Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WTF going on at the Broncos? Booker over Freeman(and he’s going to play on Thursday?)?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • itswutz4dinna
    replied
    Originally posted by chrisp View Post
    Wouldn't say he was an elite pass-catcher, even for a RB - 859 yards in 4 years with an 8.3 yd average - but I agree with everything else you said there.

    Also last season was his most impressive stats-wise but curiously underwhelming somehow. I suppose if you look at it on a per-game basis he'd been more impressive in previous years, so I expected more from his first full season starting 16 games. I think his early years of only having 6 or 7 starts in a season but still getting 7-800 yards raised my expectations a little too high.....
    I think he was elite at pass-catching, but the coaches never noticed or took advantage of it. They seemed to think Booker was better, which he clearly wasn't. And overall this team has under-utilized RBs in the passing game since Manning.

    Leave a comment:


  • chrisp
    replied
    Originally posted by itswutz4dinna View Post
    CJ was an elite runner, elite pass-catcher, and never fumbled. Gonna miss that guy.
    Wouldn't say he was an elite pass-catcher, even for a RB - 859 yards in 4 years with an 8.3 yd average - but I agree with everything else you said there.

    Also last season was his most impressive stats-wise but curiously underwhelming somehow. I suppose if you look at it on a per-game basis he'd been more impressive in previous years, so I expected more from his first full season starting 16 games. I think his early years of only having 6 or 7 starts in a season but still getting 7-800 yards raised my expectations a little too high.....

    Leave a comment:


  • itswutz4dinna
    replied
    Originally posted by chrisp View Post
    Although I kind of understand the logic behind it, it still amazes me how little modern coaching staffs and FOs seem to value pure running ability at the running back position.

    On the one hand, this is a passing league, teams averaged a shade under 110 yards/game rushing last year and approx 225 yards/game passing. Only three teams got more than 40% of their yards on the ground and they all had running quarterbacks (Buffalo, Carolina, Dallas). So in many ways the run game is seen as a counterweight to the pass to keep the defense honest rather than an engine of offensive production. Having a dangerous or explosive running back is seen as merely a nice-to-have rather than a need-to-have.

    This means that in the eyes of most coaches it is vital that runningbacks must pass block and receive at least as well as they run, as if the other team knows that a runningback can't do these things they know the team is likely to run if he's in there.

    This isn't just a Broncos thing, its league-wide: why were Miami happy to let Jay Ajayi walk? 20-30 years ago he's probably seen as a franchise player. Why didn't Seattle view Marshawn Lynch in a similar manner? It seems that most coaches would rather have a player who is an average runner and an average receiver than a great runner and below average receiver - they value the utility guy more than the specialist.

    To be fair, VJ has repeatedly stated words to the effect that there isn't really going to be a #1 running back, just different guys with differing attributes that are all used. Very few teams now feature a true #1 back in the way teams used to anyway. However I think they can all see that Freeman runs better and that will be used, I just don't think he'll sit on top of the depth chart untill later in the season when he's proved his blocking and receiving skills are up to snuff.

    Nothing too unusual - promising rookies don't often unseat established vets in preseason - they have to do it in real games before they get the starter crown....
    CJ was an elite runner, elite pass-catcher, and never fumbled. Gonna miss that guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • The1percentKid
    replied
    Originally posted by lolcopter View Post
    How could you even remotely think this when Chad wasn’t even given reps with the 2’s until after that first week? The plan most certainly was not to have your 7th round pick ahead of your 1st. Kelly just forced their hand because Lynch is such a trainwreck


    Exactly. Kelly doesn’t even get the reps if there’s no preseason.

    TC was basically over before he even went with 2s in practice.

    Leave a comment:


  • lolcopter
    replied
    Originally posted by Jason in LA View Post
    I 100% disagree with you on this topic.

    As for Lynch, it didn't take preseason games for Kelly to surpass him. I'd say that the coaches knew all along just from training camp, where he was not decent, and the plan was to give Kelly the No. 2 spot. Kelly was out performing Lynch all training camp. I'd say that they were hoping that Lynch would show something so that they could trade him, so they kept him in that spot longer than they wanted. They didn't want to kill what ever trade value that they were hoping that he would have by demoting him. Once it was obvious that he would not have any trade value, they made the switch to Kelly.
    How could you even remotely think this when Chad wasn’t even given reps with the 2’s until after that first week? The plan most certainly was not to have your 7th round pick ahead of your 1st. Kelly just forced their hand because Lynch is such a trainwreck

    Leave a comment:


  • The1percentKid
    replied
    Originally posted by Jason in LA View Post
    I 100% disagree with you on this topic.

    As for Lynch, it didn't take preseason games for Kelly to surpass him. I'd say that the coaches knew all along just from training camp, where he was not decent, and the plan was to give Kelly the No. 2 spot. Kelly was out performing Lynch all training camp. I'd say that they were hoping that Lynch would show something so that they could trade him, so they kept him in that spot longer than they wanted. They didn't want to kill what ever trade value that they were hoping that he would have by demoting him. Once it was obvious that he would not have any trade value, they made the switch to Kelly.



    You’re completely wrong.


    Terrell Davis is the pure example that preseason is needed. Without it it’s just practice and buried behind 5 RBs, barely no meaningful practice reps.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jason in LA
    replied
    Originally posted by Drunken.Broncoholic2 View Post
    Simply not true. These aren’t full padded practices. Can’t even hit as much with the new CBA rules. Today’s nfl is different from the past TCs.



    This fanbase loved Tomlinson sitting out because it meant first 3 weeks were sloppy and sluggish for the Chargers. Not every player is the same. Sure some don’t need any time. But a lot of players do, such as ones winning the job.

    Without preseason games, Lynch is the back up(he’s been decent in practice). Think about that.
    I 100% disagree with you on this topic.

    As for Lynch, it didn't take preseason games for Kelly to surpass him. I'd say that the coaches knew all along just from training camp, where he was not decent, and the plan was to give Kelly the No. 2 spot. Kelly was out performing Lynch all training camp. I'd say that they were hoping that Lynch would show something so that they could trade him, so they kept him in that spot longer than they wanted. They didn't want to kill what ever trade value that they were hoping that he would have by demoting him. Once it was obvious that he would not have any trade value, they made the switch to Kelly.

    Leave a comment:


  • The1percentKid
    replied
    Originally posted by Jason in LA View Post
    Sure they can. Coaches can properly evaluate the players in training camp, and the first few weeks of the regular season wouldn't be sloppy. The Broncos players who are expected to contribute this year have played maybe three quarters worth of football this preseason. That's not a of football. They've done way more than that in practice. These games are all about money. That's it.

    If the bulk of the starters and key contributors didn't play in the preseason, everybody would be just fine come week 1.


    Simply not true. These aren’t full padded practices. Can’t even hit as much with the new CBA rules. Today’s nfl is different from the past TCs.



    This fanbase loved Tomlinson sitting out because it meant first 3 weeks were sloppy and sluggish for the Chargers. Not every player is the same. Sure some don’t need any time. But a lot of players do, such as ones winning the job.

    Without preseason games, Lynch is the back up(he’s been decent in practice). Think about that. Preseason games are where your entire depth comes together. Terrell Davis doesn’t go into week 1 his rookie year as the RB1 without preseason. He started RB6 that year. That one hit landed him a job. He improved and progressed each preseason game. Some stars and vets don’t need it. Diamonds in the rough need it.
    Last edited by The1percentKid; 08-29-2018, 09:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jason in LA
    replied
    Originally posted by Drunken.Broncoholic2 View Post
    These games have to be played. Maybe not 4 but there’s no way coaching staffs can weed down 90 players to 53 on practice alone. Refs clearly need multiple games to be week 1 ready.


    Who wants to see the first 3 weeks of the season be sloppy football?
    Sure they can. Coaches can properly evaluate the players in training camp, and the first few weeks of the regular season wouldn't be sloppy. The Broncos players who are expected to contribute this year have played maybe three quarters worth of football this preseason. That's not a of football. They've done way more than that in practice. These games are all about money. That's it.

    If the bulk of the starters and key contributors didn't play in the preseason, everybody would be just fine come week 1.

    Leave a comment:


  • DENVERDUI55
    replied
    Originally posted by Drunken.Broncoholic2 View Post
    These games have to be played. Maybe not 4 but there’s no way coaching staffs can weed down 90 players to 53 on practice alone. Refs clearly need multiple games to be week 1 ready.


    Who wants to see the first 3 weeks of the season be sloppy football?
    Yeah there is going to be 20 games no matter how you slice it. Some people think they should drop preseason to 18 games but that is never going to happen. They could go 2 and 18 regular season games but not sure how the players union would like that. I say just leave it alone since it's the only chance a lot of these guys have to make the league.

    Leave a comment:


  • The1percentKid
    replied
    Originally posted by Jason in LA View Post
    Well, I'd say that it's not a new mindset. No other level of football has preseason games. College does just fine without them. So does high school. Training camp practice is more than enough to prepare for the season and evaluate the players.

    If these games weren't making a lot of money, they wouldn't be played. I bet the coaches and players would love to get rid of them.

    I don't make a habit of agreeing with Colin Cowherd, but I totally agree with his point on preseason games (I also agree with all five points that he made in the video).

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/365-SlSvId4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


    These games have to be played. Maybe not 4 but there’s no way coaching staffs can weed down 90 players to 53 on practice alone. Refs clearly need multiple games to be week 1 ready.


    Who wants to see the first 3 weeks of the season be sloppy football?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jason in LA
    replied
    Originally posted by delany View Post
    We will see. It certinaly is a new mindset. Which is great.

    However the Rams have returned a team with a lot of FAs. How many starters are new to the team? Live snaps...even in preseason, would seem like the rewards would outweigh the risks of playing them as a unit.

    Now a veteran, playoff team with limited turnover of staff or players....yeah. I agree to sit them for all of the PS.
    Well, I'd say that it's not a new mindset. No other level of football has preseason games. College does just fine without them. So does high school. Training camp practice is more than enough to prepare for the season and evaluate the players.

    If these games weren't making a lot of money, they wouldn't be played. I bet the coaches and players would love to get rid of them.

    I don't make a habit of agreeing with Colin Cowherd, but I totally agree with his point on preseason games (I also agree with all five points that he made in the video).

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/365-SlSvId4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    Leave a comment:


  • theAPAOps5
    replied
    Originally posted by broncogary View Post
    More importantly, does it work?
    Do you even have to ask?

    Leave a comment:


  • chrisp
    replied
    Although I kind of understand the logic behind it, it still amazes me how little modern coaching staffs and FOs seem to value pure running ability at the running back position.

    On the one hand, this is a passing league, teams averaged a shade under 110 yards/game rushing last year and approx 225 yards/game passing. Only three teams got more than 40% of their yards on the ground and they all had running quarterbacks (Buffalo, Carolina, Dallas). So in many ways the run game is seen as a counterweight to the pass to keep the defense honest rather than an engine of offensive production. Having a dangerous or explosive running back is seen as merely a nice-to-have rather than a need-to-have.

    This means that in the eyes of most coaches it is vital that runningbacks must pass block and receive at least as well as they run, as if the other team knows that a runningback can't do these things they know the team is likely to run if he's in there.

    This isn't just a Broncos thing, its league-wide: why were Miami happy to let Jay Ajayi walk? 20-30 years ago he's probably seen as a franchise player. Why didn't Seattle view Marshawn Lynch in a similar manner? It seems that most coaches would rather have a player who is an average runner and an average receiver than a great runner and below average receiver - they value the utility guy more than the specialist.

    To be fair, VJ has repeatedly stated words to the effect that there isn't really going to be a #1 running back, just different guys with differing attributes that are all used. Very few teams now feature a true #1 back in the way teams used to anyway. However I think they can all see that Freeman runs better and that will be used, I just don't think he'll sit on top of the depth chart untill later in the season when he's proved his blocking and receiving skills are up to snuff.

    Nothing too unusual - promising rookies don't often unseat established vets in preseason - they have to do it in real games before they get the starter crown....

    Leave a comment:


  • Guess Who
    replied
    I heard Freeman on the radio tonight. Guy sounds pretty smart. Him and CJ should play chess against each other.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X