's 28 years old, and is all-pro caliber: Logan Mankins. IMO, this needs to happen. Now.

mwill07
09-29-2010, 09:36 AM
Reckless is a subjective term in this area. Veteran OL does not = a better OL. What is proven is OL chemistry affects OL play more than experience.

And right Now, INDY is starting 3 first year OL. And, one was an UDFA at LT.

how was Indy's running game on Sunday?

Mediator12
09-29-2010, 09:47 AM
how was Indy's running game on Sunday?

Not very good, the same as last years ;D

However, they went to the SB last year with NO running game. The running game is less relevant in today's NFL. Get over it. It is a change of pace attack, not the main function of an offense.

Bronco Yoda
09-29-2010, 02:58 PM
For my 1000th post, here's an eye-opening stat:

The number to the right of each team represents the combined career starts for the two guards, two tackles and center with the most starts in the current season. 29 teams have at least double the starting experience.

And despite the youth, Denver is 5th in QB hits per pass attempt.

Rk, Team, Exp
1. New York Giants, 539
2. Green Bay Packers, 427
3. Dallas Cowboys, 420
4. Kansas City Chiefs, 405
5. New York Jets, 390
6. Detroit Lions, 383
7. Indianapolis Colts, 359
8. Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 349
9. Minnesota Vikings, 341
10. Washington Redskins, 340
11. Arizona Cardinals, 333
12. New England Patriots, 325
13. Chicago Bears, 312
14. Cleveland Browns, 312
15. Atlanta Falcons, 310
16. Pittsburgh Steelers, 302
17. Jacksonville Jaguars, 290
18. Tennessee Titans, 287
19. Seattle Seahawks, 276
20. Baltimore Ravens, 273
21. Oakland Raiders, 235
22. Carolina Panthers, 234
23. New Orleans Saints, 230
24. Cincinnati Bengals, 218
25. San Diego Chargers, 216
26. St. Louis Rams, 195
27. Houston Texans, 185
28. Philadelphia Eagles, 184
29. Miami Dolphins, 179
30. Buffalo Bills, 138
31. San Francisco 49ers, 114
32. Denver Broncos, 88

BTW, is there some type of Animal Farm thing going on with who can start a new thread? Doesn't let me anymore.

Wow, that does put things in persective.