Mendenhall

[Scarface]

Eye-opener
Illinois RB Mendenhall runs into spotlight at combine

A heaping helping of notes and quotes that remained in my notebook after a four-day stay at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis, an event that seems to grow exponentially larger each and every February ...

• One longtime league personnel evaluator I know had an insightful comparison about the rise up the draft board that is projected for Illinois running back Rashard Mendenhall this spring.

"He reminds me so much of Amobi Okoye last year,'' said the personnel man. "At the beginning of the process, we didn't really know much about either one of them, other than they were really young. [Okoye was 19 at last year's combine, Mendenhall is 20.] Then you watch some film, and you go from thinking of them as a first-day pick to a first-round pick. Then you get to the combine, get a chance to talk to them, and now it's first half of the first round. Then they have great workouts, and you realize they're top 10 picks. The same thing that happened with Okoye is happening with Mendenhall.''

Mendenhall took his predraft buzz to a new level Sunday with a superb workout at the RCA Dome, which was capped by his 4.45 showing in the 40-yard dash, a great time for a back his size (5-10, 225 pounds). While Mendenhall still may be the second back taken, behind Arkansas' Darren McFadden, one NFL scout called him "a sleeping giant,'' and predicted he'll wind up being among the five to seven elite players in the draft. That same scout said he wouldn't be surprised if some team drafting in the 20s made a move into the second half of the top 10 in order to take Mendenhall.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/02/26/mendenhall/index.html?eref=T1

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2008/writers/don_banks/02/26/mendenhall/t1-mendenhall.jpg

[broncohead]

Eye-opener
Illinois RB Mendenhall runs into spotlight at combine

A heaping helping of notes and quotes that remained in my notebook after a four-day stay at the NFL scouting combine in Indianapolis, an event that seems to grow exponentially larger each and every February ...

• One longtime league personnel evaluator I know had an insightful comparison about the rise up the draft board that is projected for Illinois running back Rashard Mendenhall this spring.

"He reminds me so much of Amobi Okoye last year,'' said the personnel man. "At the beginning of the process, we didn't really know much about either one of them, other than they were really young. [Okoye was 19 at last year's combine, Mendenhall is 20.] Then you watch some film, and you go from thinking of them as a first-day pick to a first-round pick. Then you get to the combine, get a chance to talk to them, and now it's first half of the first round. Then they have great workouts, and you realize they're top 10 picks. The same thing that happened with Okoye is happening with Mendenhall.''

Mendenhall took his predraft buzz to a new level Sunday with a superb workout at the RCA Dome, which was capped by his 4.45 showing in the 40-yard dash, a great time for a back his size (5-10, 225 pounds). While Mendenhall still may be the second back taken, behind Arkansas' Darren McFadden, one NFL scout called him "a sleeping giant,'' and predicted he'll wind up being among the five to seven elite players in the draft. That same scout said he wouldn't be surprised if some team drafting in the 20s made a move into the second half of the top 10 in order to take Mendenhall.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/don_banks/02/26/mendenhall/index.html?eref=T1

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2008/writers/don_banks/02/26/mendenhall/t1-mendenhall.jpg

Good. If he is there at 12 trade back for more picks or even another teams next years 1st round draft pick.

[turftoad]

I really like him. If we do draft a back in the first, I hope it's him.

[shank]

if this is true, lets hope that either he falls to 12 or mcfadden falls to 12, leaving us open to trade down at least a couple spots, get an extra pick (or trade way down and pwn someone value wise) and maybe still have a shot at stewart. if not then take a OT and get a back a little later.

maybe it won't be so tough to trade down after all? *crosses fingers for 3543th time*

[lex]

if this is true, lets hope that either he falls to 12 or mcfadden falls to 12, leaving us open to trade down at least a couple spots, get an extra pick (or trade way down and pwn someone value wise) and maybe still have a shot at stewart. if not then take a OT and get a back a little later.

maybe it won't be so tough to trade down after all? *crosses fingers for 3543th time*

OK, who will we trade down with? I keep hearing people parrot the words "trade down" but practically no one has a concrete idea for why someone would be willing to trade down. Would people please start specifying a possible trading partner with whom we can trade with thats somewhat realistic? And what makes you think someone would be willing to part with a 3rd round pick to trade up to 12 to take Mendenhall when they can wait or trade with someone who drafts after us so it will be less costly to them and they could possibly get Stewart?

[shank]

OK, who will we trade down with? I keep hearing people parrot the words "trade down" but practically no one has a concrete idea for why someone would be willing to trade down. Would people please start specifying a possible trading partner with whom we can trade with thats somewhat realistic? And what makes you think someone would be willing to part with a 3rd round pick to trade up to 12 to take Mendenhall when they can wait or trade with someone who drafts after us so it will be less costly to them and they could possibly get Stewart?

it was talked about extensively that the cowboys are very interested in mcfadden. there was even talk at the combine about the possibility of them trading to #1 to get him. if they don't need to, then they won't and if he happened to drop to 12 before they trade up, i'm sure that they'd be perfectly willing to work something out.

also, the blurb that you JUST (hopefully, it's the subject of the thread) read, written by someone who apparently knows more than either you or i, says that they feel it's entirely possible that there will be teams willing to trade up into the top 10 for mendenhall...

if either of them drops to 12 (which is very possible, as until now, we all thought mendenhall would def be there at 12) then the possibility to trade down is very existent.

[lex]

it was talked about extensively that the cowboys are very interested in mcfadden. there was even talk at the combine about the possibility of them trading to #1 to get him. if they don't need to, then they won't and if he happened to drop to 12 before they trade up, i'm sure that they'd be perfectly willing to work something out.

This is nonsense. The question was brought up as it pertains to Mendenhall being there at 12.


also, the blurb that you JUST (hopefully, it's the subject of the thread) read, written by someone who apparently knows more than either you or i, says that they feel it's entirely possible that there will be teams willing to trade up into the top 10 for mendenhall...

OK, whom will we trade with? Im sick of seeing this "trade down" like it happens with a snap of the fingers. And like Ive asked you before, what team will be willing to part with a 3rd to move up for Mendenhall when they can give up less and take Stewart (assuming Mendenhall goes first)later?


if either of them drops to 12 (which is very possible, as until now, we all thought mendenhall would def be there at 12) then the possibility to trade down is very existent.

Again, I asked for something more concrete. If youve got nothing thats fine but I dont really think its as easy as snapping your fingers and, voila, trade down like you seem to.

[shank]

This is nonsense. The question was brought up as it pertains to Mendenhall being there at 12.

don't say that what i wrote is nonsense. my post was about either mendenhall OR mcfadden dropping YOU'RE NONSENSE :rant:



OK, whom will we trade with? Im sick of seeing this "trade down" like it happens with a snap of the fingers. And like Ive asked you before, what team will be willing to part with a 3rd to move up for Mendenhall when they can give up less and take Stewart (assuming Mendenhall goes first)later?

This is a good argument strategy to use against me, because i don't have enough knowledge of other teams to know the value they place on a RB or if they have the ammo to move up to get him. just because little ol' shawshank don't know, doesn't mean that it's guaranteed false.

i will say though, that according the TC's blurb, mendenhall has separated himself from stewart with his 40 time and workout, and is now regarded by some as a top 10 pick. i would think a guy like you, who has preached in many threads about why mendenhall is the better back, would understand paying a little extra to get the guy you feel is a better runningback.


Again, I asked for something more concrete. If youve got nothing thats fine but I dont really think its as easy as snapping your fingers and, voila, trade down like you seem to.

i do not have anything concrete for the reasons above. i just don't know enough. the way the writer states the last line sounds to me like he actually has specific team(s) in mind, but won't go as far as to name which one(s). you can't question that mendenhall raised his stock at the combine, why would it be hard to imagine someone trading up to get him?

i was speculating off of the article, and i'm not the only one on these boards that would love to trade down if the situation presents itself. if this article is right, then it very well may be the situation presenting itself... :der:

[lex]

don't say that what i wrote is nonsense. my post was about either mendenhall OR mcfadden dropping YOU'RE NONSENSE :rant:

I'm nonsense? Why, because I ask people questions to see if theyve actually put any thought into what theyre saying as opposed to just parroting what countless others are saying?




This is a good argument strategy to use against me, because i don't have enough knowledge of other teams to know the value they place on a RB or if they have the ammo to move up to get him. just because little ol' shawshank don't know, doesn't mean that it's guaranteed false.

Well thats what Im asking. I dont think its an unfair question.


i will say though, that according the TC's blurb, mendenhall has separated himself from stewart with his 40 time and workout, and is now regarded by some as a top 10 pick. i would think a guy like you, who has preached in many threads about why mendenhall is the better back, would understand paying a little extra to get the guy you feel is a better runningback.
Its not so much what I think about Mendenhall vs Stewart as much as it comes down to the reality of being at 12 and having a very solid chance at drafting either Mendenhall or Stewart with out it costing us to move up.



i do not have anything concrete for the reasons above. i just don't know enough. the way the writer states the last line sounds to me like he actually has specific team(s) in mind, but won't go as far as to name which one(s). you can't question that mendenhall raised his stock at the combine, why would it be hard to imagine someone trading up to get him?

OK, so is it his thought to trade down or is it yours or are you just parroting what everyone else says?


i was speculating off of the article, and i'm not the only one on these boards that would love to trade down if the situation presents itself. if this article is right, then it very well may be the situation presenting itself... :der:

OK, then start asking them the same question I asked you. I dont think its an unreasonable question. If someone cares enough to think its better not pick at 12, then certainly they care enough to think about plausible scenarios for whom and why thered be someone to trade with.

BTW, check out my mock. I actually have us trading down and taking Cherilus and Lofton but originally I had us trading SF for their 1st and 2nd because the points lined up (actually we were giving up 50 points) but when someone asked why SF would want to do that, it was a very valid question and when I looked at it, it actually makes more sense for SF to stay where theyre at if all theyre going to get is the 12th. So basically, I reworked the mock and threw in Walker since I know WR is one of their needs.

...and so now Im asking the same question of others. When I was asked this, I didnt bitch and complain about being picked on. I acknowledged the merit in the question and thought about it more. Nothing wrong with that. Its not like youre the only one who has been challenged on this.

[shank]

lex, this is the first situation i've seen that could possibly allow us to trade down apart from the mcfadden situation, which we know exactly who we could trade down for.

i just read this article not much sooner than you and haven't yet taken the time to explore specific posibilities, and was only speculating based on what the article said.

i have an opinion of my own, just like you. i base mine on what i think is best for the team, and am not just repeating the words of other members. the only reason you can accuse me of this is because there ARE other members on here who feel the same way as i do, that trading down is the best option for improving the denver broncos.

i don't think your question is unreasonable, and obviously would need to be answered if anything were ever to happen with it, but to say that i'm wrong, or that i'm just spouting off what i've heard others say, only because i couldn't present you a realistic trade scenario 35 minutes after reading this article, IS unreasonable.

if we both look at the teams picking behind us, i'm sure we'd find that there are teams that could very well be willing to trade up for mendenhall. until you prove to me that no team picking after us in the 1st has interest in mendenhall, then you can't rule out one of them (as there are plenty of teams behind us who could use a great runningback) trading up to get their guy.

i'll think about it more, and maybe soon i can appease you with a scenario your majesty.

[lex]

lex, this is the first situation i've seen that could possibly allow us to trade down apart from the mcfadden situation, which we know exactly who we could trade down for.

i just read this article not much sooner than you and haven't yet taken the time to explore specific posibilities, and was only speculating based on what the article said.

i have an opinion of my own, just like you. i base mine on what i think is best for the team, and am not just repeating the words of other members. the only reason you can accuse me of this is because there ARE other members on here who feel the same way as i do, that trading down is the best option for improving the denver broncos.

i don't think your question is unreasonable, and obviously would need to be answered if anything were ever to happen with it, but to say that i'm wrong, or that i'm just spouting off what i've heard others say, only because i couldn't present you a realistic trade scenario 35 minutes after reading this article, IS unreasonable.

if we both look at the teams picking behind us, i'm sure we'd find that there are teams that could very well be willing to trade up for mendenhall. until you prove to me that no team picking after us in the 1st has interest in mendenhall, then you can't rule out one of them (as there are plenty of teams behind us who could use a great runningback) trading up to get their guy.

i'll think about it more, and maybe soon i can appease you with a scenario your majesty.

I think it would cost a third for a team to move up 3 spots to 12. Thats why its semi-unrealistic to think someone right behind us might move up. The reason I know this is that was one of the possibilities discussed in a trade with Detroit for Rogers, which hasnt happened yet and may not happen. Until it does we are at 12. Detroit is in dire need of a CB, T, and they have two LBs who are/were set to become free agents. Detroit actually might be in worse shape than we are.

[broncohead]

I think it would cost a third for a team to move up 3 spots to 12. Thats why its semi-unrealistic to think someone right behind us might move up. The reason I know this is that was one of the possibilities discussed in a trade with Detroit for Rogers, which hasnt happened yet and may not happen. Until it does we are at 12. Detroit is in dire need of a CB, T, and they have two LBs who are/were set to become free agents. Detroit actually might be in worse shape than we are.

Didn't we do that last year? Teams want to be sure they grab the guy they want. Guys they think will make an impact on their team. It happens and it is realistic.

[Scarface]

OK, whom will we trade with? Im sick of seeing this "trade down" like it happens with a snap of the fingers. And like Ive asked you before, what team will be willing to part with a 3rd to move up for Mendenhall when they can give up less and take Stewart (assuming Mendenhall goes first)later?

You're sick of it? LMAO! Get over yourself. So if someone says we should trade down with the Giants you think it's actually going to mean something? There are a million different possibilities that can happen with our pick. Relax and see what happens.

[lex]

You're sick of it? LMAO! Get over yourself. So if someone says we should trade down with the Giants you think it's actually going to mean something? There are a million different possibilities that can happen with our pick. Relax and see what happens.

I know none of us are making decisions. Its rather inane to point that out. What Im sick of is thoughtless remarks like the notion of trading down like its as easy as snapping ones fingers.

[CoachChaz]

I know none of us are making decisions. Its rather inane to point that out. What Im sick of is thoughtless remarks like the notion of trading down like its as easy as snapping ones fingers.

Yet your sig represents this exact scenario.

[lex]

Yet your sig represents this exact scenario.

Exactly. Feel free to read the thread and youll see that I went into all that.

[mclark]

OK, who will we trade down with? I keep hearing people parrot the words "trade down" but practically no one has a concrete idea for why someone would be willing to trade down. Would people please start specifying a possible trading partner with whom we can trade with thats somewhat realistic? And what makes you think someone would be willing to part with a 3rd round pick to trade up to 12 to take Mendenhall when they can wait or trade with someone who drafts after us so it will be less costly to them and they could possibly get Stewart?

It's still too early to say. First, free agency will crystallize what teams really need. Then surprises will happen during the draft. I can imagine Dallas wanting our #12 if MaFadden really falls that far. You have to work out trade scenarios before the draft with teams and then be ready to pull the trigger on Draft Day. If the trades come through, then so be it. If not, take your best man at #12. A lot will probably depend on who falls out of the top-10 and how that person fits other team's needs.

[turftoad]

I know none of us are making decisions. Its rather inane to point that out. What Im sick of is thoughtless remarks like the notion of trading down like its as easy as snapping ones fingers.

When did this board become an "all about facts " board. It is a disscusion board. People are free to express thier opinions.
As far as the trading down scenerio goes, who knows. The teams themselves probably don't know at this point. Every team views many prospects different depending on thier needs. You have to look at the teams that pick after us. They may value Mendenhall very high and if he's there at 12 on draft day may want to swing a trade. Chances are huge that it won't happen til then if it happens at all. Unless you're sitting in the Dallas front office on a daily basis you don't know what thier thinking for thier two first rounders.

[lex]

It's still too early to say. First, free agency will crystallize what teams really need. Then surprises will happen during the draft. I can imagine Dallas wanting our #12 if MaFadden really falls that far. You have to work out trade scenarios before the draft with teams and then be ready to pull the trigger on Draft Day. If the trades come through, then so be it. If not, take your best man at #12. A lot will probably depend on who falls out of the top-10 and how that person fits other team's needs.

But thats everything. Pretty much most of the draft discussion is driven by as things stand at that moment. People think we should draft Ellis if he falls to us even though were clearly in the market for a DT. If people can come up with a reason for why we should draft Ellis, I dont see why its a stretch to do the same thing with trading down.

[lex]

When did this board become an "all about facts " board. It is a disscusion board. People are free to express thier opinions.
As far as the trading down scenerio goes, who knows. The teams themselves probably don't know at this point. Every team views many prospects different depending on thier needs. You have to look at the teams that pick after us. They may value Mendenhall very high and if he's there at 12 on draft day may want to swing a trade. Chances are huge that it won't happen til then if it happens at all. Unless you're sitting in the Dallas front office on a daily basis you don't know what thier thinking for thier two first rounders.

...and yet people think its THAT easy to trade down.

[mclark]

But thats everything. Pretty much most of the draft discussion is driven by as things stand at that moment. People think we should draft Ellis if he falls to us even though were clearly in the market for a DT. If people can come up with a reason for why we should draft Ellis, I dont see why its a stretch to do the same thing with trading down.

I'm sure we are talking to teams (right now) about trading up and trading down.

[shank]

I know none of us are making decisions. Its rather inane to point that out. What Im sick of is thoughtless remarks like the notion of trading down like its as easy as snapping ones fingers.

when the hell did i indicate that it would be as easy as snapping my fingers? i speculated that if someone wanted to that we could do it, and it would be best for the team.

the article says that people may trade up for mendenhall. we know the cowboys could trade up for mcfadden. my speculation is that if one of them falls, there WILL be someone interested in trading up.

that's more justification to make a trade than your scenario in your sig. why would the niners trade up with us if there's no value at 12?

i have NEVER said, oh, let's just traded down, because i understand that you need a partner to do so, and i have always qualified my statements by saying 'if the opportunity is there' or by presenting a possible target that someone would trade up for.

i agree with scarface. get over yourself.

[atwater27]

I like Mendenhall's quickness and his tenacity, but I feel like his leg strength is disproportionate to his upper body, like he trains twice as long on bench press than leg press. I don't like his power overall. His balance, kind of top heavy.

I have said quite a bit we don't need a running back. And I know I'm from Oregon, but I could care less about the local teams. But I have to say Jonathan Stewart is the real deal. This guy is the true #1 talent at RB IMO. I would actually take him over Mcfadden. And I like McFadden.

[mclark]

I like Mendenhall's quickness and his tenacity, but I feel like his leg strength is disproportionate to his upper body, like he trains twice as long on bench press than leg press. I don't like his power overall. His balance, kind of top heavy.

I have said quite a bit we don't need a running back. And I know I'm from Oregon, but I could care less about the local teams. But I have to say Jonathan Stewart is the real deal. This guy is the true #1 talent at RB IMO. I would actually take him over Mcfadden. And I like McFadden.

For several years now I've marvelled at Stewart's strength and balance. He gets hit and doesn't go down. He's got great forward lean, always getting an extra yard. If he hits a seam, he can fly.

I'm also from Oregon. And I agree, he can be special, if he stays healthy (which we have to add to everyone in the NFL I guess).

[Scarface]

Mendenhall's lower body looks fine to me.

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

[slim]

Yes please.

Boss, Mendenhall > Stewart.

[Stargazer]

I like him, and I think he will be a great Bronco if selected.

[Stargazer]

Here is Mendenhall highlights.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=O7OiYXlBEZU

[atwater27]

I just watch Stewart highlights on youtube right after, and he just looks clearly superior to me.

[shank]

even in his highlight video, i only saw one broken tackle. he's shifty as hell, but as soon as he got touched he was going down.

i personally prefer stewart's less shifty (but can still make people miss), more powerful style, especially considering that's what we've been lacking for a long time.

the very first play of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSKFOfc04Q&feature=related

is better to me than the entirety of the mendenhall video you linked, and it's from 2 years ago...

MHO

[atwater27]

even in his highlight video, i only saw one broken tackle. he's shifty as hell, but as soon as he got touched he was going down.

i personally prefer stewart's less shifty (but can still make people miss), more powerful style, especially considering that's what we've been lacking for a long time.

the very first play of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwSKFOfc04Q&feature=related

is better to me than the entirety of the mendenhall video you linked, and it's from 2 years ago...

MHO

could not have said it better.

[WARHORSE]

Mendenhall has it all.

[shank]

Mendenhall has it all.

cool bumper sticker.:coffee:

[Stargazer]

he's shifty as hell

I really like that about him.

[shank]

I really like that about him.

i don't get how people can watch our major struggles in short yardage and goal line situations the last couple years and still campaign for a "shifty" runner...

don't get me wrong, he'd be great, but selvin is shifty, q was shifty... we need to put some power back in our game, and stewart isn't a slouch when it comes to making people miss.

i think mendenhall's shiftiness would give us a couple more big runs per year, but i think stewarts power and leg drive would give us a lot more sustained drives and a lot less red zone field goals, which just seems more important to me than a little razzle dazzle.

(again, either would be amazing backs here, i'm just sitting on the other side of the fence saying, "nice yard, but i have a cool lawn gnome")

[MOtorboat]

i don't get how people can watch our major struggles in short yardage and goal line situations the last couple years and still campaign for a "shifty" runner...

don't get me wrong, he'd be great, but selvin is shifty, q was shifty... we need to put some power back in our game, and stewart isn't a slouch when it comes to making people miss.

i think mendenhall's shiftiness would give us a couple more big runs per year, but i think stewarts power and leg drive would give us a lot more sustained drives and a lot less red zone field goals, which just seems more important to me than a little razzle dazzle.

(again, either would be amazing backs here, i'm just sitting on the other side of the fence saying, "nice yard, but i have a cool lawn gnome")

Don't overlook the offensive line when you look at the horrendous red zone numbers. We can draft the biggest running back we can find, but if no one is there to block for him, he's toast.

That's why if we draft a running back it needs to be in a later round. If there are quality OT at 12, you have to pull the trigger.

[shank]

Don't overlook the offensive line when you look at the horrendous red zone numbers. We can draft the biggest running back we can find, but if no one is there to block for him, he's toast.

That's why if we draft a running back it needs to be in a later round. If there are quality OT at 12, you have to pull the trigger.

i'm not putting the blame squarely on our backs, but we can't change out our entire line and philosophy overnight. getting a LT will help, but how much can one tackle help redzone performance?

i know that the rb alone can't fix redzone struggles, but i know that stewart would be able to deal with contact better than mendenhall, and would be able to drive for extra yards after being touched, or even breaking tackles and making something out of nothing.

i think your point actually is a big reason why i support stewart over mendenhall. mendenhall has great vision, but when people are just manhandling your o-line inside the ten, then it just doesn't leave you the creases and room you need to just dodge guys. i'd much rather have stewart, who even if met in the backfield by a defender, can drive forward to minimize the loss, or even break free and nullify the bad blocking.

[MOtorboat]

i'm not putting the blame squarely on our backs, but we can't change out our entire line and philosophy overnight. getting a LT will help, but how much can one tackle help redzone performance?

You'd be surprised.

[shank]

You'd be surprised.

idk. lepsis' main struggles this season were in pass protection, and the rest of our line is still "undersized." i don't think a rookie will come in and immediately improve anything. i do know that stewart WOULD improve short yardage situations as he has more leg drive than any of our other backs (and is shiftier than t-hen as well.)

(travis was often disappointing to me in short yardage, as it seems he would go down with first contact and not keep his legs driving like we all know he has the power to do... not so much a physical thing as just not displaying the effort to get every inch possible on every single run).

[Scarface]

i don't get how people can watch our major struggles in short yardage and goal line situations the last couple years and still campaign for a "shifty" runner...

don't get me wrong, he'd be great, but selvin is shifty, q was shifty... we need to put some power back in our game, and stewart isn't a slouch when it comes to making people miss.

i think mendenhall's shiftiness would give us a couple more big runs per year, but i think stewarts power and leg drive would give us a lot more sustained drives and a lot less red zone field goals, which just seems more important to me than a little razzle dazzle.

(again, either would be amazing backs here, i'm just sitting on the other side of the fence saying, "nice yard, but i have a cool lawn gnome")

Vision and ability to see a hole and hit it makes a big difference. Plus Mendenhall weighs 225. He's a big back. Just because Stewart outweighs him by 10lbs doesn't mean Mendenhall is a light weight.

[shank]

Vision and ability to see a hole and hit it makes a big difference. Plus Mendenhall weighs 225. He's a big back. Just because Stewart outweighs him by 10lbs doesn't mean Mendenhall is a light weight.

i re-read my post and i never said that i prefer stewart because he's 10 lbs heavier. and just because mendenhall is big doesn't mean he's powerful. he's elusive, which we already have in selvin.

he is a far more powerful runner, and his legs never stop moving. he pushes and carries guys for extra yards and actually breaks tackles.

i know mendenhall has great vision, but stewart does as well, i wouldn't give either back a big edge in vision.

[Scarface]

Stewart being 10lbs heavier seems to be a theme for pro-Stewart guys. 225, 235, whatever...they're both big backs. Like I keep saying I wouldn't complain if we ended up with either one. I just prefer Mendenhall.

[lex]

i re-read my post and i never said that i prefer stewart because he's 10 lbs heavier. and just because mendenhall is big doesn't mean he's powerful. he's elusive, which we already have in selvin.

he is a far more powerful runner, and his legs never stop moving. he pushes and carries guys for extra yards and actually breaks tackles.

i know mendenhall has great vision, but stewart does as well, i wouldn't give either back a big edge in vision.

Actually, last year Stewarts coach devised an exercise for him to improve his vision where he was supposed to look at lights in a dark room. It was supposed to strengthen his eye muscles. It was kind of a clever way to improve vision and I can see it working but 2 things jumped out at me: 1) if Stewarts vision is so great, why are they devising such a test and 2) what happens when Stewart stops doing this exercise?

[BOSSHOGG30]

Actually, last year Stewarts coach devised an exercise for him to improve his vision where he was supposed to look at lights in a dark room. It was supposed to strengthen his eye muscles. It was kind of a clever way to improve vision and I can see it working but 2 things jumped out at me: 1) if Stewarts vision is so great, why are they devising such a test and 2) what happens when Stewart stops doing this exercise?

Your question his vision because he does an exercise that is suppose to strengthen his eye muscles? Stewart is a work horse... he is always trying to improve and get better. He doesn't settle for the level he is already at...which is pretty darn good.... he wants to be the best.

I find it funny that you try to down Stewart with things like this to support a one year wonder like Mendenhall.

[Scarface]

LMAO! If that's true, that is freaking hilarious. I can't imagine TD in a dark room with Bobby Turner saying, Where's the light TD? Where's the bright little light at? Alright you found it! Here's a sticker!

[lex]

Your question his vision because he does an exercise that is suppose to strengthen his eye muscles? Stewart is a work horse... he is always trying to improve and get better. He doesn't settle for the level he is already at...which is pretty darn good.... he wants to be the best.

I find it funny that you try to down Stewart with things like this to support a one year wonder like Mendenhall.

If Im looking at vision...as in who has it and who doesnt, yeah it factors in. I wouldnt say it downgrades Stewart as much as it gives me more confidence that Mendenhalls vision is something he is always likely to have and there is no doubts about what his vision is without doing the exercise. Youre right about seeking improvement. Thats all good but I was talking about vision.

[BOSSHOGG30]

LMAO! If that's true, that is freaking hilarious. I can't imagine TD in a dark room with Bobby Turner saying, Where's the light TD? Where's the bright little light at? Alright you found it! Here's a sticker!

Guess what... guys do stuff like that all the time... I wouldn't be surprised if the Broncos players did it as well. Most places use a dark room with a big board on the wall with lights all over it and the player has to see the lighted dot and touch it as fast as possible with their finger. They are proven methods of strengthing the eyes.

[Scarface]

Where's the light TD? Where's it at?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/moondev.gif

Alright, now you're ready for the Oakland Raiders! Here's another sticker!!!

[BOSSHOGG30]

If Im looking at vision...as in who has it and who doesnt, yeah it factors in. I wouldnt say it downgrades Stewart as much as it gives me more confidence that Mendenhalls vision is something he is always likely to have and there is no doubts about what his vision is without doing the exercise. Youre right about seeking improvement. Thats all good but I was talking about vision.

Guess we have to start calling L.T. a back with poor vision then, because he does the same thing.

[Scarface]

Guess we have to start calling L.T. a back with poor vision then, because he does the same thing.

:laugh:

http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0767/12.jpg

[lex]

Guess we have to start calling L.T. a back with poor vision then, because he does the same thing.

If someone does that consistently then thats fine. But what if they stop? And no one is saying LT has poor vision. Nice try though with the distortion.

[Scarface]

It makes it even funnier that you two are taking this so seriously.

Does the term over scouting ring a bell? LMAO!

[BOSSHOGG30]

If someone does that consistently then thats fine. But what if they stop? And no one is saying LT has poor vision. Nice try though with the distortion.

It's called scanning. Staring is bad for your eyes because it freezes the energy and muscles, restricting the blood flow. Having your eyes scan is the opposite of staring. Scanning objects in your environment keeps your alive and energetic. I'm sure that all NFL teams train their players to train their eyes. We do it a the high school I coach at. There a many exercises for vision. Athletes aren't the only ones that need it. It usually takes like 10-15 minutes a day and has been a proven method on strengthing the eyes as well as helping the brain.

[lex]

It's called scanning. Staring is bad for your eyes because it freezes the energy and muscles, restricting the blood flow. Having your eyes scan is the opposite of staring. Scanning objects in your environment keeps your alive and energetic. I'm sure that all NFL teams train their players to train their eyes. We do it a the high school I coach at. There a many exercises for vision. Athletes aren't the only ones that need it. It usually takes like 10-15 minutes a day and has been a proven method on strengthing the eyes as well as helping the brain.

Do the Broncos currently do this? Are there plans to do it for the upcoming season? If not, do we know with certainty Stewart would continue to do this on his own? What if he doesnt?

[BOSSHOGG30]

Do the Broncos currently do this? Are there plans to do it for the upcoming season? If not, do we know with certainty Stewart would continue to do this on his own? What if he doesnt?

Dude... I'm sure they do... plus it isn't hard to get someone to hold a laser pointer and shine it around in a dark room. I would be shocked if every NFL team didn't have some type of eye strenghting regiment. We do it for our kids at the high school football level. It is a basic vision strengthing exercise.... not a big deal. Heck, if there are players in any sport who don't do a vision exercise, then they should get with the program, because they could improve their game even more. If you boy Mendenhall isn't doing a vision exercise, he could probably be better.

[lex]

Dude... I'm sure they do... plus it isn't hard to get someone to hold a laser pointer and shine it around in a dark room. I would be shocked if every NFL team didn't have some type of eye strenghting regiment. We do it for our kids at the high school football level. It is a basic vision strengthing exercise.... not a big deal. Heck, if there are players in any sport who don't do a vision exercise, then they should get with the program, because they could improve their game even more. If you boy Mendenhall isn't doing a vision exercise, he could probably be better.

Ok, well Im not so certain that they do this and, easy though it may be, he still has to do it and we cant know that he would.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Ok, well Im not so certain that they do this and, easy though it may be, he still has to do it and we cant know that he would.

He doesn't need to do it... he does it because it helps him. Maybe he will stop lifting too and reading his playbook.. because if you can't tell by just looking at him...he is a bum that doesn't work hard on his own.

If this guy looked like LenDale White then I might have some concern with you, but Stewart is a work out warrior... he is always trying to get better. Your arms, legs, and chest can only get so big. At 235 lbs, you can only get so fast, you can only jump so high... he is always looking for new was and even the little things you can do to improve. This is why he does the vision exercises.

[lex]

He doesn't need to do it... he does it because it helps him. Maybe he will stop lifting too and reading his playbook.. because if you can't tell by just looking at him...he is a bum that doesn't work hard on his own.

If this guy looked like LenDale White then I might have some concern with you, but Stewart is a work out warrior... he is always trying to get better. Your arms, legs, and chest can only get so big. At 235 lbs, you can only get so fast, you can only jump so high... he is always looking for new was and even the little things you can do to improve. This is why he does the vision exercises.

...you can only be so agile.

[shank]

He doesn't need to do it... he does it because it helps him. Maybe he will stop lifting too and reading his playbook.. because if you can't tell by just looking at him...he is a bum that doesn't work hard on his own.

If this guy looked like LenDale White then I might have some concern with you, but Stewart is a work out warrior... he is always trying to get better. Your arms, legs, and chest can only get so big. At 235 lbs, you can only get so fast, you can only jump so high... he is always looking for new was and even the little things you can do to improve. This is why he does the vision exercises.

this post is a thing of beauty. lex is trying to fault stewart for doing everything he can to be a better player :lol:/:sad: funny or sad, i can't tell which.


...you can only be so agile.
...you can only be so consistent.
...you can only break so many tackles.
...you can only secure the ball so well.


i really like mendenhall. i like stewart a wee bit more. but arguments like this are freaking ridiculous. take a stab at stewart's agility, mendenhall's lack of power gets stabbed.

[lex]

this post is a thing of beauty. lex is trying to fault stewart for doing everything he can to be a better player :lol:/:sad: funny or sad, i can't tell which.


...you can only be so consistent.
...you can only break so many tackles.
...you can only secure the ball so well.




i really like mendenhall. i like stewart a wee bit more. but arguments like this are freaking ridiculous. take a stab at stewart's agility, mendenhall's lack of power gets stabbed.

Not really:

Mendenhalls agility - Stewarts agility > Stewarts power/strength - Mendenhalls power/strength

[shank]

Not really:

Mendenhalls agility - Stewarts agility > Stewarts power/strength - Mendenhalls power/strength

i disagree 100% lex.

[lex]

i disagree 100% lex.

I dont care. Im not really asking you to agree with me.

[topscribe]

how much can one tackle help redzone performance?

Well, that's one-half of all the offensive tackles that are allowed on the field
at one time. So if you get a good OT, you have solved at least half the team's
problems at that position in one shot . . . :coffee:

-----

[shank]

I dont care. Im not really asking you to agree with me.

not asking you either, just letting you know.


Well, that's one-half of all the offensive tackles that are allowed on the field
at one time. So if you get a good OT, you have solved at least half the team's
problems at that position in one shot . . . :coffee:

-----
even if a rookie tackle comes in better than what we already have, it's an improvement at one of 5 OL positions and it's on the outside of the line on one side. maybe a rookie comes in and plays very well, but a tackle's impact will only be felt on outside runs and runs to his side, when in the redzone you ideally want to pound it up the middle with success...

so i ask again, how much can ONE tackle help redzone performance?

MY answer is; not as much as a back with good vision and ability to find the goal line whether they are running left, middle, or right (whether it's stewart, mendenhall, or anyone else)

[topscribe]

even if a rookie tackle comes in better than what we already have, it's an improvement at one of 5 OL positions and it's on the outside of the line on one side. maybe a rookie comes in and plays very well, but a tackle's impact will only be felt on outside runs and runs to his side, when in the redzone you ideally want to pound it up the middle with success...

so i ask again, how much can ONE tackle help redzone performance?

MY answer is; not as much as a back with good vision and ability to find the goal line whether they are running left, middle, or right (whether it's stewart, mendenhall, or anyone else)

My friend, all the vision in the world is of no effect if there is nothing to see . . .

-----

[shank]

My friend, all the vision in the world is of no effect if there is nothing to see . . .

-----

who are we to say that harris/pears are incapable?

harris is a 3rd rounder in an OL friendly system who was thought to have been drafted last year to become our starting LT when the time is right...

pears played very well at LT as a rookie, despite being better suited physically for RT.

add kuper in there as competition and we will get at minimum a competent LT, so how much is the improvement from one of these 3 to a rookie?

i believe it's negligable if not a downgrade (initially). i'm not against planning for the future, but i was under the impression that that's what we were doing when we drafted ryan harris.

(all that said, you should know that i'm not against taking an OT in rd. 1, i just want suitable value)

[Lonestar]

who are we to say that harris/pears are incapable?

harris is a 3rd rounder in an OL friendly system who was thought to have been drafted last year to become our starting LT when the time is right...

pears played very well at LT as a rookie, despite being better suited physically for RT.

add kuper in there as competition and we will get at minimum a competent LT, so how much is the improvement from one of these 3 to a rookie?

i believe it's negligable if not a downgrade (initially). i'm not against planning for the future, but i was under the impression that that's what we were doing when we drafted ryan harris.

(all that said, you should know that i'm not against taking an OT in rd. 1, i just want suitable value)

You make valid arguments here..

But the facts are A RB normally get bottled up in the Red zone specially inside the 5 .. There are flat less plays you can run down there and it limits what the defense has to worry about.. The LB and Db can play closer to the LOS and now inside of having only 4 to 7 guys at the LOS our OLINE has to handle as many as 9.. You really need studs down deep in the red zone that has been our problem since ZIM and company left.. We are OK there but we do not dominate anyone..

I'd guess that even TD would struggle inside the 5 with this OLINE..

Outside the red zone we are pretty damned good because there is so much field to defend. .

I'll take two stud OT anyday with our normal type RB verses a stud RB with our weak smallish oline..

[broncohead]

not asking you either, just letting you know.


even if a rookie tackle comes in better than what we already have, it's an improvement at one of 5 OL positions and it's on the outside of the line on one side. maybe a rookie comes in and plays very well, but a tackle's impact will only be felt on outside runs and runs to his side, when in the redzone you ideally want to pound it up the middle with success...

so i ask again, how much can ONE tackle help redzone performance?

MY answer is; not as much as a back with good vision and ability to find the goal line whether they are running left, middle, or right (whether it's stewart, mendenhall, or anyone else)

One play that I see used by a lot of teams is when everyone on the play side down block and the back side guard pulls to the play side an kicks out the DE, OLB, or who ever is there. An effective play that is designed for 5 yard gains. OTs are very important in that type of run blocking. I believe we should go for value at safety, DT, OT, and maybe even RB or WR in the first day. I hate reaching. An OT will push both Pears, Harris, and Kuper. The best two men start.

[Scarface]

Rashard Mendenhall First Draft

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80753455

[TXBRONC]

My friend, all the vision in the world is of no effect if there is nothing to see . . .

-----

What you say makes sense and I agree with you but there are couple of things that also be considered.

First of all, if we get offensive tackle with the 12th overall pick there is very good chance he wont have much of an impact his rookie season whereas a top flight running back has a much better chance of making an immediate impact barring injury and contract issues.

More than that whose more likely going to be available? Can we get a top flight offensive tackle with the 12th pick or is it going to be one the top running backs that is available when we pick?

By the way my first preference is to deal with either line, however if none of the top linemen are available and one of the top running backs is I would be ok with that.