Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Training camp 2019

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

  • Originally posted by Action View Post

    Bryce Callahan got foot stepped on — same one he broke last year with Chicago. Xrays negative. Should be fine. #9sports

    -MikeKlis
    Thanks

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ratboy View Post
      Drew lock is our best QB.
      He certainly looked like it at the stadium. Hogan was awful, Rypien's arm strength limitations caused incompletions, Flacco read the defense well and has a strong arm but was much more scattershot than you'd like, and Lock was throwing very accurately in rhythm for the portion of practice that I was there for (missed the final section).

      Comment


      • So much for the lack luster crowds, as they showed up today for a non-scrimmage practice.




        Comment


        • At least Lock understands what it is all about.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R8R H8R View Post

            I have a feeling I’ll be saying this often this year, but Fangio cracks me up!


            This is pretty funny. Good one, Shapiro!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zerovoltz View Post

              You sir, are missing the point. The Browns did not draft Mayfield to sit. They sat him at first, but the whole point was that he would be their starter in short order. Mahomes was drafted to replace Smith, even though he sat for nearly a year, the front office, and coach were all in on him starting and moving on from Smith. Darnold, Allen, and even Rosen were all drafted with the idea they would start right away or very soon. They were not drafted as an afterthought or for value in round 2. They weren't drafted onto teams that traded for a vet, announced the vet was the man, announced they weren't going QB in round 1. In this way, Drew Lock is alot more like Christian Hackenberg....a number of traits that rate out as 1 round talent, but with enough questionable traits that he isn't worth taking in the first round. You take him because there is a relatively small chance you work out some issues and you have something......like a Kaepernick for example. The result more often though is 1...you never really plan for the guy to start, and if he does...2. he's alot more like Deshone Kizer than Andy Dalton.

              I wouldn't be all that shocked if Lock in fact does not beat Hogan out this year for the no.2 job. ....and that will be due in part, to Fangio not wanting to turn his program over to a very raw rookie.
              No, you’re missing the point, which is this: you not saying anything revelatory. The Browns didn’t trade a high 3rd pick for Taylor and pay him $18 million knowing he would end up riding the pine early in the season. The plan/Hope was that he would play well and have the team in contention, thus allowing them to take their time with Mayfield. I mean, seriously...you think they would have turned it over to Mayfield had Taylor been playing well and they were winning? You think they knew Taylor would stink, they’d go to Mayfield early with the team losing, and yet still paid a 3rd and $18 million for Taylor? Of course not. The plan simply failed, as it normally does with teams picking that high. It’s not an usual plan—the Cardinals had the same plan in paying Bradford $20 million. The Bears had that plan a couple seasons ago with Glennon. Of course, teams picking early are usually bad and the vet QBs they invest in also-rans, and so the plan rarely works.

              Now take the Broncos. You are right that a 2nd pick is less of an investment, and so there’s less pressure with the time table. Again, nothing revelatory. Where you are stretching in concluding that Fangio’s age has anything to do with any of this. You mentioned Hackenburg—his coach, Todd Bowles, was relatively young. Hackenburg didn’t play because he wasn’t good.

              The same pattern with those other teams will play out here, and it will have nothing to do with Fangio being 60. If Flacco plays decently and the team is in playoff contention, Lock will sit. If Flacco stinks and the team falls out of contention, or if it’s clear early on that the team is going to bad either way, then Lock will get in at some point.

              So, to conclude, you’re not “wrong” in saying that Fangio would likely prefer to have Lock sit, just like it was the preference of the other aforementioned teams to have their young QBs sit. It’s just not some genius insight. Where you’re wrong is in concluding that Fangio’s age is any factor. It’s SOP league-wide—including with your own team. The difference is that the Chiefs were a good team with a not-terrible-but-not-good-enough QB who traded up from the bottom of the first to get their guy. Thus, the plan that those other teams tried and failed with worked for the Chiefs.
              Last edited by BroncoInferno; 07-27-2019, 05:23 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Samsa Gregor View Post

                He certainly looked like it at the stadium. Hogan was awful, Rypien's arm strength limitations caused incompletions, Flacco read the defense well and has a strong arm but was much more scattershot than you'd like, and Lock was throwing very accurately in rhythm for the portion of practice that I was there for (missed the final section).

                ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                - @MikeKlis

                report from a professional football coach.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Action View Post


                  ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                  Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                  - @MikeKlis

                  report from a professional football coach.
                  You mean the guy who is meant to push the rookie to be better no matter how good he is. It could be Andrew Luck as a rookie out there and his response would be the same.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Action View Post


                    ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                    Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                    - @MikeKlis

                    report from a professional football coach.
                    It’s not that crazy to suggest that Lock will beat out Flacco on certain days. Nothing in that quote suggests that he didn’t “win” the day. But, like Fangio said, its practice. Consistency will be the issue, as well as showing something win the bullets fly.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BroncoInferno View Post

                      No, you’re missing the point, which is this: you not saying anything revelatory. The Browns didn’t trade a high 3rd pick for Taylor and pay him $18 million knowing he would end up riding the pine early in the season. The plan/Hope was that he would play well and have the team in contention, thus allowing them to take their time with Mayfield. I mean, seriously...you think they would have turned it over to Mayfield had Taylor been playing well and they were winning? You think they knew Taylor would stink, they’d go to Mayfield early with the team losing, and yet still paid a 3rd and $18 million for Taylor? Of course not. The plan simply failed, as it normally does with teams picking that high. It’s not an usual plan—the Cardinals had the same plan in paying Bradford $20 million. The Bears had that plan a couple seasons ago with Glennon. Of course, teams picking early are usually bad and the vet QBs they invest in also-rans, and so the plan rarely works.

                      Now take the Broncos. You are right that a 2nd pick is less of an investment, and so there’s less pressure with the time table. Again, nothing revelatory. Where you are stretching in concluding that Fangio’s age has anything to do with any of this. You mentioned Hackenburg—his coach, Todd Bowles, was relatively young. Hackenburg didn’t play because he wasn’t good.

                      The same pattern with those other teams will play out here, and it will have nothing to do with Fangio being 60. If Flacco plays decently and the team is in playoff contention, Lock will sit. If Flacco stinks and the team falls out of contention, or if it’s clear early on that the team is going to bad either way, then Lock will get in at some point.

                      So, to conclude, you’re not “wrong” in saying that Fangio would likely prefer to have Lock sit, just like it was the preference of the other aforementioned teams to have their young QBs sit. It’s just not some genius insight. Where you’re wrong is in concluding that Fangio’s age is any factor. It’s SOP league-wide—including with your own team. The difference is that the Chiefs were a good team with a not-terrible-but-not-good-enough QB who traded up from the bottom of the first to get their guy. Thus, the plan that those other teams tried and failed with worked for the Chiefs.
                      Yes, the Bears had Glennon, the Browns traded for Taylor and that 3rd...the Cards had Bradford.....but ALL of that was with the full intention of having those guys mentor the QB's they all KNEW and PLANNED to take high in round 1. that part is the SOP. Teams that take a high end prospect almost always go out and sign some cagey old vet to help the transition...but the intention in those cases is ALWAYS to get the new guy ready to go. That isn't what Denver did and it's not what they are really doing. They got Flacco, announced he would be the man...announced now QB in round 1....and clearly they liked Lock, but not enough to secure him before part way through round 2....he was there for the taking by others...if he'd have gone...then he have gone...and the Broncos would have been FINE, because Lock was never someone they thought of as the QB they had to have right now, with Flacco to mentor him. If the Broncos had been sitting on 1/1 this year...they WOULD absolutley not have hired Fangio...they wouldn't have traded for Flacco...they would have hired someone they thought could bring along Kyler Murray, and they'd have signed ....some sort of veteran who could move (Tyrod Taylor?) and they'd move forward. Vic Fangio would NEVER have been the hire in that scenario. Fangio is similar to Marty S, in that Marty got the KC D up and running in a hurry....D was his background...once he got it going....he didn't have time for young QB's....Let's say the Broncos go 7-9 and the D turns in a really solid performance....do you really think 61-62 year old Fangio is going to want to move on from Flacco then....so he can try and bring along a rookie? Think of if like that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Action View Post


                        ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                        Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                        - @MikeKlis

                        report from a professional football coach.
                        I like how Fangio says “but that ain’t real football”

                        the game will dicate Locks progress and ability to get more reps

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Action View Post


                          ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                          Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                          - @MikeKlis

                          report from a professional football coach.
                          Reports coming directly from the stadium, yet you're paying attention to what the coach is saying.

                          Do you honestly believe he would say anything different about Lock? You were on board for Vance Joseph getting a third year.

                          Quality poster.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Action View Post


                            ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                            Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                            - @MikeKlis

                            report from a professional football coach.
                            Fan actually makes the effort to attend training camp and share his impressions with the mane. On cue, Action shows up to **** in his post and call him an idiot.

                            Action, want to mix things up and actually post something of value for once? Or are you content maintaining your status as a toxic pustule on this site?
                            Last edited by v2micca; 07-27-2019, 08:35 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Zerovoltz View Post

                              Yes, the Bears had Glennon, the Browns traded for Taylor and that 3rd...the Cards had Bradford.....but ALL of that was with the full intention of having those guys mentor the QB's they all KNEW and PLANNED to take high in round 1. that part is the SOP. Teams that take a high end prospect almost always go out and sign some cagey old vet to help the transition...but the intention in those cases is ALWAYS to get the new guy ready to go. That isn't what Denver did and it's not what they are really doing. They got Flacco, announced he would be the man...announced now QB in round 1....and clearly they liked Lock, but not enough to secure him before part way through round 2....he was there for the taking by others...if he'd have gone...then he have gone...and the Broncos would have been FINE, because Lock was never someone they thought of as the QB they had to have right now, with Flacco to mentor him. If the Broncos had been sitting on 1/1 this year...they WOULD absolutley not have hired Fangio...they wouldn't have traded for Flacco...they would have hired someone they thought could bring along Kyler Murray, and they'd have signed ....some sort of veteran who could move (Tyrod Taylor?) and they'd move forward. Vic Fangio would NEVER have been the hire in that scenario. Fangio is similar to Marty S, in that Marty got the KC D up and running in a hurry....D was his background...once he got it going....he didn't have time for young QB's....Let's say the Broncos go 7-9 and the D turns in a really solid performance....do you really think 61-62 year old Fangio is going to want to move on from Flacco then....so he can try and bring along a rookie? Think of if like that.
                              You’re still wrong. The Bears didn’t pay Glennon $18 million to be a “mentor.” They could’ve signed any number of vet QB to the minimum if that was the goal. Same with the Browns trading a 3rd and paying Taylor $18 million. Those teams planned for the vet to start, the team contend for the playoffs, and the rookie to sit and learn. CLEARLY. Who would pay those resources for a guy to be a freakin’ mentor and nothing else?! In those cases, the plan failed. But your team used the same plan, and it worked. That, and that reason only, is why Mahomes sat. If the Chiefs had been 2-6 at mid-season, Mahomes would’ve been in there.

                              I’ve already explained this clearly and you haven’t been able to refute it (or even understand it as far as I can tell). You’re wrong. The same pattern will follow in Denver as elsewhere: if the team wins enough and Flacco is decent, Lock will stay on the bench. If the team loses and falls out of contention with Flacco not playing well, then the “time table” for Lock playing will be accelerated. That Lock is a 2nd round pick absolutely buys Flacco more time, but, again, that’s SOP. In short, nothing you are saying is revelatory and Fangio’s age is irrelevant.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Action View Post


                                ^^^ fan report who has no idea what he’s watching.

                                Fangio on Drew Lock competing for No. 2 QB “He had some good periods here today. I think he did his best work in 7 on 7 which isn’t football. But it’s progress. You need to see that progress in 11 on 11 and then ultimately in games. But, he’s getting better.’’ #9sports

                                - @MikeKlis

                                report from a professional football coach.
                                First, why the hostile attitude? Attacking a fan for posting his thoughts on a practice where a draft pick's play was encouraging doesn't really add anything to the conversation, it just makes you seem a little short-tempered. Just a wee, tiny bit.

                                Second, that quote is singing the praises of Lock. Generally, if a head coach says you had good periods today and that you're getting better, then I think it's logical to surmise that said player was effective in that day's practice.

                                Now, I didn't write down notes while I watched, but I can go into more detail if you want. When I said that Flacco was more scattershot, it means there were multiple plays where he threw to an open receiver, but because the pass was inaccurate it ended up incomplete. This includes:
                                - throwing behind the WR on an in route, letting the trailing DB break the pass up,
                                - overthrowing Sutton on a deep post, negating a ~30 yard gain.
                                - leading one of the TE's too much, resulting in a difficult catch attempt that ended up dropped.

                                By comparison, all of the passes that I saw from Lock ended up near the receivers midsection, with the exception of the 12ish-yard out route to Langley, where he threw the pass before Langley broke on his route, and led him to the outside, just like an out should be thrown. There were plays where he threw 3-step drops from under center. There were plays where he read blitzing LB's and quickly threw to his checkdown for an easy 8-10 yards. There was a lot to like from what Lock showed this practice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X