PDA

View Full Version : Broncos targeting RB Mendenhall?



BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 10:43 AM
The Broncos are expected to add a backfield complement for Selvin Young this offseason.

Coach Mike Shanahan believes that Young, who's currently recovering from arthroscopic knee surgery, is only a 10-15 carry per game back. Travis Henry is likely to be cut. Rashard Mendenhall (Illinois) and Ray Rice (Rutgers) are draft-eligible runners who'd fit nicely in the Broncos' one-cut scheme.
Source: Denver Post

tubby
02-19-2008, 11:05 AM
Look for Henry to take a pay cut this afternoon.

:salute:

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 11:05 AM
Here is the link for all you link people that don't believe something when someone types info

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8297091?source=rss

Broncolingus
02-19-2008, 11:11 AM
Here is the link for all you link people that don't believe something when someone types info

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8297091?source=rss

I always believe ya, Boss...

Hell, with your posts, I don't even have a need to watch/read Mel Kiper anymore...we've got our 'own' draft expert.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 11:21 AM
I always believe ya, Boss...

Hell, with your posts, I don't even have a need to watch/read Mel Kiper anymore...we've got our 'own' draft expert.

I wonder if Boss has hair like Mel. :D

Not real crazy about this but if Henry is gone I do like Mendenhall.

RiversSucks
02-19-2008, 11:23 AM
The article didn't say anything about Mendenhall, I just saw a question about J Stewart


I was wondering what the Broncos had in the way of draft picks after No. 12 in the first round. I know this is going to look like a homer thought - being from Oregon - but I think that Jonathan Stewart would be a perfect fit in Denver's running game. Tell me what you think. Thanks.
-- Drew, Roseburg, Ore.

Drew - Don't apologize. You're dead on - Stewart would be an excellent choice for the Broncos. Problem is, after their No. 12 pick, the Broncos don't select again until the second round, No. 42 overall. Stewart is projected to go in the No. 15-22 range, so he'll be long gone by the time the Broncos start looking at running backs in the second round.

And I don't see the Broncos using their No. 12 pick on Stewart. This is a very deep draft of running backs. The Broncos can get a good back in the second, third (if they trade into that round) or fourth rounds.

The Broncos won't take a running back before the fourth round if they keep Henry, or replace him with a veteran through trade or free agency.

Requiem / The Dagda
02-19-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm Christopher from ND. :lol:

Broncolingus
02-19-2008, 11:25 AM
I wonder if Boss has hair like Mel. :D

Not real crazy about this but if Henry is gone I do like Mendenhall.

...yeah, I wonder if he talks the same in too.

mclark
02-19-2008, 11:38 AM
Here is the link for all you link people that don't believe something when someone types info

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8297091?source=rss

A decision on Henry's fate could come sooner. He is due a $6 million option bonus near the start of the trading/free-agent period. If he is not dealt by then, the Broncos will either cut him or try to re-negotiate a far smaller bonus.

Henry has a better chance of staying than Walker, but I don't expect either to be back. If Henry leaves, the Broncos will pursue another back, either through the draft, free agency or trade, to complement Selvin Young. Mike Shanahan made it clear during his season-ending press conference that Young is effective as a 10-to-15-carry-a-game back, but no more.

_____

Where is the Mendenhall/Rice statement? Or was that your Editiorial comment?

mclark
02-19-2008, 11:39 AM
I wonder if Boss has hair like Mel. :D

Not real crazy about this but if Henry is gone I do like Mendenhall.

No one has hair like Mel. That's because Mel's hair is spray-painted styrofoam.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 11:44 AM
The article didn't say anything about Mendenhall, I just saw a question about J Stewart

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

try this link.

mclark
02-19-2008, 11:47 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

try this link.

2. Michael Turner, Chargers – Meet the next fantasy football star. Turner has the perfect combination of experience (four-year veteran), fresh legs (228 carries), and production (5.5 career yards-per-carry). And he shouldn't cost that much.

We won't know every team searching for a back until all the cuts are made, but Turner should have a few suitors. Browns OC Rob Chudzinski coached Turner while in San Diego, but Cleveland may keep Jamal Lewis. He would fit well in Seattle or Denver if they ditch their starters. For now, Atlanta looks like the best fit. The Burner should find a starting job, making him a top-30 fantasy pick.

RiversSucks
02-19-2008, 11:48 AM
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/Home_NFL.aspx

try this link.

Not much was said. It just said that Mendenhall and Rice would be great fits for the Broncos system. Nothing like the thread title is indicating.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 11:51 AM
2. Michael Turner, Chargers – Meet the next fantasy football star. Turner has the perfect combination of experience (four-year veteran), fresh legs (228 carries), and production (5.5 career yards-per-carry). And he shouldn't cost that much.

We won't know every team searching for a back until all the cuts are made, but Turner should have a few suitors. Browns OC Rob Chudzinski coached Turner while in San Diego, but Cleveland may keep Jamal Lewis. He would fit well in Seattle or Denver if they ditch their starters. For now, Atlanta looks like the best fit. The Burner should find a starting job, making him a top-30 fantasy pick.

MC, I know you have a man crush for Turner since last year. I just don't see Shanny breaking the bank on a FA to split time with Young. He is an awesome back and someone is going to break the bank on him, I just don't see it being us.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 11:53 AM
Not much was said. It just said that Mendenhall and Rice would be great fits for the Broncos system. Nothing like the thread title is indicating.

hinx question mark at the end of title

mclark
02-19-2008, 11:54 AM
MC, I know you have a man crush for Turner since last year. I just don't see Shanny breaking the bank on a FA to split time with Young. He is an awesome back and someone is going to break the bank on him, I just don't see it being us.

I agree, unless we cut Henry loose. Then we will be looking for a starting back. It might be Turner; or it might be someone in the draft. We can either spend money on offensive line in free agency and draft a running back; or sign Turner as a free agent, and draft offensive linemen. Or we can keep Henry.

Getting Turner is a long shot. But if Mikey S. has a hankering for Turner, he might be able to get him cheaper than expected with all the running back talent in the draft.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 12:01 PM
I agree, unless we cut Henry loose. Then we will be looking for a starting back. It might be Turner; or it might be someone in the draft. We can either spend money on offensive line in free agency and draft a running back; or sign Turner as a free agent, and draft offensive linemen. Or we can keep Henry.

Getting Turner is a long shot. But if Mikey S. has a hankering for Turner, he might be able to get him cheaper than expected with all the running back talent in the draft.

Rookies are unproven. Turner has shown he can play at this level. He'll make more $$ because of it. He'll probably be one of the highest paid FA this year. He'll make a lot more than Henry.
Not only that but, I haven't seen anywhere that says the Broncos have shown any interest in him.

lex
02-19-2008, 12:06 PM
Id rather have Jamaal Charles than Rice. I think Charles will be good enough running inside plus he'll be able to cash in on the opportunities for long runs. Rice just isnt THAT explosive. Why does slow= good for Denvers system?

Requiem / The Dagda
02-19-2008, 12:09 PM
I don't think Rice is that slow. Obviously he's not as fast and explosive as Charles, but if 40 times mean anything; he reportedly ran a 4.38 while working out. . . Rice is small - but is tough for his size, has great vision - good cutback and is durable. He's underrated.

HolyDiver
02-19-2008, 12:12 PM
Id rather have Jamaal Charles than Rice. I think Charles will be good enough running inside plus he'll be able to cash in on the opportunities for long runs. Rice just isnt THAT explosive. Why does slow= good for Denvers system?

Slow like Terrell Davis and Mike Anderson?

lex
02-19-2008, 12:16 PM
Slow like Terrell Davis and Mike Anderson?

Its interesting you bring up Anderson because Denver actually chose Tatum Bell over Anderson...remember they let Anderson walk and gave Tatum a chance? There really hasnt been an aversion to faster RBs like Portis or Tatum, the question is are they more like Portis or Tatum. It doesnt really seem like the FO subcsribes to the commonly held belief that our RBs are better when theyre slow, nor should they.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 12:19 PM
If Denver is really looking at a runningback... it only makes sense to use the #12 overall pick and get one of the best if not the best of this very good draft class. Why settle for a questionable OT, LB, S, or DT, even though they are a position of need when we can have a super stud RB who is actually worth all the money we will have to pay a top 15 pick?

lex
02-19-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't think Rice is that slow. Obviously he's not as fast and explosive as Charles, but if 40 times mean anything; he reportedly ran a 4.38 while working out. . . Rice is small - but is tough for his size, has great vision - good cutback and is durable. He's underrated.

Hearing that a guy ran a certain time at a workout doesnt really sell me. Too often 40 times arent apples to apples...too many times theyre erroneous. Ill hold off and see what he runs during the combine but I dont expect it to be under a 4.5...in fact, I think he'll be more around 4.6 and thats purely going by what I saw him do on the field. I watched several games of Rutgers this year and not once did he look like a RB who can run a 4.3.

MOtorboat
02-19-2008, 12:23 PM
Hearing that a guy ran a certain time at a workout doesnt really sell me. Too often 40 times arent apples to apples...too many times theyre erroneous. Ill hold off and see what he runs during the combine but I dont expect it to be under a 4.5...in fact, I think he'll be more around 4.6 and thats purely going by what I saw him do on the field. I watched several games of Rutgers this year and not once did he look like a RB who can run a 4.3.

They are all erroneous. TD's 40 time wasn't that good, but he ran away from people on the football field. I saw both of those guys do that in pads...I think Rice is the tougher runner of the two, but if we're going to try and grab anyone, I'd be for the Mendenhall pick, but as I said above, is that the best value of any player at No. 12 for the Broncos?

Requiem / The Dagda
02-19-2008, 12:23 PM
I don't think he'll run it either; but I think too much stock is placed into 40 times. He's a guy who has proved, even despite his size 5'9 - 200 pounds (built thick) that he can pound the rock and take the beating, and hang onto the ball. I think Rice/Young as a duo would be awesome, and I'm not talking about the 49ers. ;)

HolyDiver
02-19-2008, 12:24 PM
Its interesting you bring up Anderson because Denver actually chose Tatum Bell over Anderson...remember they let Anderson walk and gave Tatum a chance? There really hasnt been an aversion to faster RBs like Portis or Tatum, the question is are they more like Portis or Tatum. It doesnt really seem like the FO subcsribes to the commonly held belief that our RBs are better when theyre slow, nor should they.

The problem with speed guys is that they are looking for the homerun on every run..............and sacrificing the 5 yard, 1st down...................Quintin Griffin is a great example.

RiversSucks
02-19-2008, 12:26 PM
hinx question mark at the end of title

I still think the thread title is misleading. The source says absolutely nothing about the Broncos targeting Mendenhall. It just says he's a good fit in the system. Thread title should be "Mendenhall great fit for Denver?"

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 12:28 PM
I still think the thread title is misleading. The source says absolutely nothing about the Broncos targeting Mendenhall. It just says he's a good fit in the system. Thread title should be "Mendenhall great fit for Denver?"

I'm sure we could all come up with better titles to every thread... so please forgive me for not coming up with a title that pleases you.

MOtorboat
02-19-2008, 12:29 PM
I'm sure we could all come up with better titles to every thread... so please forgive me for not coming up with a title that pleases you.

Nothing wrong with the thread title, especially because of the "?". Don't worry about it Boss.

lex
02-19-2008, 12:29 PM
The problem with speed guys is that they are looking for the homerun on every run..............and sacrificing the 5 yard, 1st down...................Quintin Griffin is a great example.

I didnt get that from watching Charles this past year. He seemed pretty willing to run it inside and take what was there.

lex
02-19-2008, 12:31 PM
I don't think he'll run it either; but I think too much stock is placed into 40 times. He's a guy who has proved, even despite his size 5'9 - 200 pounds (built thick) that he can pound the rock and take the beating, and hang onto the ball. I think Rice/Young as a duo would be awesome, and I'm not talking about the 49ers. ;)

What makes you so sure Rice would be better than, say, Yvenson Bernard who may go undrafted?

mclark
02-19-2008, 12:35 PM
The key is do we trade or waive Henry. If not, then I don't see us going after a running back early.

I'd love to see us sign a left tackle and a middle linebacker in free agency. Then we could go after Stewart or Mendenhall.

RiversSucks
02-19-2008, 12:35 PM
I'm sure we could all come up with better titles to every thread... so please forgive me for not coming up with a title that pleases you.

I don't want you to change the thread title because it doesn't please me. I'm just saying it's very misleading.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 12:36 PM
Trade for Shaun Rogers or sign Corey Williams

Draft Mendenhall or Stewart

It is simple

Requiem / The Dagda
02-19-2008, 12:36 PM
What makes you so sure Rice would be better than, say, Yvenson Bernard who may go undrafted?

Goodness, is this a serious question?

There's a reason why people peg Rice as a top 100 selection; and Bernard barely gets on draft boards.

mclark
02-19-2008, 12:38 PM
Rookies are unproven. Turner has shown he can play at this level. He'll make more $$ because of it. He'll probably be one of the highest paid FA this year. He'll make a lot more than Henry.
Not only that but, I haven't seen anywhere that says the Broncos have shown any interest in him.

Rookies are unproven, but they are younger and cheaper than Turner will be. So some teams might take that route, instead of bidding for Turner. If enough teams view it this way, then Turner's asking price might go down.

I can see teams saying: "I really like Turner. But we can always draft a running back in the second round who will cost us less money. Let's spend our free agent money on a safety, since safety is pretty weak in the draft."

BroncoJoe
02-19-2008, 12:40 PM
I still think the thread title is misleading. The source says absolutely nothing about the Broncos targeting Mendenhall. It just says he's a good fit in the system. Thread title should be "Mendenhall great fit for Denver?"

Good grief, Dude. Get up on the wrong side of the bed or something?

:tsk:

underrated29
02-19-2008, 12:43 PM
Id rather have Jamaal Charles than Rice. I think Charles will be good enough running inside plus he'll be able to cash in on the opportunities for long runs. Rice just isnt THAT explosive. Why does slow= good for Denvers system?



We have already debated onthis topic so i really wont do it again, we have our own thread for that :wink:

But dont we already have young and hall to do the exact same thing that charles will do?

topscribe
02-19-2008, 12:50 PM
I always believe ya, Boss...

Hell, with your posts, I don't even have a need to watch/read Mel Kiper anymore...we've got our 'own' draft expert.

Yes, it is good to have one on board . . .

-----

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 12:59 PM
Stewart makes more since to me because he is very similar to Mendenhall as a runningback... my saying this I mean that I think both will be very successful in the NFL. What Stewart has taht Mendenhall doesn't though is return skills, something Denver needs as well and therefor Stewart hold even more value and is the better buy with the 12th overall pick.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 01:13 PM
Stewart makes more since to me because he is very similar to Mendenhall as a runningback... my saying this I mean that I think both will be very successful in the NFL. What Stewart has taht Mendenhall doesn't though is return skills, something Denver needs as well and therefor Stewart hold even more value and is the better buy with the 12th overall pick.

Not many teams use thier starting RB as a return guy. I don't think we would either.
I like both guys but see Mendenahll a better fit for our system. He has a little more shiftyness to him. One cut and go and use the shiftyness to elude DB's.
That said, I hope we don't take either at #12 unless Henry is gone.

HolyDiver
02-19-2008, 01:14 PM
Stewart makes more since to me because he is very similar to Mendenhall as a runningback... my saying this I mean that I think both will be very successful in the NFL. What Stewart has taht Mendenhall doesn't though is return skills, something Denver needs as well and therefor Stewart hold even more value and is the better buy with the 12th overall pick.

I like Mendenhall better................And we won't be using our starting Runninback as a return man anyway. Mendenhall had a great bowl game............

lex
02-19-2008, 01:15 PM
Goodness, is this a serious question?

There's a reason why people peg Rice as a top 100 selection; and Bernard barely gets on draft boards.

Yes it is a serious question but if you cant answer it thats cool.

lex
02-19-2008, 01:17 PM
We have already debated onthis topic so i really wont do it again, we have our own thread for that :wink:

But dont we already have young and hall to do the exact same thing that charles will do?

Young isnt as explosive as Charles. Charles put Young on the bench in college and Charles improved this year.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 01:19 PM
Not many teams use thier starting RB as a return guy. I don't think we would either.
I like both guys but see Mendenahll a better fit for our system. He has a little more shiftyness to him. One cut and go and use the shiftyness to elude DB's.
That said, I hope we don't take either at #12 unless Henry is gone.

Not many teams have runningbacks that are good on special teams either, but the teams that have good return backs use them. Adrian Peterson, Brian Westbrook, Maroney, Michael Turner, Reggie Bush.

It is only a few extra plays per game. I don't know why everyone is so concerned about starting a stud player on special teams. It is football players will get hurt, a few extra plays won't make a big difference, plus we have Selvin Young and Andre Hall to give the guy a break on offense. You have to play your best players regardless on every play.

topscribe
02-19-2008, 01:20 PM
We have already debated onthis topic so i really wont do it again, we have our own thread for that :wink:

But dont we already have young and hall to do the exact same thing that charles will do?

My thoughts exactly. We already have two small backs who can score from
anywhere on the field. I think it would be ludicrous to even consider a Charles
or a Rice, IMO.

Now, a Stewart or Mendenhall :nod:

Still, any moves should be made with consideration to the trenches first, IMO.

-----

HolyDiver
02-19-2008, 01:22 PM
Not many teams have runningbacks that are good on special teams either, but the teams that have good return backs use them. Adrian Peterson, Brian Westbrook, Maroney, Michael Turner, Reggie Bush.

It is only a few extra plays per game. I don't know why everyone is so concerned about starting a stud player on special teams. It is football players will get hurt, a few extra plays won't make a big difference, plus we have Selvin Young and Andre Hall to give the guy a break on offense. You have to play your best players regardless on every play.


I wouldn't be concerned, I just don't think Shanahan would have him do it if he's the starting back.

underrated29
02-19-2008, 02:30 PM
I wouldn't be concerned, I just don't think Shanahan would have him do it if he's the starting back.



Well we had champ on kickoff coverage for a few weeks. And he and Jay are our MVPs, imo.


And top i agree.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 02:33 PM
Not many teams have runningbacks that are good on special teams either, but the teams that have good return backs use them. Adrian Peterson, Brian Westbrook, Maroney, Michael Turner, Reggie Bush.

It is only a few extra plays per game. I don't know why everyone is so concerned about starting a stud player on special teams. It is football players will get hurt, a few extra plays won't make a big difference, plus we have Selvin Young and Andre Hall to give the guy a break on offense. You have to play your best players regardless on every play.

I understand what you're saying however, of the backs you have listed, 3 are RRBC backs, one is a back up and the last should not be a returner because of injury risk. There isn't one guy on your list that is used as a full time returner either. Big game must win situations mostly.
Players are more apt to get a serious injury when being used a returner. I remember back when, the Giants had used Jason Seahorn as a returner, he was one of the best DB's in the game at that point, he came away from that play with not just a season ending injury but a career ending one. There wasn't anyone that didn't question the Giants for using him as a return guy.
Everyone on the field is going 100% all out as far as speed is concerned. The extra speed leads to heavier hitting and harder impact, therefore being a more injury prone play for everyone involved.

dogfish
02-19-2008, 02:34 PM
Trade for Shaun Rogers or sign Corey Williams

Draft Mendenhall or Stewart

It is simple


yep. . . give me an OT in the 2nd and i'll call it a perfect offseason regardless of the rest of the moves we make. . . .

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 02:49 PM
I understand what you're saying however, of the backs you have listed, 3 are RRBC backs, one is a back up and the last should not be a returner because of injury risk. There isn't one guy on your list that is used as a full time returner either. Big game must win situations mostly.
Players are more apt to get a serious injury when being used a returner. I remember back when, the Giants had used Jason Seahorn as a returner, he was one of the best DB's in the game at that point, he came away from that play with not just a season ending injury but a career ending one. There wasn't anyone that didn't question the Giants for using him as a return guy.
Everyone on the field is going 100% all out as far as speed is concerned. The extra speed leads to heavier hitting and harder impact, therefore being a more injury prone play for everyone involved.

Not everyone has the luxury of a Devin Hester, Josh Cribbs, or Yamon Figurs. If you look around the league, the teams that don't have that luxury usually have their better players playing special teams to make up for it.

Steve Smith, Maruice Jones Drew, Ted Ginn Jr., Wes Welker, Leon Washington, Jerious Norwood, Michael L. Lewis and so on. All these guys are important to their teams yet, the team plays them on Special teams.

MOtorboat
02-19-2008, 03:21 PM
We already have two small backs who can score from anywhere on the field.

With all due respect, I don't think they've shown they could score from anywhere on the field at all.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 03:22 PM
Not everyone has the luxury of a Devin Hester, Josh Cribbs, or Yamon Figurs. If you look around the league, the teams that don't have that luxury usually have their better players playing special teams to make up for it.

Steve Smith, Maruice Jones Drew, Ted Ginn Jr., Wes Welker, Leon Washington, Jerious Norwood, Michael L. Lewis and so on. All these guys are important to their teams yet, the team plays them on Special teams.

Smith rarely returns anymore, Jones has Taylor and G. Jones if he gets hurt, Ginn was drafted to be a returner. Welker has a deep WR core for depth if he gets hurt and he doesn't return that much anyway. Washington is a pure back up, Norwood is a back up and Lewis is pretty much a return specialist.

No there aren't many teams that have the luxury of a Hester or there would be alot more returns for TD"S.

mclark
02-19-2008, 03:24 PM
I like Mendenhall better................And we won't be using our starting Runninback as a return man anyway. Mendenhall had a great bowl game............

I don't agree with this. If we can start our offensive drives at the 40 yard line instead of the 18, why not use Stewart as a return man. Injuries? You can get hurt on any play in the game. I'm not sure more kick return men get hurt than other running backs.

Stewart, at 235, delivers a punch in the kickoff return, so he can take a blow better than a light player can, and still stay on his feet.

Look at the Bears to see what a really good return man does for the offense.

HolyDiver
02-19-2008, 03:33 PM
Well we had champ on kickoff coverage for a few weeks. And he and Jay are our MVPs, imo.


And top i agree.


Well, do you see Champ RETURNING punts?

HolyDiver
02-19-2008, 03:34 PM
I don't agree with this. If we can start our offensive drives at the 40 yard line instead of the 18, why not use Stewart as a return man. Injuries? You can get hurt on any play in the game. I'm not sure more kick return men get hurt than other running backs.

Stewart, at 235, delivers a punch in the kickoff return, so he can take a blow better than a light player can, and still stay on his feet.

Look at the Bears to see what a really good return man does for the offense.

How many starting Runningbacks in the league return kicks? Not saying I would like to see it...........I just don't think Shanahan would do it....................Never saw TD or Portis return kicks...............Droughns and Anderson did when they were NOT the starting Tailback.

roomemp
02-19-2008, 03:37 PM
Well, do you see Champ RETURNING punts?

No but I did see him on the coverage team when we were really struggling

mclark
02-19-2008, 03:39 PM
I could certainly see Stewart returning kickoffs his first year. Depending on his success, and how much wear and tear he would take as a running back, that might change.

Rod Smith was the best punt-return man we've had for a long time. But you could see his heart wasn't in it when he got older. Catch the ball, get scared, and run like a rabbit so you don't get killed.

In truth, punt returning probably isn't much more dangerous than catching a pass over the middle. 10 1/2 men want to kill you on a punt return but only a handful really have a chance to kill you at a time. On a completed pass over the middle, you have a couple linebackers, a cornerback, two safeties -- generally speaking NO BLOCKERS. On punt returns, you do have blockers getting in the way of the 10 1/2 killers.

Punt returns look really dangerous -- but more receivers take savage hits on receptions that returners do I would think.

topscribe
02-19-2008, 03:39 PM
No but I did see him on the coverage team when we were really struggling

And he made a big difference. Were it not for him, we probably would be
looking back at a couple more returns that were taken to the house on the
Broncos.

What is needed on STs is quality. And quality is the reason starters are starters.

-----

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 03:42 PM
We wouldn't be asking Stewart to be our kick returner for years to come... we are talking a season or two till we get a good returner. We have many needs and Stewart helps us in more than one area. Because of his athletic abilities he would be able to help us in more areas right away unlike some of the other backs available. Just like Champ Bailey and Dre Bly... we don't really want them on special teams, but do to poor play, we needed them last year. It is nice to have versatile players like that and players who want to be on the field.

mclark
02-19-2008, 03:43 PM
How many starting Runningbacks in the league return kicks? Not saying I would like to see it...........I just don't think Shanahan would do it....................Never saw TD or Portis return kicks...............Droughns and Anderson did when they were NOT the starting Tailback.

I'm not sure TD or Portis ever had a track record of being successful at it. Stewart led the nation as a freshmen. And he was successful as a sophomore and junior when Oregon had him do it -- only he had ankle and turf toe injuries that kept him from doing it regularly.

I don't think I ever saw Stewart get hit as hard on a kickoff return as he did when running the ball from scrimmage.

Just because it hasn't been done much doesn't mean one can't do it.

Every one of our running backs got hurt this year and missed games -- but I don't remember any of our kick returners getting hurt on kick returns. I may be wrong about that however.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 03:46 PM
Andre Hall returned kicks and I thought he did pretty good. Dre Bly had one punt return last year for 23 yards. Why didn't we let him return more? Did he do to good?

mclark
02-19-2008, 03:49 PM
I think our view that special teams is something that only the backups do might need to change. We're not very good at special teams. Maybe there is a reason for that.

Injuries on special teams are very dramatic. But I'm not sure you can play the game being afraid of using your best players because they might get hurt. (That's why you need to have depth, afterall.)

If we drafted Stewart and didn't use him as a kickoff-returner, I'd be shocked.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 03:53 PM
Andre Hall returned kicks and I thought he did pretty good. Dre Bly had one punt return last year for 23 yards. Why didn't we let him return more? Did he do to good?

Because we didn't want to chance our STARTING CB to get injured.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 03:55 PM
I think our view that special teams is something that only the backups do might need to change. We're not very good at special teams. Maybe there is a reason for that.

Injuries on special teams are very dramatic. But I'm not sure you can play the game being afraid of using your best players because they might get hurt. (That's why you need to have depth, afterall.)

If we drafted Stewart and didn't use him as a kickoff-returner, I'd be shocked.

MC, that's something you'll have to sit down and talk to Shanny about.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 03:56 PM
Because we didn't want to chance our STARTING CB to get injured.

Well that is stupid for many reasons... First off, we were deep at CB last year. Secondly, if a guy is averaging over twenty yards per return, then obviously he is doing a good job and should be given the chance to return more often, regardless of position or super stardom. The object of the game is to win football games. To win football games it is usually a good idea to put the best players on the field at all times. Why settle for average?! Unless you have to.

mclark
02-19-2008, 04:02 PM
Strange thing: Devan Hester could apparently start on defense and on offense also. I think Chicago's a bit afraid of using him too much on offense (or even defense), because he might get hurt and not be able to return kicks.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 04:03 PM
Well that is stupid for many reasons... First off, we were deep at CB last year. Secondly, if a guy is averaging over twenty yards per return, then obviously he is doing a good job and should be given the chance to return more often, regardless of position or super stardom. The object of the game is to win football games. To win football games it is usually a good idea to put the best players on the field at all times. Why settle for average?! Unless you have to.

OK after this I'm done with this.

If the object is to win games, remember it is a 16 game season not counting the playoffs. Lets lose our starting RB in week one on a KO return, then in week two lets loose our top WR (cuz he can return punts) week three lets lose our top CB cuz he's a stud returner. How many games we gonna win the rest of the season?It's a well know fact that return men are more subject to more and more severe injuries than regular players on regular plays.
I'm done.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 04:03 PM
Strange thing: Devan Hester could apparently start on defense and on offense also. I think Chicago's a big afraid of using him too much on offense (or even defense), because he might get hurt and not be able to return kicks.

Some guy named Cromartie for the Chargers does a little return duties himself...even though they have Sproles and Turner.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 04:04 PM
Strange thing: Devan Hester could apparently start on defense and on offense also. I think Chicago's a bit afraid of using him too much on offense (or even defense), because he might get hurt and not be able to return kicks.

Could be but he's not the norm.

mclark
02-19-2008, 04:04 PM
MC, that's something you'll have to sit down and talk to Shanny about.

I've tried. He's not returning my calls. (I wonder why? Maybe it's because I wanted us to draft Mike Williams a couple years back.)

topscribe
02-19-2008, 04:05 PM
I've tried. He's not returning my calls. (I wonder why? Maybe it's because I wanted us to draft Mike Williams a couple years back.)

Leave the message that you have some info about someone filming his practices . . .

-----

turftoad
02-19-2008, 04:06 PM
Some guy named Cromartie for the Chargers does a little return duties himself...even though they have Sproles and Turner.

Before he was a starter in week 10.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 04:07 PM
OK after this I'm done with this.

If the object is to win games, remember it is a 16 game season not counting the playoffs. Lets lose our starting RB in week one on a KO return, then in week two lets loose our top WR (cuz he can return punts) week three lets lose our top CB cuz he's a stud returner. How many games we gonna win the rest of the season?It's a well know fact that return men are more subject to more and more severe injuries than regular players on regular plays.
I'm done.

You are talking kick return duties... and not every single one of them... he can split with Andre Hall or someone else... but it would be nice to actually have a good returner back there every now and then. How many freaking extra touches will the guy have to take?! Unless you have one horrible defense, not that many! If you live in fear that you will get your star back hurt then you shouldn't be watching football, playing football, or coaching football. The odds of him getting hurt don't go up that much to concern me and you don't pay these guys millions and millions of dollars to avoid contact.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 04:16 PM
For you that say a star player shouldn't play special teams... then would it be the same thing for the star returners to have to play offense or defense? Since this increases the odds of them being injuried.

Devin Hester shouldn't play offense he could get hurt and then the Bears wouldn't have a return weapon
Ted Ginn Jr. shouldn't play offense because he is far more valuable as a returner and he could get hurt too
DeShaun Jackson shoudln't play offense because he could get hurt
Josh Cribbs shouldn't play offense either because he could get hurt

Retired_Member_001
02-19-2008, 04:27 PM
If we pick up TWO First round draft picks then I would be for picking up a running back with it. However I wouldn't pick up a running back with a lone first round pick. We have way too many greater needs such as the Defensive Line and Offensive line, linebacker and safety to pick up a running back with a lone first round pick. It is impossible to fill all or even most of these positions through FA.

I like Mendenhall and I think he will become a good running back, it's just there are far bigger pressing needs. As I said before, if we get two first round picks then I'm all for drafting a running back.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 04:30 PM
Boss I respect your opinion however, I'm done with conversation. I'm not going to change your mind and you won't mine either.
Both of us can agree though that we need to do something about our ST's and return game.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 04:32 PM
Boss I respect your opinion however, I'm done with conversation. I'm not going to change your mind and you won't mine either.
Both of us can agree though that we need to do something about our ST's and return game.

yeah, we need to ask the NFL to up the roster requirements so we can put a bunch of guys on special teams that we don't care if they get hurt or not.

turftoad
02-19-2008, 04:42 PM
yeah, we need to ask the NFL to up the roster requirements so we can put a bunch of guys on special teams that we don't care if they get hurt or not.

I wonder if they would allow each team a certain amount of crash dummies. :D

Hoshdude7
02-19-2008, 06:23 PM
If Denver traded for J lewis I would be so mad.
Dumb move if they do.

Requiem / The Dagda
02-19-2008, 06:31 PM
Jamaal Charles and Ray Rice aren't even remotely similar.

Fan in Exile
02-19-2008, 06:36 PM
For you that say a star player shouldn't play special teams... then would it be the same thing for the star returners to have to play offense or defense? Since this increases the odds of them being injuried.

Devin Hester shouldn't play offense he could get hurt and then the Bears wouldn't have a return weapon
Ted Ginn Jr. shouldn't play offense because he is far more valuable as a returner and he could get hurt too
DeShaun Jackson shoudln't play offense because he could get hurt
Josh Cribbs shouldn't play offense either because he could get hurt

This is a really bad argument.

First the perception is that the chances of a person getting hurt on special teams is much higher than that of either offense or defense. So the added risk of a person playing on offense isn't the same as the added risk of a person playing on special teams.

Secondly offense and defense are both more important to winning the game than special teams. Football Outsiders quantifies the importance as 1/7 special teams, 3/7 offense and 3/7 defense. Wether you agree with their specific numbers or not special teams are not as valuable as offense or defense. They do have a place, and they can win games, but they aren't as valuable. Which means that for a special teams player to play offense or defense you have a much greater risk/reward ratio than for an offensive or defensive starter playing special teams.

Special teams is high risk/low reward Offense and defense low risk/high reward.

It should be obvious from the fact that teams generally don't ask valuable players to play special teams. So the fact that Mendenhall doesn't play special teams is really unimportant, when considering the question of whether to draft him to be the starter or not, because he wouldn't be the return guy.

Of course we won't know anything for sure until the final decision is made with Henry.

BOSSHOGG30
02-19-2008, 06:59 PM
This is a really bad argument.

First the perception is that the chances of a person getting hurt on special teams is much higher than that of either offense or defense. So the added risk of a person playing on offense isn't the same as the added risk of a person playing on special teams.

Secondly offense and defense are both more important to winning the game than special teams. Football Outsiders quantifies the importance as 1/7 special teams, 3/7 offense and 3/7 defense. Wether you agree with their specific numbers or not special teams are not as valuable as offense or defense. They do have a place, and they can win games, but they aren't as valuable. Which means that for a special teams player to play offense or defense you have a much greater risk/reward ratio than for an offensive or defensive starter playing special teams.

Special teams is high risk/low reward Offense and defense low risk/high reward.

It should be obvious from the fact that teams generally don't ask valuable players to play special teams. So the fact that Mendenhall doesn't play special teams is really unimportant, when considering the question of whether to draft him to be the starter or not, because he wouldn't be the return guy.

Of course we won't know anything for sure until the final decision is made with Henry.

Shanahan is that you? We know you don't value special teams like many coaches around the league, but don't tell me special teams isn't important because it won us a lot of games this year... yes, Elam is special teams, and I think Bears fans will have something so say about special teams as well.

Fan in Exile
02-19-2008, 07:19 PM
Shanahan is that you? We know you don't value special teams like many coaches around the league, but don't tell me special teams isn't important because it won us a lot of games this year... yes, Elam is special teams, and I think Bears fans will have something so say about special teams as well.

Don't be absurd I said they weren't as important as offense and defense not that they aren't important.

mclark
02-19-2008, 07:56 PM
This is a really bad argument.

First the perception is that the chances of a person getting hurt on special teams is much higher than that of either offense or defense. So the added risk of a person playing on offense isn't the same as the added risk of a person playing on special teams.


That is the perception. But is it true?

I'm not sure, per play, that special teams leads to more injuries. That might just be an assumption because special teams play LOOKS so savage and chaotic.

One of the reasons our offense couldn't finish this year was that they had to drive the ball 85 yards every time they got the ball.

Fan in Exile
02-19-2008, 08:08 PM
That is the perception. But is it true?

I'm not sure, per play, that special teams leads to more injuries. That might just be an assumption because special teams play LOOKS so savage and chaotic.

One of the reasons our offense couldn't finish this year was that they had to drive the ball 85 yards every time they got the ball.

I don't know if it is true or not, but in this case perception is reality. Because it is perceived as being more dangerous and is not as important to winning, coaches don't risk players.

Thank you for sharing that little tidbit about why our offense failed last year. Of course there are all the other problems as well injuries and the like wouldn't want to forget them.

dogfish
02-19-2008, 08:16 PM
We wouldn't be asking Stewart to be our kick returner for years to come... we are talking a season or two till we get a good returner. We have many needs and Stewart helps us in more than one area. Because of his athletic abilities he would be able to help us in more areas right away unlike some of the other backs available. Just like Champ Bailey and Dre Bly... we don't really want them on special teams, but do to poor play, we needed them last year. It is nice to have versatile players like that and players who want to be on the field.

QFT because IMO this is really the heart of the matter. . . whether or not you intend to use the guy there on a regular basis, his proven ability to do so increases his value because it may save you a roster spot. . .

lex
02-20-2008, 12:51 AM
QFT because IMO this is really the heart of the matter. . . whether or not you intend to use the guy there on a regular basis, his proven ability to do so increases his value because it may save you a roster spot. . .

Do you really save a roster spot though? Are you going to start carrying 2 RBs instead of 3 because the first string RB is returning KOs? I really doubt exposing your starting RB to greater injury risk, whatever degree it might be, by having him return kicks is going to make a team want to carry fewer RBs.

dogfish
02-20-2008, 01:19 AM
Do you really save a roster spot though? Are you going to start carrying 2 RBs instead of 3 because the first string RB is returning KOs? I really doubt exposing your starting RB to greater injury risk, whatever degree it might be, by having him return kicks is going to make a team want to carry fewer RBs.

no, i didn't mean that you'd carry fewer RBs-- what i meant was that you might be able to carry one less return specialist, and instead devote that roster spot to a player with more value as a positional backup (carry an additional LB, DL or OL instead of an extra guy who does nothing but return kicks, and would only see the field at WR, CB or WR in emergency duty). . . . of course, if you have a terence newman or charles woodson type of player you aren't spending that roster spot, but a guy like allen rossum is close to useless playing CB, and is basically on your roster only for ST value. . . see where i'm coming from?

WARHORSE
02-20-2008, 01:59 AM
Mendenhall reminds me of TD. I like the way he scraps for every inch as well.

Hes the number one RB on my board right now.

Scarface
02-20-2008, 09:47 AM
Put me down in the, starting RBs shouldn't be running back kicks, camp. They take enough punishment as it is.

As for the backs, it would be cool if Denver was targeting Mendenhall. Him and Young together in the backfield would be one of the top RB duos in the league.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff302/ScarfaceBroncos2007/NFL%20Draft%2008/RB/09000d5d8069a22d_gallery_600.jpg

lex
02-20-2008, 10:01 AM
no, i didn't mean that you'd carry fewer RBs-- what i meant was that you might be able to carry one less return specialist, and instead devote that roster spot to a player with more value as a positional backup (carry an additional LB, DL or OL instead of an extra guy who does nothing but return kicks, and would only see the field at WR, CB or WR in emergency duty). . . . of course, if you have a terence newman or charles woodson type of player you aren't spending that roster spot, but a guy like allen rossum is close to useless playing CB, and is basically on your roster only for ST value. . . see where i'm coming from?

Not really. You can do that anyway. I see it more being the case that if you play Stewart as a retruner, its because your other options are that bad and with that in mind, youre getting absolutely zero production from your backups whether its RB or CB or WR. But either way, if you dont carry fewer running backs in this scenario youre not really saving a roster spot. Having a return specialist as a 4th or 5th string player is a function of choice, not positional allocation.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 10:11 AM
Put me down in the, starting RBs shouldn't be running back kicks, camp. They take enough punishment as it is.

As for the backs, it would be cool if Denver was targeting Mendenhall. Him and Young together in the backfield would be one of the top RB duos in the league.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff302/ScarfaceBroncos2007/NFL%20Draft%2008/RB/09000d5d8069a22d_gallery_600.jpg

I absolutely loved that play. Great photo! I hate USC!

lex
02-20-2008, 10:22 AM
I absolutely loved that play. Great photo! I hate USC!


Yeah, and the thing that made that play happen was Rivers running himself out of position. It was a great play though. The very next play was also a 50 something yard screen pass to Mendenhall. Earlier someone said they were alarmed he had a bad game vs Ohio State but completely neglected to mention the USC game. USC is a who's who of NFL prospects on defense and Illinois offensive line is a severely overmatched on paper. Mendenhall was great.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Yeah, and the thing that made that play happen was Rivers running himself out of position. It was a great play though. The very next play was also a 50 something yard screen pass to Mendenhall. Earlier someone said they were alarmed he had a bad game vs Ohio State but completely neglected to mention the USC game. USC is a who's who of NFL prospects on defense and Illinois offensive line is a severely overmatched on paper. Mendenhall was great.

Well he struggled without Williams at QB and that USC game was really his only good one against a top defensive opponent. So I don't blame them for saying it. Plus, even the USC game he had 155 yards rushing and if it wasn't for the 79 yard TD, he wouldn't have had the eye popping stats in that game. Plus it doesn't help that they lost that game.

lex
02-20-2008, 10:59 AM
Well he struggled without Williams at QB and that USC game was really his only good one against a top defensive opponent. So I don't blame them for saying it. Plus, even the USC game he had 155 yards rushing and if it wasn't for the 79 yard TD, he wouldn't have had the eye popping stats in that game. Plus it doesn't help that they lost that game.

Here we go with the Stewart lobbying.

topscribe
02-20-2008, 11:21 AM
Well he struggled without Williams at QB and that USC game was really his only good one against a top defensive opponent. So I don't blame them for saying it. Plus, even the USC game he had 155 yards rushing and if it wasn't for the 79 yard TD, he wouldn't have had the eye popping stats in that game. Plus it doesn't help that they lost that game.

A lot of people are impressed with Mendenhall, and probably justifiably so.
What disturbs me somewhat, however, is the apparent inconsistency in his
stats over the course of a season. Some of that may be attributable to
factors such as the O-line, but I would like to see a better explanation.

-----

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 11:34 AM
Here we go with the Stewart lobbying.

Facts are facts... look at his stats.... He didn't crack 100 + yards against any top defensive teams.

mclark
02-20-2008, 11:35 AM
I don't know if it is true or not, but in this case perception is reality. Because it is perceived as being more dangerous and is not as important to winning, coaches don't risk players.

Thank you for sharing that little tidbit about why our offense failed last year. Of course there are all the other problems as well injuries and the like wouldn't want to forget them.

We definitely LOST the field position game last year. Of course, our lousy defense was the main reason for this. But we had no consistency in our return game either.

You can win without an explosive return game -- but you can also make things a lot easier on your offense if you have an explosive return game.

lex
02-20-2008, 11:45 AM
A lot of people are impressed with Mendenhall, and probably justifiably so.
What disturbs me somewhat, however, is the apparent inconsistency in his
stats over the course of a season. Some of that may be attributable to
factors such as the O-line, but I would like to see a better explanation.

-----

Both Stewart and Mendenhall each had 6 games where they failed to average 5.0 yards per carry. You should realize that both teams run a lot of shotgun option which means the QB gives the ball or keeps it based on reading the defense. Its not like every play has one player designed to get the ball. So as a result you see some games where both players have about 16 carries. So perhaps, in those cases theyre not getting the ball enough to have to have a long runs that move up the APC.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/players/130937

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/players/128526

Also, in Mendenhalls case against Ohio State, the backup had a huge game. So, it seems Ohio State was making Mendenhall the focal point. And Ohio State outmans Illinois at practically every position except the skill positions.

lex
02-20-2008, 11:50 AM
Facts are facts... look at his stats.... He didn't crack 100 + yards against any top defensive teams.

What top defenses did he play against? What top defenses did Stewart play against?

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 11:59 AM
Both Stewart and Mendenhall each had 6 games where they failed to average 5.0 yards per carry. You should realize that both teams run a lot of shotgun option which means the QB gives the ball or keeps it based on reading the defense. Its not like every play has one player designed to get the ball. So as a result you see some games where both players have about 16 carries. So perhaps, in those cases theyre not getting the ball enough to have to have a long runs that move up the APC.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/players/130937

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/players/128526

Also, in Mendenhalls case against Ohio State, the backup had a huge game. So, it seems Ohio State was making Mendenhall the focal point. And Ohio State outmans Illinois at practically every position except the skill positions.

First off you mention 5.0 yards per carry.... since when is 4.5 yards per carry not good? 4.0 to 4.4 is good. 4.5 and up is really good. Anything below 4.0 is a bad game.

Stewarts average yards per carry per game:
4.8
7.4
9.7
8.4
5.7
5.1
7.8
4.1
4.7
4.7
2.5
4.2
11.0

Note: He had turf toe and another injury towards the end of the year. Probably why his average dropped a little in those games: only guessing though. Also, Stewart had 4 games where he rushed for less than 100 yards, Game 1: 14 attempts, Game 2: 13 attempts, Game 3: 21 attempts for 99 yards, Game 4: 13 attempts.

Mendenhall’s average yards per carry per game:
3.0
6.0
9.4
7.9
4.2
8.4
4.7
6.8
11.8
3.4
4.6
9.1

Note: Mendenhall had 5 games where he rushed for less than 100 yards, Game 1: 11 attempts, Game 2: 18 attempts, Game 3: 15 attempts, Game 4: 18 attempts, Game 5: 26 attempts.

lex
02-20-2008, 12:05 PM
First off you mention 5.0 yards per carry.... since when is 4.5 yards per carry not good? 4.0 to 4.4 is good. 4.5 and up is really good. Anything below 4.0 is a bad game.

Stewarts average yards per carry per game:
4.8
7.4
9.7
8.4
5.7
5.1
7.8
4.1
4.7
4.7
2.5
4.2
11.0

Note: He had turf toe and another injury towards the end of the year. Probably why his average dropped a little in those games: only guessing though. Also, Stewart had 4 games where he rushed for less than 100 yards, Game 1: 14 attempts, Game 2: 13 attempts, Game 3: 21 attempts for 99 yards, Game 4: 13 attempts.

Mendenhall’s average yards per carry per game:
3.0
6.0
9.4
7.9
4.2
8.4
4.7
6.8
11.8
3.4
4.6
9.1

Note: Mendenhall had 5 games where he rushed for less than 100 yards, Game 1: 11 attempts, Game 2: 18 attempts, Game 3: 15 attempts, Game 4: 18 attempts, Game 5: 26 attempts.

Yeah, so, you see all but one game, you can say its a function of not having enough carries. And that goes for both players, actually. Which is why I made the point about 5.0 per carry. And btw, I think 5.0 in college is more in line with what 4.0 is in the pros.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 12:09 PM
Yeah, so, you see all but one game, you can say its a function of not having enough carries. And that goes for both players, actually. Which is why I made the point about 5.0 per carry. And btw, I think 5.0 in college is more in line with what 4.0 is in the pros.

I never said Mendenhall isn't good... I think he will be, but you still have be caution with him because of his stats versus top defensive teams. He would run for 200 plus against weak teams and then struggle to rack up the yards versus good teams.... this has to worry you some.... Both guys had scrambling QB's that helped take the pressure off the back... that is a caution. You have to take everything in account when trying to figure out who is better. But like someone said... it is a pointless arguement because both backs are really good and it would be like arguing which topping on pizza is better.

Fan in Exile
02-20-2008, 12:11 PM
We definitely LOST the field position game last year. Of course, our lousy defense was the main reason for this. But we had no consistency in our return game either.

You can win without an explosive return game -- but you can also make things a lot easier on your offense if you have an explosive return game.

All this is true but misses the point that special teams just isn't as important as offense or defense. So Stewart wouldn't be the returner and wouldn't save a roster position over Mendenhall.

I however don't think it matters. If Henry redoes his contract, which they are apparently working on, there's no way we draft a RB in the first.

mclark
02-20-2008, 12:13 PM
What top defenses did he play against? What top defenses did Stewart play against?

Top 100 defenses
Stewart, 11 games against top 100 defenses; Mendenhall 10 games against top 100 defenses.

1 Ohio St. <---88 yards, 3.4 average, Mendenhall
2 Southern California <-- 103 yards, 4.1 average, Stewart / 155 yards, 9.1 average, Mendenhall
3 LSU
4 Virginia Tech
5 Pittsburgh
6 Auburn
7 West Virginia
8 Oregon St.<-- 163 yards, 4.2 average, Stewart (overtime)
9 Clemson
10 BYU
11 Penn St.<-- 76 yards, 4.2 average, Mendenhall
12 Kansas
13 New Mexico
14 Georgia
15 TCU
16 Vanderbilt
17 Rutgers
18 Utah
19 Boston College
20 Georgia Tech
21 Mississippi St.
22 Wyoming
23 Virginia
24 Michigan <--- 111 yards, 7.4 avg Stewart / 85 yards 4.5 avg Mendenhall
25 Boise St.
26 Oklahoma
27 Wake Forest
28 South Fla.<-- 253 yards, 11.0 avg Stewart
29 UCLA <-- 33 yards, 2.5 avg Stewart (5th string qb for Oregon)
30 Arizona St. <-- 99 yards, 4.7 average Stewart
31 Alabama
32 Michigan St.
33 Miami (Fla.)
34 Hawaii
35 North Carolina
36 Iowa<--- 67 yards, 4.5 average Mendenhall
37 Connecticut
38 Wisconsin <-- 160 yards, 8.4 average Mendenhall
39 Notre Dame
40 Maryland
41 Florida
42 Florida St.
43 Arkansas St.
44 Temple
45 Texas Tech
46 Houston <-- 67 yards, 4.8 average Stewart
46 Arkansas
48 Southern Miss.
49 UCF
50 Cincinnati
51 Air Force
52 Texas
53 Arizona <-- 131 yards, 4.7 average Stewart
54 Miami (Ohio)
55 Illinois
56 South Carolina
57 Troy
58 California <-- 120 yards, 5.7 average Stewart
59 Missouri<-- 33 yards, 3.0 average Mendenhall
60 Oregon
61 Kent St.
62 UNLV
63 Purdue
64 Colorado
65 Iowa St.
66 North Carolina St.
67 Kentucky
68 Western Mich.
69 Kansas St.
70 Tennessee
71 Indiana<--- 214 yards, 7.9 Mendenhall
72 Buffalo
73 Fresno St. <-- 165, 9.7 average Stewart
74 Ohio
75 San Jose St.
76 Akron
77 Northwestern <---124 yards, 4.6 average, Mendenhall
78 La.-Monroe
79 Nevada
80 Middle Tenn. St.
80 Colorado St.
82 Fla. Atlantic
83 Texas A&M
84 Louisville
85 Washington St.<-- 66 yards, 5.1 average Stewart
86 Idaho
87 Tulane
88 Mississippi
89 Army
90 Eastern Mich.
91 Louisiana Tech
92 Duke
93 Bowling Green
94 New Mexico St.
95 East Caro.
96 Ball St. <-- 189 yards, 6.8 average Mendenhall
97 Northern Ill.
98 Stanford <-- 160 yards, 8.4 average Stewart
99 Navy
100 Memphis

topscribe
02-20-2008, 12:20 PM
Facts are facts... look at his stats.... He didn't crack 100 + yards against any top defensive teams.

I had the displeasure of seeing Stewart shred the Arizona defense for 131
yards this last season in a losing cause (which was a pleasure). What was
impressive was, first, Arizona had developed a pretty decent run defense by
that time, and second, Oregon's starting QB, regarded as one of the best in
the conference, was out with an injury, allowing Arizona's defense to key on
Stewart.

That didn't make much difference to Stewart. He proceeded to run around
and over people. I never wanted to see him across from the Arizona defense
again.

-----

mclark
02-20-2008, 12:21 PM
I had the displeasure of seeing Stewart shred the Arizona defense for 131
yards this last season in a losing cause (which was a pleasure). What was
impressive was, first, Arizona had developed a pretty decent run defense by
that time, and second, Oregon's starting QB, regarded as one of the best in
the conference, was out with an injury, allowing Arizona's defense to key on
Stewart.

That didn't make much difference to Stewart. He proceeded to run around
and over people. I never wanted to see him across from the Arizona defense
again.

-----

I remember that game -- and did not enjoy it. But Stewart did play well.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 12:23 PM
I had the displeasure of seeing Stewart shred the Arizona defense for 131
yards this last season in a losing cause (which was a pleasure). What was
impressive was, first, Arizona had developed a pretty decent run defense by
that time, and second, Oregon's starting QB, regarded as one of the best in
the conference, was out with an injury, allowing Arizona's defense to key on
Stewart.

That didn't make much difference to Stewart. He proceeded to run around
and over people. I never wanted to see him across from the Arizona defense
again.

-----

What gets me about Stewart is he had some of his worst games versus some of the worst teams on Oregons sechedule.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 12:23 PM
How come I have a feeling that the Houston Texans will land Jonathan Stewart this year?

topscribe
02-20-2008, 12:27 PM
What gets me about Stewart is he had some of his worst games versus some of the worst teams on Oregons sechedule.

The PAC-10 is grossly underrated. There were not too many "worst" teams.
Their respective defenses have been maligned, but look at the quarterbacks
and WRs in that league! But you can look at even how "lowly" Arizona played
against USC to see that strength abounded up and down the schedule.

Stewart ran well against some pretty strong defenses.

-----

mclark
02-20-2008, 12:28 PM
How come I have a feeling that the Houston Texans will land Jonathan Stewart this year?

That's a pretty good call, I think. If Arizona doesn't beat them to it.

tubby
02-20-2008, 12:31 PM
Iowa owned Mendenhall and the Illini. But, that pretty much goes for any team trying to run the spread offense against Norm Parker.

That is all.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 12:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2yKRVAHItU&feature=related

Watch this and tell me this guy can't help Denver in the red zone.

HolyDiver
02-20-2008, 12:49 PM
How come I have a feeling that the Houston Texans will land Jonathan Stewart this year?

I'm not so sure. They run the same system as we do and could get a very good back in the 2nd or 3rd round.

topscribe
02-20-2008, 12:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2yKRVAHItU&feature=related

Watch this and tell me this guy can't help Denver in the red zone.

You want to see how Stewart worries defenses?

Look how he decoyed the defense here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REGaN0h2kPE&feature=related

-----

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 12:55 PM
I'm not so sure. They run the same system as we do and could get a very good back in the 2nd or 3rd round.

The Broncos are ok with settling for average to good backs in the 2nd and later rounds... something tells me from how the Texans have been since Kubiak has been there that he is smart enough to know that average is ok, but super stars make coaching easier. He knew how important having guys like Terrell Davis, John Elway, Shannon Sharpe, etc.... etc.. are.

turftoad
02-20-2008, 12:59 PM
The Broncos are ok with settling for average to good backs in the 2nd and later rounds... something tells me from how the Texans have been since Kubiak has been there that he is smart enough to know that average is ok, but super stars make coaching easier. He knew how important having guys like Terrell Davis, John Elway, Shannon Sharpe, etc.... etc.. are.

Davis was a 6th rounder and sharpe was a 7th.

Portis was great in our system and he was a 2nd rounder. TD, well he is TD was drafted in the 6th. So much for average to good backs after the first round.

dogfish
02-20-2008, 01:01 PM
The Broncos are ok with settling for average to good backs in the 2nd and later rounds... something tells me from how the Texans have been since Kubiak has been there that he is smart enough to know that average is ok, but super stars make coaching easier. He knew how important having guys like Terrell Davis, John Elway, Shannon Sharpe, etc.... etc.. are.


he was smart enough to NOT take reggie bush, and he was smart enough to learn from shenanigan's neglect of the defensive line. . . i believe that if stewart or mendenhall is still on the board, one of them becomes a texan. . .

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:03 PM
Davis was a 6th rounder and sharpe was a 7th.

Portis was great in our system and he was a 2nd rounder. TD, well he is TD was drafted in the 6th. So much for average to good backs after the first round.

TD was luck.. and good luck finding another in the 6th rounds. Portis was 1st round talent and slipped to the 2nd round. I don't mind picking up guys like that that slip to rounds do to whatever reason... they are all special talents. But i've seen guys say they would like to trade back and pick up Matt Forte in the later rounds that way they can get another draft pick to pick up another position of need. Matt Forte isn't a 1st round or even 2nd round talent. Now if he slide to the 5th or 6th round then you are talking value. If Stewart slips the 2nd round you are talking value.

topscribe
02-20-2008, 01:06 PM
Davis was a 6th rounder and sharpe was a 7th.

Portis was great in our system and he was a 2nd rounder. TD, well he is TD was drafted in the 6th. So much for average to good backs after the first round.

Not to mention our Mike Anderson, 6th round . . . you know, NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year . . .

-----

topscribe
02-20-2008, 01:07 PM
TD was luck.. and good luck finding another in the 6th rounds. Portis was 1st round talent and slipped to the 2nd round. I don't mind picking up guys like that that slip to rounds do to whatever reason... they are all special talents. But i've seen guys say they would like to trade back and pick up Matt Forte in the later rounds that way they can get another draft pick to pick up another position of need. Matt Forte isn't a 1st round or even 2nd round talent. Now if he slide to the 5th or 6th round then you are talking value. If Stewart slips the 2nd round you are talking value.

The Broncos seem to have a lot of that luck in the later rounds . . .

-----

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:09 PM
The Broncos seem to have a lot of that luck in the later rounds . . .

-----

I think they take a lot of the guys that slip... they always say in post draft interviews that they couldn't beleive so and so was still on the board when they picked... they understand the value in the guy they are picking up... it is the early rounds that we seem to not have right. They let the stars go by and either reach on a player that doesn't make much sense or settle for a project player.

turftoad
02-20-2008, 01:09 PM
Not to mention our Mike Anderson, 6th round . . . you know, NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year . . .

-----

Sheeeesh..... we even made O. Gary look good.
Not to mention a guy like Selvin Young. Undrafted ! Mike Bell for one year, undrafted.

lex
02-20-2008, 01:12 PM
I never said Mendenhall isn't good... I think he will be, but you still have be caution with him because of his stats versus top defensive teams. He would run for 200 plus against weak teams and then struggle to rack up the yards versus good teams.... this has to worry you some.... Both guys had scrambling QB's that helped take the pressure off the back... that is a caution. You have to take everything in account when trying to figure out who is better. But like someone said... it is a pointless arguement because both backs are really good and it would be like arguing which topping on pizza is better.


Again, what top defenses? No defense he played had more talent than USC, yet look what he did against them.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:13 PM
Again, what top defenses? No defense he played had more talent than USC, yet look what he did against them.

Lex... do you read? Did you not see the post that Mclark posted?

topscribe
02-20-2008, 01:13 PM
Sheeeesh..... we even made O. Gary look good.
Not to mention a guy like Selvin Young. Undrafted ! Mike Bell for one year, undrafted.

I am deeply suspicious that Young has not run out of surprises. He said he
was going to bulk up another 10 lbs. or so, and he wasn't afraid to hit at
207. Is it just possible that Shanny may find Young is good for more than his
projected 10-15 yards?

I am high on Stewart, but are we looking at an AK-47 when we may already have
a couple M-16s? :noidea:

-----

dogfish
02-20-2008, 01:15 PM
I am deeply suspicious that Young has not run out of surprises. He said he
was going to bulk up another 10 lbs. or so, and he wasn't afraid to hit at
207. Is it just possible that Shanny may find Young is good for more than his
projected 10-15 yards?

I am high on Stewart, but are we looking at an AK-47 when we may already have
a couple M-16s? :noidea:

-----

i think you're looking at an M1 Abrams when we've got a few M-16s. . . . :D

topscribe
02-20-2008, 01:16 PM
I think they take a lot of the guys that slip... they always say in post draft interviews that they couldn't beleive so and so was still on the board when they picked... they understand the value in the guy they are picking up... it is the early rounds that we seem to not have right. They let the stars go by and either reach on a player that doesn't make much sense or settle for a project player.

Except for the last two or three years . . .

-----

HolyDiver
02-20-2008, 01:16 PM
I am deeply suspicious that Young has not run out of surprises. He said he
was going to bulk up another 10 lbs. or so, and he wasn't afraid to hit at
207. Is it just possible that Shanny may find Young is good for more than his
projected 10-15 yards?

I am high on Stewart, but are we looking at an AK-47 when we may already have
a couple M-16s? :noidea:

-----

I think Shanahan said Young couldn't carry the full load to get Young in the weight room and do just that....put on another 7-10 pounds.............Selvin Young has all the tools and I personally have zero doubts about him.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:17 PM
Except for the last two or three years . . .

-----

Maybe they are figuring it out finally. I can't complain at all about the last couple years... The Moss pick gave me flash backs...... lets hope they see something special in the kid. But from my reads it sounded like more of a panic pick... they had two or three guys they liked and they were shocked they were all drafted so they traded up to make sure they still could get Moss.

topscribe
02-20-2008, 01:20 PM
Maybe they are figuring it out finally. I can't complain at all about the last couple years... The Moss pick gave me flash backs...... lets hope they see something special in the kid. But from my reads it sounded like more of a panic pick... they had two or three guys they liked and they were shocked they were all drafted so they traded up to make sure they still could get Moss.

Well, when you consider Crowder, Thomas, and probably Harris, that shapes
up to be a pretty good draft even if Moss were to bust.

But, oh-oh, we're getting a bit off topic here. :focus: Let's apologize to the
thread-starter . . .

Oh, that's you, isn't it, Boss? :D

-----

lex
02-20-2008, 01:21 PM
I am deeply suspicious that Young has not run out of surprises. He said he
was going to bulk up another 10 lbs. or so, and he wasn't afraid to hit at
207. Is it just possible that Shanny may find Young is good for more than his
projected 10-15 yards?

I am high on Stewart, but are we looking at an AK-47 when we may already have
a couple M-16s? :noidea:

-----

Id rather have a 50 cal or even a SAW.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:22 PM
Well, when you consider Crowder, Thomas, and probably Harris, that shapes
up to be a pretty good draft even if Moss were to bust.

-----

I really like the Crowder pick... I think he can have a Trevor Pryce presence.

G_Money
02-20-2008, 01:22 PM
Matt Forte isn't a 1st round or even 2nd round talent.

No, Forte isn't a 1st or 2nd round projected pick - IMO he's definitely a first-two-rounds talent.

It's one of the reasons I'm not gung ho about drafting Stewart or Mendenhall in the 1st, even though I think they're excellent backs who should have good careers in the pros.

Forte's gonna slip. I dunno how you can be a 2000 yard back and be under the radar, but I believe he's the equal of Marshawn Lynch.

If Lynch was in this draft he'd go what, 4th maybe? Run DMC, J-Stew and Mendenhall would all go ahead of him, you'd have to think. I slot Forte at #4 above Charles, Johnson, Felix Jones, Tashard Choice, Ray Rice and Kevin Smith, especially for our offense.

Forte and Choice are two backs who should be ultra-productive in this offense. If you simply cannot trade out of the pick and you do not like the value of any other available player I'd certainly feel good about pulling the trigger on Stewart or Mendenhall. We need a back, a real, full-time running back, and both guys fit the bill. They'd be monsters here.

But especially this year, we can find a great RB past the 1st round. It's not an Adrian Peterson Or Bust situation.

~G

lex
02-20-2008, 01:23 PM
Lex... do you read? Did you not see the post that Mclark posted?

OK, and it goes back to what I said about their stats being comparable. I dont really see how you can call Mendenhalls body of work into suspicion and not Stewarts.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:24 PM
OK, and it goes back to what I said about their stats being comparable. I dont really see how you can call Mendenhalls body of work into suspicion and not Stewarts.

ummm because if you look Stewart played more top defensive teams... and yet Stewart and Mendenhall have very similar stats. Stewart was very consistant were Mendenhall struggled versus some of the better teams.

lex
02-20-2008, 01:27 PM
ummm because if you look Stewart played more top defensive teams... and yet Stewart and Mendenhall have very similar stats. Stewart was very consistant were Mendenhall struggled versus some of the better teams.

And Mendenhall played against more top 25 defenses. Youre cherrypicking. And what do you mean more consistent. They both had 6 games under 5.0 per game. They both had games over 100 where they had 4.2 per carry and both had games under 100 with 4.2. Like I said, youre cherry picking.

turftoad
02-20-2008, 01:37 PM
ummm because if you look Stewart played more top defensive teams... and yet Stewart and Mendenhall have very similar stats. Stewart was very consistant were Mendenhall struggled versus some of the better teams.


So did his O Line.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:37 PM
And Mendenhall played against more top 25 defenses. Youre cherrypicking. And what do you mean more consistent. They both had 6 games under 5.0 per game. They both had games over 100 where they had 4.2 per carry and both had games under 100 with 4.2. Like I said, youre cherry picking.

lex... why are you arguing... I said that Mendenhall is good...

Mendenhall played against 4 top 30 defenses... Stewart played against 6 top 30 defenses.

Mendenhall had 404 yards and a 5.3 average in those 4 games
Stewart had 762 yards and a 5.65 average in those 6 games

Although Mendenhall is impressive (I'm not doubting it) Stewart is more impressive

topscribe
02-20-2008, 01:40 PM
So now have we decided who can piss the farthest? :D

-----

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 01:41 PM
So now have we decided who can piss the farthest? :D

-----

Reminds me of that show that I've been seeing comercials for... My dad is better than your dad, or something like that.

lex
02-20-2008, 01:58 PM
lex... why are you arguing... I said that Mendenhall is good...

I know youve said that but thats not the part Im poking holes in. Again, its youre cherrypicking.


Mendenhall played against 4 top 30 defenses... Stewart played against 6 top 30 defenses.

Mendenhall had 404 yards and a 5.3 average in those 4 games
Stewart had 762 yards and a 5.65 average in those 6 games

Although Mendenhall is impressive (I'm not doubting it) Stewart is more impressive

I wouldnt call .3 yards per carry significant enough to come to any firm conclusions as you have. Notice that in this back and forth, Im not saying Mendenhall is superior to Stewart based on statistics. Thats what you are doing however and theres not really enough there to come to the conclusions you have. And like I said, part of what makes your analysis erroneous is the cherry picking.

BOSSHOGG30
02-20-2008, 02:08 PM
I know youve said that but thats not the part Im poking holes in. Again, its youre cherrypicking.



I wouldnt call .3 yards per carry significant enough to come to any firm conclusions as you have. Notice that in this back and forth, Im not saying Mendenhall is superior to Stewart based on statistics. Thats what you are doing however and theres not really enough there to come to the conclusions you have. And like I said, part of what makes your analysis erroneous is the cherry picking.

There is a huge difference when you take into account that Stewart didn't rely on 1 big game to help his average... the USC game really helps Mendenhall and that one 80 yard run helps him even more. Stewart not only keeps his average over more games, but he didn't need one big game or play to help his stats.

Break down that strectch even farther and you might see what I mean....

Mendenhall's top 30 defensive games
1st game: 88 yards
2nd game: 155 yards
3rd game: 76 yards
4th game: 85 yards

As you can see he only topped 100 yards once

Stewart's top 30 defensive games
1st: 103
2nd: 163
3rd: 111
4th: 253
5th: 33
6th: 99

As you can see Stewart had 3 more 100 yard games... pretty close to 4 if you round up that 99.

HolyDiver
02-20-2008, 02:09 PM
Stats aside...........I saw them both play and I would take Mendenhall over the BIGGER Stewart................And I know that has alot to do with his popularity. 235 vs. 220.

lex
02-20-2008, 02:17 PM
There is a huge difference when you take into account that Stewart didn't rely on 1 big game to help his average... the USC game really helps Mendenhall and that one 80 yard run helps him even more. Stewart not only keeps his average over more games, but he didn't need one big game or play to help his stats.

Break down that strectch even farther and you might see what I mean....

Mendenhall's top 30 defensive games
1st game: 88 yards
2nd game: 155 yards
3rd game: 76 yards
4th game: 85 yards

As you can see he only topped 100 yards once

Stewart's top 30 defensive games
1st: 103
2nd: 163
3rd: 111
4th: 253
5th: 33
6th: 99

As you can see Stewart had 3 more 100 yard games... pretty close to 4 if you round up that 99.


As Ive said numerous times, you have to also look at yards per carry along with yards. And while you claim that he is buoyed by one good game against the #2 defense, you also ignore that he is hurt by his game against Ohio State, the # 1 defense, and a team Stewart didnt even play. Like I said, youre cherry picking.

topscribe
02-20-2008, 02:20 PM
How a player did in college does not necessarily reflect how he will do in the
pros. From what I've seen and heard, both players did a fine job in college.
From there on, it is a coin flip. They both could be great. Or they both could
bust.

We'll know about five years down the road . . .

-----

WARHORSE
02-20-2008, 02:49 PM
Stats aside...........I saw them both play and I would take Mendenhall over the BIGGER Stewart................And I know that has alot to do with his popularity. 235 vs. 220.


I love Stewart. But Im thinking Mendenhall is guy Id take. I like the way he claws for inches

Lancane
02-20-2008, 05:02 PM
ummm because if you look Stewart played more top defensive teams... and yet Stewart and Mendenhall have very similar stats. Stewart was very consistant were Mendenhall struggled versus some of the better teams.

No he did not! Stewart only faced one top rushing defense in USC, while Mendenhall faced three of the top rushing defenses in the NCAA, including USC and had almost double the overall yards that Stewart had. Not one of the top halfbacks including McFadden or Jones faced as many top rated rushing defenses as Mendenhall, who literally faced the #3, #4 and #7 rushing defenses in the country. And Mendenhall did not struggle or he would not have had a better YPC average then all of the other top backs, he was used less against some teams and more against others. And in some of those games people need to also look at his receiving yards which were double of any first round graded backs. If you look at the stats on all the teams all four of the top backs faced, Mendenhall faced more overall better defenses rated in the top quarter of college football. And if you also look at the stats, Stewart ran with a better offensive line and a more solid traditional quarterback, while Mendenhall had a lackluster line who is below average and had a showboat quarterback who loved to rush as much as Michael Vick! So when I look at the two, oh yeah I am far more impressed with Mendenhall then I am with Stewart, Jones or McFadden.

topscribe
02-20-2008, 05:11 PM
No he did not! Stewart only faced one top rushing defense in USC, while Mendenhall faced three of the top rushing defenses in the NCAA, including USC and had almost double the overall yards that Stewart had. Not one of the top halfbacks including McFadden or Jones faced as many top rated rushing defenses as Mendenhall, who literally faced the #3, #4 and #7 rushing defenses in the country. And Mendenhall did not struggle or he would not have had a better YPC average then all of the other top backs, he was used less against some teams and more against others. And in some of those games people need to also look at his receiving yards which were double of any first round graded backs. If you look at the stats on all the teams all four of the top backs faced, Mendenhall faced more overall better defenses rated in the top quarter of college football. And if you also look at the stats, Stewart ran with a better offensive line and a more solid traditional quarterback, while Mendenhall had a lackluster line who is below average and had a showboat quarterback who loved to rush as much as Michael Vick! So when I look at the two, oh yeah I am far more impressed with Mendenhall then I am with Stewart, Jones or McFadden.

Good to see you, old friend! :beer:

Nonetheless, gotta take issue with you on "only one" top rushing defense
that Stewart faced. Oregon State was #8 in the nation, and Oregon faced
Michigan, UCLA, and Arizona State, all in the top 30. Arizona ranked #53
for the season, but by the time Oregon and Stewart showed up in Tucson,
Arizona had developed into one of the better rushing defenses in the
conference. And remember, these schools had those national rankings in an
extremely powerful offensive conference (except Michigan, which Oregon
slaughtered, BTW). So Stewart did not have the cupcake schedule you
seem to imply that he did.

-----

lex
02-20-2008, 05:18 PM
Good to see you, old friend! :beer:

Nonetheless, gotta take issue with you on "only one" top rushing defense
that Stewart faced. Oregon State was #8 in the nation, and Oregon faced
Michigan, UCLA, and Arizona State, all in the top 30. Arizona ranked #53
for the season, but by the time Oregon and Stewart showed up in Tucson,
Arizona had developed into one of the better rushing defenses in the
conference. And remember, these schools had those national rankings in an
extremely powerful offensive conference (except Michigan, which Oregon
slaughtered, BTW). So Stewart did not have the cupcake schedule you
seem to imply that he did.

-----

In that case, when Stewart faced Michigan, Michigan was still trying to replace several key pieces from the year before. They were replacing Hall, Branch, Woodley, and Harris. And similarly, Michigans defense saw significant improvement over the season in terms of players getting on board schematically.

Lancane
02-20-2008, 06:19 PM
Good to see you, old friend! :beer:

Nonetheless, gotta take issue with you on "only one" top rushing defense
that Stewart faced. Oregon State was #8 in the nation, and Oregon faced
Michigan, UCLA, and Arizona State, all in the top 30. Arizona ranked #53
for the season, but by the time Oregon and Stewart showed up in Tucson,
Arizona had developed into one of the better rushing defenses in the
conference. And remember, these schools had those national rankings in an
extremely powerful offensive conference (except Michigan, which Oregon
slaughtered, BTW). So Stewart did not have the cupcake schedule you
seem to imply that he did.

-----

I forgot Oregon St., do not know how...but the fact is the statement I questioned is still false, Mendenhall still faced three of the top rushing defenses in the country, so Stewart 'DID' not face better defenses, if you want to challenge that fact! I find it funny that the one top defense they both faced Mendenhall nearly doubled what Stewart did against them and literally they are considered one of the best in USC, he also faced Ohio St. and Penn St., and yes some can argue against his yards in some of those games, but if you add his receiving yards most of his receptions were behind the line or shuttle passes (pretty much still rushing) and he was real dangerous, he had over a 9 yard per catch average and his rushing yards were over 6 yards per carry.

I would not mind if we took Stewart because I still think he is a top shelf back, but I can literally argue why Mendenhall is more likely...one of those facts is that Denver has no ties to the Oregon program, whereas Shanahan and Turner both coached in the Big Ten, they still are fans of the Big Ten where both still have some major ties. The last back we were going to take in the first round according to Shanahan himself was from what conference? The Big Ten, Minnesota in fact. Turner is an avid Big Ten fan to this day, but above that he is known to prepare some Big Ten halfbacks for the draft. Ron Zook who is Illinois head coach is the former head coach of Florida, he was one of our SEC ties and friends with Mike Shanahan, plus Minnesota faced Mendenhall before and who is their head coach? I am not saying that Stewart is in no way plausable, but if you go by how Shanahan uses his ties to scout, then Mendenhall is far more likely.

Watchthemiddle
02-20-2008, 06:28 PM
So since these two RB's are mentioned in the article, the Broncos won't draft them

SInce when does Denver draft anyone they have been "interested" in before the draft?

Lancane
02-20-2008, 06:39 PM
So since these two RB's are mentioned in the article, the Broncos won't draft them

SInce when does Denver draft anyone they have been "interested" in before the draft?

Moss last year, we spoke to him at least once that was mentioned. And we did not know of the interest in Cutler because Shanahan like most times used ties to scout him...so I would say that is not a fair way to judge who we do or do not take. If that is the case I know we have talked to Clady, Williams, Connor and others, so they are not on our radar either...lol.

Watchthemiddle
02-20-2008, 06:44 PM
Moss last year, we spoke to him at least once that was mentioned. And we did not know of the interest in Cutler because Shanahan like most times used ties to scout him...so I would say that is not a fair way to judge who we do or do not take. If that is the case I know we have talked to Clady, Williams, Connor and others, so they are not on our radar either...lol.


Shanahan has been great at showing his Poker face in the past.

I think it would be great to land one of these two backs or Stewart, but it scares me when the media tells us what they are interested in. It rarely comes to fruition.

mclark
02-20-2008, 07:26 PM
The last 4 games of the season the Oregon Ducks were playing their fifth string quarterback.

Dennis Dixon injured knee
Brady Leaf injured knee
Nate Costa injured - broken leg
Cody Kempf injured - twisted knee, concussion
Justin Roper, redshirt Freshman starter

(The Ducks had also lost Cameron Colvin, starting receiver; Bryan Paysinger, starting receiver; Jeremiah Johnson, backup running back)

Talk about keying on a running back. How did Stewart do? Not well vs UCLA. But pretty good after that, even when playing with a turf toe that made it hard to get his shoe on. Oregon State was one of the best rush defenses in the country (best defenses period) and the Ducks had almost no passing game. Stewart carried the Ducks in that game (39 carries!); and the Ducks lost in overtime, after botching a last second field goal to win the game.

Stewart can be a workhorse back if we need him to be.

15-Nov @Arizona L 34-24 28 131 4.7 ypc
24-Nov @UCLA L 16-0 13 33 2.5 ypc
1-Dec Oregon State L 38-31 39 163 4.2 ypc
SUN BOWL AT EL PASO TX South Florida W 56-21 23 253 11 ypc

topscribe
02-20-2008, 07:53 PM
I forgot Oregon St., do not know how...but the fact is the statement I questioned is still false, Mendenhall still faced three of the top rushing defenses in the country, so Stewart 'DID' not face better defenses, if you want to challenge that fact! I find it funny that the one top defense they both faced Mendenhall nearly doubled what Stewart did against them and literally they are considered one of the best in USC, he also faced Ohio St. and Penn St., and yes some can argue against his yards in some of those games, but if you add his receiving yards most of his receptions were behind the line or shuttle passes (pretty much still rushing) and he was real dangerous, he had over a 9 yard per catch average and his rushing yards were over 6 yards per carry.

I would not mind if we took Stewart because I still think he is a top shelf back, but I can literally argue why Mendenhall is more likely...one of those facts is that Denver has no ties to the Oregon program, whereas Shanahan and Turner both coached in the Big Ten, they still are fans of the Big Ten where both still have some major ties. The last back we were going to take in the first round according to Shanahan himself was from what conference? The Big Ten, Minnesota in fact. Turner is an avid Big Ten fan to this day, but above that he is known to prepare some Big Ten halfbacks for the draft. Ron Zook who is Illinois head coach is the former head coach of Florida, he was one of our SEC ties and friends with Mike Shanahan, plus Minnesota faced Mendenhall before and who is their head coach? I am not saying that Stewart is in no way plausable, but if you go by how Shanahan uses his ties to scout, then Mendenhall is far more likely.

Thanks, Cane. I can always count on a thoughtful analysis from you.

I was only pointing out the defenses Stewart has faced. Far as the pissing
contest that has raged over him and Mendenhall, I don't know enough
about especially Mendenhall to put in my 2¢. I would just hope the Broncos
end up doing the right thing, whether it is adding Mendenhall, Stewart, or
someone else to the roster, or keeping what they have (which, frankly, is
what I lean toward).

-----

mclark
02-20-2008, 07:55 PM
I've seen Stewart alot, and seen Mendenhall much less. I'm still in the Clady camp, unless we do something dramatic in free agency for our left tackle spot.

mclark
02-20-2008, 08:00 PM
Moss last year, we spoke to him at least once that was mentioned. And we did not know of the interest in Cutler because Shanahan like most times used ties to scout him...so I would say that is not a fair way to judge who we do or do not take. If that is the case I know we have talked to Clady, Williams, Connor and others, so they are not on our radar either...lol.

We know which positions need help on the Broncos...but we don't really know how these talks go, if the prospects we want are dedicated, ambitious, smart, positive...interviews tell you something about a prospect. We're really left out of this aspect of the draft. (We can see interviews on ESPN, etc. But those aren't really like a job interview.)

Lancane
02-20-2008, 08:16 PM
We know which positions need help on the Broncos...but we don't really know how these talks go, if the prospects we want are dedicated, ambitious, smart, positive...interviews tell you something about a prospect. We're really left out of this aspect of the draft. (We can see interviews on ESPN, etc. But those aren't really like a job interview.)

Of course they are not...but we can not discount them as options as some people like to simply because our scouts have spoken to them...in that case any player a coach just said "hello" to would be out of contention! And I concure that we really do not know what is said or if scouts like what they heard. Actually the only player I have heard really impressed the Bronco scouts was Jamar Adams the strong safety from Michigan! And he will likely be an early 4th round pick, so that does not help with day one either. I am not against a first round tackle, but I really do not see Shanahan going that route, I think we are very likely to try and sign Sean Locklear to man one of the tackle positions, he really fits our scheme and Kuper could be forced inside for one more year to learn from Hamilton since he will likely be gone soon. And according to most sources the Bronco staff is real happy with Harris's development and he is favored to win the left tackle position. I just really do not see us taking a tackle too early...

IMHO we are going to take a halfback, Henry and Young are injury proned plus Denver will not pay Henry his 6 million he is due in two weeks, if they do not trade him or he refuses the contract they offer he will be cut and counted as a June 1st cut likely along with Walker to leviate the hit from their contracts, actually Walker will likely re-work his contract if Denver guarantees to cut him or trade him just so the hit is lighter and he will be for sure off the team! And that is according to Adam Schefter, so we will just have to wait and see, but Henry only has two weeks to re-work his contract cause he will need to be cut in about a week and a half before the team is hit with that money problem.

lex
02-20-2008, 11:05 PM
Of course they are not...but we can not discount them as options as some people like to simply because our scouts have spoken to them...in that case any player a coach just said "hello" to would be out of contention! And I concure that we really do not know what is said or if scouts like what they heard. Actually the only player I have heard really impressed the Bronco scouts was Jamar Adams the strong safety from Michigan! And he will likely be an early 4th round pick, so that does not help with day one either. I am not against a first round tackle, but I really do not see Shanahan going that route, I think we are very likely to try and sign Sean Locklear to man one of the tackle positions, he really fits our scheme and Kuper could be forced inside for one more year to learn from Hamilton since he will likely be gone soon. And according to most sources the Bronco staff is real happy with Harris's development and he is favored to win the left tackle position. I just really do not see us taking a tackle too early...

IMHO we are going to take a halfback, Henry and Young are injury proned plus Denver will not pay Henry his 6 million he is due in two weeks, if they do not trade him or he refuses the contract they offer he will be cut and counted as a June 1st cut likely along with Walker to leviate the hit from their contracts, actually Walker will likely re-work his contract if Denver guarantees to cut him or trade him just so the hit is lighter and he will be for sure off the team! And that is according to Adam Schefter, so we will just have to wait and see, but Henry only has two weeks to re-work his contract cause he will need to be cut in about a week and a half before the team is hit with that money problem.

They're probably impressed with his background at Chess.

Scarface
02-20-2008, 11:59 PM
No, Forte isn't a 1st or 2nd round projected pick - IMO he's definitely a first-two-rounds talent.

It's one of the reasons I'm not gung ho about drafting Stewart or Mendenhall in the 1st, even though I think they're excellent backs who should have good careers in the pros.

Forte's gonna slip. I dunno how you can be a 2000 yard back and be under the radar, but I believe he's the equal of Marshawn Lynch.

If Lynch was in this draft he'd go what, 4th maybe? Run DMC, J-Stew and Mendenhall would all go ahead of him, you'd have to think. I slot Forte at #4 above Charles, Johnson, Felix Jones, Tashard Choice, Ray Rice and Kevin Smith, especially for our offense.

Forte and Choice are two backs who should be ultra-productive in this offense. If you simply cannot trade out of the pick and you do not like the value of any other available player I'd certainly feel good about pulling the trigger on Stewart or Mendenhall. We need a back, a real, full-time running back, and both guys fit the bill. They'd be monsters here.

But especially this year, we can find a great RB past the 1st round. It's not an Adrian Peterson Or Bust situation.

~G

I'd take Lynch over Stewart and Mendenhall. Any day.

Forte is going to be a good back for someone. He's somewhere between Dorsey Levens and Deuce McAllister. Forte and Young in a 2 back rotation wouldn't suck at all.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff302/ScarfaceBroncos2007/NFL%20Draft%2008/RB/forte7.jpg

Scarface
02-21-2008, 12:00 AM
I've seen Stewart alot, and seen Mendenhall much less. I'm still in the Clady camp, unless we do something dramatic in free agency for our left tackle spot.

If we are lucky enough to take Clady at 12 we can still take Forte later in the draft!:cool: