The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   Orange Mane Central Discussion (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Need a stud DT next to Wolfe.............. (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=109952)

Jetmeck 01-21-2013 08:20 PM

Need a stud DT next to Wolfe..............
 
Quote sack numbers to me all you want.............

...............when the game is close we have no consistent pash rush.

Having a put it away pass rush when your up two scores is a good thing but we need consistency no matter the circumstance...........


The elite QBs in this leaque will step uo to avoid DEs and kill ya.


This should be high on our FA list..............

Course a safety that can cover would be nice as well...............:wave:

NFLBRONCO 01-21-2013 08:23 PM

I think Denvers top 4 needs are DT MLB G DE 2nd tier needs Slot WR RB S

enjolras 01-21-2013 08:30 PM

I think a MLB would do a lot to free up the interior rushers. We played incredibly conservative on the interior all season long. They were covering for the issues at middle linebacker by just stuffing up the middle. You didn't see many stunts or terribly complex movement up front.

We need to somehow turn up a strong middle linebacker at all costs. Trade the entire draft if you have to. Do whatever you have to do to find that guy. A superbowl literally depends on it.

Cosmo 01-21-2013 08:53 PM

#1 MLB
#2 DT
#3 Slot WR
#4 RB

In order of priority.

Easy enough to Draft MLB in first round, Free agent DT & WR, draft RB 2nd round.

Houshyamama 01-21-2013 09:19 PM

#1 - Interior OL
#2 - DT
#3 - SS
#4 - MLB
#5 - CB
#6 - Slot WR

go_broncos 01-21-2013 09:30 PM

#1 Priority should be RB...We would have won the game if Moreno was healthy.
Manning and this offense need a RB that doesn't get injured.

01-21-2013 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_broncos (Post 3786244)
#1 Priority should be RB...We would have won the game if Moreno was healthy.
Manning and this offense need a RB that doesn't get injured.

Guess they'll be drafting a bionic RB. Didnt see one that stuck out in this draft. Maybe the class of 3002 will be better.

Jetmeck 01-21-2013 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_broncos (Post 3786244)
#1 Priority should be RB...We would have won the game if Moreno was healthy.
Manning and this offense need a RB that doesn't get injured.


First off I agree FU refs............

However our rook did an admirable job and definitely did enough to keep Baltimore honest. Moreno would not have made that much difference cause he was getting stuffed regularly anyway.

Manning doesn't need much of a run game. He had a bad day like the rest of the team................


With our so called great pass rushing defense Flacco should have been on his ass everytime he tried to go deep...............

01-22-2013 12:39 AM

Really good thread!
http://www.booksstore.info/11k/bass.jpg
http://www.booksstore.info/jokelist/boa.jpg

socalorado 01-22-2013 05:52 AM

A healthy Moreno would have made a HUGE difference.
Once he went down, there was absolutely NO BLITZ PICK UP by Ball, which when they tried for 1 play, was one of the most embarassing plays i've ever seen in Bronco history, and Hillman, as good as he ran, was useless as well, and just is not big enough to stop opposing blitzers.
Manning was completely handcuffed because of this, and suddenly the passing game disappeared.
DEN needs to draft a RB like Stephan Taylor (STAN) BAD.

socalorado 01-22-2013 05:52 AM

Oh, and as for DTs its all about Kawan Short.
However i dont think DEN will go DT high.

2KBack 01-22-2013 06:00 AM

#1 MLB
#2 DT
#3 Safety
#4 OG/C
#5 RB
#6 WR

I think you Draft the MLB, Safety, and a late round RB. Grab a FA DT, maybe Safety is you can get a good one (that isn't Mike Adams)

TheReverend 01-22-2013 06:07 AM

So... we had the #1 pass rush in the league, but in the game our secondary gets torched and we get no pressure, the assumption is that it must be a pass rush deficiency instead of the ****ing coverage?

This isn't your fault Jetmeck, I'm sick of so many people coming to these wrong side of the chicken-egg conclusions: You guys are seriously retarded...

TonyR 01-22-2013 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheReverend (Post 3786312)
So... we had the #1 pass rush in the league, but in the game our secondary gets torched and we get no pressure, the assumption is that it must be a pass rush deficiency instead of the ****ing coverage?

Right, the secondary got "torched" in large part because there was no pressure on Flacco. Can't give a good QB a clean pocket and all day to throw like that. Go back and compare/contrast to the regular season game where we actually bothered Flacco a little bit. No, the coverage wasn't good, but would have looked a hell of a lot better with some help from the front 7. But you already know all this, or should, so I'm not sure what the argument is.

CEH 01-22-2013 06:22 AM

We got torched one time , one great catch set up by a failed FG that was butt ugly with no chance in hell of coming close, and one Hail Mary where Miller almost got to Flacco with a 3 man rush

The magnitude of the game will get you fired but the stats say Baltimore did not come in here and imposed their will.

In the end the Defense gave the ball to the Offense 3 times to win the game

I wouldn't call 220 yards (before the hail mary) by Joe Flacco some sort of awesome game.

This team was/is built this year to play with the lead and that's how the season went.

If I could pick one player if would be a big time guard and or RB to close out the games and continues to add young fast playmakers on defense

That's JMO

TheReverend 01-22-2013 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3786317)
Right, the secondary got "torched" in large part because there was no pressure on Flacco. Can't give a good QB a clean pocket and all day to throw like that. Go back and compare/contrast to the regular season game where we actually bothered Flacco a little bit. No, the coverage wasn't good, but would have looked a hell of a lot better with some help from the front 7. But you already know all this, or should, so I'm not sure what the argument is.

You want some pressure? You want to put the QB on the ground?

Cover the open ****ing man for 3+ seconds. Playoff QBs will find the open man... there's your disparity.

In the 6 games played against teams with winning records, Denver sacked the QB 2.5x per game (5 of which coming against one opponent, drastically raising the ave).

In the other games, 3.8x per game.

Hmmm... what could possibly be causing this disparity...

Btw, also against winning teams: 13TDs to 3INTs by opposing QBs. Over 60% completion and roughly 80 ypg to TEs.

Get this "OMG WE OBVI NEED A PASSRUSHER!" bull**** out of here/

baja 01-22-2013 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheReverend (Post 3786312)
So... we had the #1 pass rush in the league, but in the game our secondary gets torched and we get no pressure, the assumption is that it must be a pass rush deficiency instead of the ****ing coverage?

This isn't your fault Jetmeck, I'm sick of so many people coming to these wrong side of the chicken-egg conclusions: You guys are seriously retarded...

Do you spit on yourself when you talk?

2KBack 01-22-2013 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyR (Post 3786317)
Right, the secondary got "torched" in large part because there was no pressure on Flacco. Can't give a good QB a clean pocket and all day to throw like that. Go back and compare/contrast to the regular season game where we actually bothered Flacco a little bit. No, the coverage wasn't good, but would have looked a hell of a lot better with some help from the front 7. But you already know all this, or should, so I'm not sure what the argument is.

My observation was that Flacco was releasing the ball quite early....even on the deep shots. Baltimore knew we would be leaving the DB's on an island depending on the pass rush and trusted their guys to beat ours deep....and they did. They gameplanned for the pass rush and beat it. Slightly better secondary play and likely none of the bombs are complete and gmae looks much different. It;'s not like Flacco was sitting in the pocket picking us a apart. He was heaving homeruns right ahead of the rush....and hitting them.

01-22-2013 06:42 AM

http://blogs.ajc.com/uga-sports-blog...eSanderlin.JPG

im gonna ride this bandwagon till the wheels fall off. we cant cover tight ends ever. they kill us when we play the good teams . if we draft ogletree the converted safety what ever he lacks in run stuffing he will make up for in pass coverage. this pick makes too much sense all the dum asses who wants a thumper MLB in minter WE DONT NEED A THUMPER WE WERE TOP 5 IN RUN DEFENSE we suck at COVERING TIGHT ENDS . who can cover tight ends OGLETREE

MagicHef 01-22-2013 06:42 AM

Miller dropped into coverage 12 times. I'd rather keep that number much, much lower. We would need more than one LB that can be trusted in coverage for that to happen, though.

TonyR 01-22-2013 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheReverend (Post 3786321)
Over 60% completion and roughly 80 ypg to TEs.

I agree this was/is a huge problem for us. I just think the biggest difference this time vs. last time against the Ravens is that we didn't get any pressure on Flacco.

Also, this according to TJ Johnson at IAOFM:

Quote:

In the rematch last Saturday, the Ravens ran the ball three out of their first five plays until they realized they were running into an eight-man box, not a seven-man box as in their first meeting. Essentially, Del Rio changed his defensive look between the two contests. Instead of playing Cover 2, Man Under like he had previously, he switched to a Cover 1, which brings the strong safety into the box and leaves the free safety as the only deep defender in coverage.
http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/bron...ouchdown-catch

Ray Finkle 01-22-2013 06:45 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheReverend (Post 3786321)
You want some pressure? You want to put the QB on the ground?

Cover the open ****ing man for 3+ seconds. Playoff QBs will find the open man... there's your disparity.

In the 6 games played against teams with winning records, Denver sacked the QB 2.5x per game (5 of which coming against one opponent, drastically raising the ave).

In the other games, 3.8x per game.

Hmmm... what could possibly be causing this disparity...

Btw, also against winning teams: 13TDs to 3INTs by opposing QBs. Over 60% completion and roughly 80 ypg to TEs.

Get this "OMG WE OBVI NEED A PASSRUSHER!" bull**** out of here/

I read the last line and thought of this image....

01-22-2013 06:46 AM

Rev what your saying may be true, there was a total lapse in coverage, but that doesn't take away the fact that we need a more disruptive interior player.. QBs stepped up into the pocket all season. If they could no longer do that, we would probably approach 70 sacks.

My favorite player who is scheme flexible, can two gap and still be incredibly disruptive is Brandon Williams Missouri Southern, and he's right in our ball park as a third round pick..

Ray Finkle 01-22-2013 06:48 AM

replacing Adams with a safety that could cover would help more.....Denver is in more need of a run stuff DT than pass rushing one.

2KBack 01-22-2013 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g6matty (Post 3786328)
all the dum asses

Irony.

Minter isn't just a thumper, he is an all-around LB, as is Teo, and neither would be the liability that ogletree would be in the run game. It's like making Ian Gold play MLB.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.