PDA

View Full Version : I think all this talk about WR and RB will mean nothing if we do not fix our O line



Medford Bronco
03-03-2008, 12:25 PM
I know some here do not like the Colbert Signing and even want to explore getting McFadden, which I think is a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

The biggest problem with last years offense was the O line. It needs better play and hopefully we can address that in the draft. I am no draft guru but I would love to get another tackle to help replace the retirement of Lepsis.

Also I hope Nalen comes back healthy this year. A Consistent line will solve a lot of the other issues of this offense. hopefully it can help the running game get back to what it was when Portis and TD were here.

We shall see.

Lonestar
03-03-2008, 12:34 PM
One of the biggest reason YES not the biggest reason.


The talent level on this team has dropped year after year since the SB years.. The OLINE has ONE survivor from that era and only one that was ever touched by Gibbs directly.

Now that a few other teams are going to run the ZBS we are no longer unique more and more DCs are scheming to beat it..

We have been living with the notion that any RB can do good here and partially that is true.. between the 20's I do not think there is a more prolific offense in the NFL save perhaps NE..

Inside the red zone however is another story altogether.

We need an influx of talent @ OT and DT and then a few years of playing together to become the team we are used to seeing..

xzn
03-03-2008, 12:58 PM
Of the players who have a realistic chance of falling to twelve, Ryan Clady looks like the best choice for us. He is very athletic and has potential to be a top OLT. If he is taken Chris Williams and Branden Albert look really good too, although would probably be reaches at 12.

If we really are commited to offensive in the first round it seems like we would wait to see if Clady drops to us. If not, trade back into the late middle of the first and pick up a third. The chart says we could add a 3rd round 14 for moving back to 16. We end up with Williams or Albert and the mid-third we need.

This would allow us to address DT in the second where there is a lot of depth in this class and Safety in the third where we could get someone like De Coud or Zibikowski.

Lonestar
03-03-2008, 01:07 PM
If for some reason Ellis would fall to us @12 then DT needs to be addressed first no question about that. I agree about Clady playing in the WAC against less than quality talent, when he played against Quality DL's he did not fair well.. If he is available in the 4th he is worth a flyer.. But there are several OT that might fall to #42 if not one of the LB's or safeties would look good here also..

turftoad
03-03-2008, 01:08 PM
I know some here do not like the Colbert Signing and even want to explore getting McFadden, which I think is a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

The biggest problem with last years offense was the O line. It needs better play and hopefully we can address that in the draft. I am no draft guru but I would love to get another tackle to help replace the retirement of Lepsis.

Also I hope Nalen comes back healthy this year. A Consistent line will solve a lot of the other issues of this offense. hopefully it can help the running game get back to what it was when Portis and TD were here.

We shall see.

There is no doubt that we have many holes to fill.

I'm more concerned about our "D". Our offense out shined our "D" last year which isn't saying a lot.
Our "D" was 30th, yep 30th vs the run last year. Also......... we gave up over 400 points. That was 28th in the league. Only Oakland and Miami were worse vs the run than we were. How does that make you feel?

Our offense wasn't all that bad. We were 13th in passing and 9th in rushing for a ranking in total offense of 11th. Way above average.

Our defense was one of the worst in the league. We need to fix THAT problem first.

SR
03-03-2008, 02:13 PM
I think our offensive line will be fine.

Bronco9798
03-03-2008, 02:19 PM
We need a Left tackle, period. This team is going nowhere without help on both sides of the line. That's where you win games. Everybody can yell for a glamor pick but it's useless without line help.

mclark
03-03-2008, 02:26 PM
There is no doubt that we have many holes to fill.

I'm more concerned about our "D". Our offense out shined our "D" last year which isn't saying a lot.
Our "D" was 30th, yep 30th vs the run last year. Also......... we gave up over 400 points. That was 28th in the league. Only Oakland and Miami were worse vs the run than we were. How does that make you feel?

Our offense wasn't all that bad. We were 13th in passing and 9th in rushing for a ranking in total offense of 11th. Way above average.

Our defense was one of the worst in the league. We need to fix THAT problem first.

Our offense was statistically ok last year -- ie, pretty effective in moving through the middle of the field. We were much better before Nalen got hurt. But Nalen is old and may not be able to make it back from a serious injury. We also lost our starting left tackle to retirement.

Meyers didn't play very well replacing Nalen. And Pears was not really very effective at right tackle. The prospect is having Pears and a thoroughly untested 'rookie', Ryan Harris, starting at the tackle spots, with a big ? at center.

We were 21st in the league in scoring, out of 32 teams. We were not very good in the red zone last year.

Yes, we need to improve our defense. Getting rid of Bates was the first step in doing this. But we also need to improve our offensive line.

turftoad
03-03-2008, 02:52 PM
Our offense was statistically ok last year -- ie, pretty effective in moving through the middle of the field. We were much better before Nalen got hurt. But Nalen is old and may not be able to make it back from a serious injury. We also lost our starting left tackle to retirement.

Meyers didn't play very well replacing Nalen. And Pears was not really very effective at right tackle. The prospect is having Pears and a thoroughly untested 'rookie', Ryan Harris, starting at the tackle spots, with a big ? at center.

We were 21st in the league in scoring, out of 32 teams. We were not very good in the red zone last year.

Yes, we need to improve our defense. Getting rid of Bates was the first step in doing this. But we also need to improve our offensive line.


I'd rather be 21st in points for than 28th in points against. Neither one is great.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 02:57 PM
All this WAC talk regarding Clady is ridiculous. The guy wouldn't be a consensus top fifteen selection if he wasn't a good player. Clady has played well two years in a row. He is not overrated and I'd love to hear some examples of where he struggled against quality defensive lines.

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 02:59 PM
All this WAC talk regarding Clady is ridiculous. The guy wouldn't be a consensus top fifteen selection if he wasn't a good player. Clady has played well two years in a row. He is not overrated and I'd love to hear some examples of where he struggled against quality defensive lines.

Ok Dream... since you said you would love some examples.... I will provide it for you....:D

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 03:01 PM
Example #1)

Clady was charged with six penalties (five false starts, one holding), including four vs. Washington, and allowed 3.5 sacks for losses of 23 yards


Look it up if you don't believe me.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 03:03 PM
Example #1)

Clady was charged with six penalties (five false starts, one holding), including four vs. Washington, and allowed 3.5 sacks for losses of 23 yards


Look it up if you don't believe me.

You also forgot to mention where he had 90% blocking efficiency (grade) in 5 contests and had above 85% through the course of the whole season, which is epic. The 122 knockdowns, 21 blocks for touchdowns would have been nice to mention too.

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 03:05 PM
You also forgot to mention where he had 90% blocking efficiency (grade) in 5 contests and had above 85% through the course of the whole season, which is epic. The 122 knockdowns, 21 blocks for touchdowns would have been nice to mention too.

Yeah, those stats don't impress me when you play in the WAC... those are all stats compiled over the corse of a season... You asked about when he was tested against the more talented teams. I'm coming up with the stats for you for the Hawaii and ECU games... which were also bad and similar to the Washington game.

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 03:09 PM
http://www.theolympian.com/sports/story/314896.html

Versus ECU, Clady gave up 2.5 sacks, and had two penalties.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 03:09 PM
Yeah, those stats don't impress me when you play in the WAC... those are all stats compiled over the corse of a season... You asked about when he was tested against the more talented teams. I'm coming up with the stats for you for the Hawaii and ECU games... which were also bad and similar to the Washington game.

Whether or not they impress you doesn't matter. They're impressing scouts and teams in the NFL and that's why he's a top pick.

I've mentioned time after time that he needs to be better disciplined (false starts) but the consistent bashing of him due to his conference gets old. By that line of thinking, we shouldn't be looking at any small school players. Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler were probably shit in your eyes too?


He did post some eye-opening performances, putting together a string of three games where he did not allow the opponent to record any statistics.

Yeah, and he has some of those discipline issues as well:


During his last two seasons with the Broncos, Clady registered 224 knockdowns, including 32 touchdown-resulting blocks and 13 downfield blocks, compiling an 84.0% grade for blocking consistency...Penalized 10 times during his last 26 games.

Clady is a good prospect and a prototypical left tackle. What conference he played in shouldn't matter at all.

MHCBill
03-03-2008, 03:10 PM
There is no value drafting an OT at #12 this year. Between #20 and the third round there is a lot of value, but not at #12.

Draft the stud RB at #12 (VALUE) while we draft this high. Hopefully it will be a long, long time until we draft this high again. Get value from it. Don't waste it.

Value

Value

Value

Go OT or LB at round two, but get the stud RB that will grow with this young nucleus for the next 5-8 years.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 03:13 PM
There's value all over the board for running backs as well, it's just what people are starting to prefer personally. I'm a big fan of Stewart and Mendenhall, but that's not going to happen here on draft day. All things considered, Denver should trade down - but if Clady was there at #12, I'd be happy if we selected him. I'd be pleased in most scenarios, but a lot of people wouldn't because they're so dead-set on a certain player or two. That's the kind of mentality that hinders a balanced and open minded approach to the draft and will only make being disappointed easier.

MHCBill
03-03-2008, 03:17 PM
Nothing wrong with being disappointed.

It's easy to set your sights low... aim high and things work out better for you most of the time.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 03:19 PM
Nothing wrong with being disappointed.

It's easy to set your sights low... aim high and things work out better for you most of the time.

Denver fans shouldn't be disappointed if Clady is the pick at #12. That's not setting sights low at all. People whined about the 2006 draft; and look how that turned out.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people jump on the "this way or bust" draft bandwagon.

Inevitably, people are going to be pissed - but that's how it goes. If it's Keith Rivers at #12, I understand. If it's Jonathan Stewart at #12, heck yeah I'm stoked. If it's Ryan Clady, I'm pumped. Hell, I'm stoked with Mike Jenkins at #12. I just don't get why people like to be disappointed. I guess it makes being the ACQB the next day a lot easier.

MHCBill
03-03-2008, 03:19 PM
I don't agree that there is as much talent equal to Mendenhall, Stewart, and McFadden as there is with the OT prospects.

After Jake Long, most of these guys look the same to me. Some have strengths, some have weaknesses. Overall, they are all pretty close.

After the top three running backs, I don't feel like there's a perenial all-pro out there.

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 03:19 PM
Whether or not they impress you doesn't matter. They're impressing scouts and teams in the NFL and that's why he's a top pick.

I've mentioned time after time that he needs to be better disciplined (false starts) but the consistent bashing of him due to his conference gets old. By that line of thinking, we shouldn't be looking at any small school players. Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler were probably shit in your eyes too?


Yeah, and he has some of those discipline issues as well:



Clady is a good prospect and a prototypical left tackle. What conference he played in shouldn't matter at all.


This horse shit reboot when I post my argument is getting really old. I already posted many reasons why I don't like Ryan Clady as top 15 pick. I'm getting sick and tired of posting on a daily basis why he isn't a top 15 pick. I've never said we shouldn't draft him just because he played in the WAC confernce, but I did state that this is just one of the many factors why I don't support drafting him as a top 15 prospect. Despite my many attempts to explain myself, you and other Clady supporters always bring back crap like, Well I guess we shouldn't look at guys like Brandon Marshall or Tony Scheffler. Yet, My arguement is we shouldn't take Clady, an above average prospect out of a weak conference, who struggled against some of the more talented teams in that conference, who is described by scouts as a great pass blocking OT and a prospect who needs to improve with his run blocking at a top 15 pick. Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler and all the other small conference draft picks that you can ramble off are not top 15 picks... so please spare me this poor attempt of a come back.

I don't have lots of game stats on Clady against talented teams because the WAC conference lacks good teams. Last year Boise St, who is one of the better and more talented teams, played Washington, ECU, and Hawaii, besides those three teams they played absolutely no one. It also happens that in those three games, Ryan Clady not only gave up mulitple sacks, but played some of his worst games. I'm so glad that Clady dominated against Utah State and all those other great teams in the WAC conference. I'm sure defensive end Joe Blow for Utah State will be more than happy to tell his kids he played against Ryan Clady of Boise State.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 03:31 PM
This horse shit reboot when I post my argument is getting really old. I already posted many reasons why I don't like Ryan Clady as top 15 pick. I'm getting sick and tired of posting on a daily basis why he isn't a top 15 pick. I've never said we shouldn't draft him just because he played in the WAC confernce, but I did state that this is just one of the many factors why I don't support drafting him as a top 15 prospect. Despite my many attempts to explain myself, you and other Clady supporters always bring back crap like, Well I guess we shouldn't look at guys like Brandon Marshall or Tony Scheffler.

The only things I've seen you say about Clady is that he isn't worth #12 because he's from the WAC. I guess I probably didn't look hard enough.


Yet, My arguement is we shouldn't take Clady, an above average prospect out of a weak conference, who struggled against some of the more talented teams in that conference, who is described by scouts as a great pass blocking OT and a prospect who needs to improve with his run blocking at a top 15 pick.

A finesse pass bocking offensive tackle is exactly what we need. He's not a perfect prospect, nobody is. Everyone has flaws. He's not an above-average prospect though, he's a very good one with great potential. That's where the argument seems to fall apart for me.


Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler and all the other small conference draft picks that you can ramble off are not top 15 picks... so please spare me this poor attempt of a come back.

It goes along with the weak conference bashing. That's why I brought it up. It's relevant.


I don't have lots of game stats on Clady against talented teams because the WAC conference lacks good teams. Last year Boise St, who is one of the better and more talented teams, played Washington, ECU, and Hawaii, besides those three teams they played absolutely no one. It also happens that in those three games, Ryan Clady not only gave up mulitple sacks, but played some of his worst games. I'm so glad that Clady dominated against Utah State and all those other great teams in the WAC conference. I'm sure defensive end Joe Blow for Utah State will be more than happy to tell his kids he played against Ryan Clady of Boise State.

Ever thought of the possibility that smaller schools might have better defensive ends and tackles than bigger named schools? I just thought I'd put that one by you. If Clady was nearly bad as you say he is, he wouldn't be a top fifteen selection.

I see your for signing Kwame Harris. As a starter? If so, I'll pray for Jay every game.

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 03:34 PM
I see your for signing Kwame Harris. As a starter? If so, I'll pray for Jay every game.

Again, you post and you do not know what you talk about... read were me and HD talk about Harris and we both do not talk of him as a starter... we say that he is probably better suited as a back up and would give us depth, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does better in our ZBS and could play RT.

Requiem / The Dagda
03-03-2008, 03:42 PM
Again, you post and you do not know what you talk about... read were me and HD talk about Harris and we both do not talk of him as a starter... we say that he is probably better suited as a back up and would give us depth, but it wouldn't surprise me if he does better in our ZBS and could play RT.

I don't get to see all your breaking analysis BOSS, which is why I was wondering if you thought Harris was a starter. +5 street cred to you since you realize he isn't. :salute:

BOSSHOGG30
03-03-2008, 03:49 PM
I don't get to see all your breaking analysis BOSS, which is why I was wondering if you thought Harris was a starter. +5 street cred to you since you realize he isn't. :salute:

I didn't think Holland was starting material either when we signed him, but I was happy we brought in a bigger body... he couldn't hack it with the Saints, but he was one of our better lineman last season and it was his first year in our system. I wouldn't be surprised if Kwame Harris could start at RT in our system, but my expectations wouldn't be all that high. But I do like him for depth and the potential as well as not costing us a draft pick.

Scarface
03-03-2008, 05:40 PM
There is no value drafting an OT at #12 this year. Between #20 and the third round there is a lot of value, but not at #12.

Draft the stud RB at #12 (VALUE) while we draft this high. Hopefully it will be a long, long time until we draft this high again. Get value from it. Don't waste it.

Value

Value

Value

Go OT or LB at round two, but get the stud RB that will grow with this young nucleus for the next 5-8 years.

There is plenty of value at 12 for a tackle. RB? There are plenty of good RBs to be drafted RD 3 and later. All the good tackles will be gone by Rd2.

Scarface
03-03-2008, 05:41 PM
I didn't think Holland was starting material either when we signed him, but I was happy we brought in a bigger body... he couldn't hack it with the Saints, but he was one of our better lineman last season and it was his first year in our system. I wouldn't be surprised if Kwame Harris could start at RT in our system, but my expectations wouldn't be all that high. But I do like him for depth and the potential as well as not costing us a draft pick.

Holland didn't have a rep of being soft and gutless like Kwame Harris.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-03-2008, 05:53 PM
I'm not gonna be mad if we go oT at 12...but that's not the route I prefer. The OLine did suck last year, but we were missing 3 key players...2 of them have returned. There has been talk of Kuper at RT and Harris at LT...both different than in 2007. My guess is that Shanny will at least give that lineup a chance. There are decent options at OT later on in the draft...Hills, Richardson to name 2. If we do go OT at 12, I want Otah or Williams, but if we are looking that direction I REALLY wanna trade back. However, I'm guessing Shanny won't even consider such a move til Dorsey and Ellis are both off the board.

Nature Boy
03-03-2008, 06:18 PM
Agreed. O-Line is the most important part to any good offense. What is the one thing the Broncos are famous for? A great O-line and their zone blocking scheme.

Lepsis, Hamilton and Nalan, the Broncos best 3 O-lineman went out one by one in 2006-07 and the result of our 2 dismal seasons. The young patch work guys behind the 3 mentioned above are not very good.

LRtagger
03-04-2008, 10:09 AM
Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler were probably shit in your eyes too?

Neither of those guys were top 12 picks...every team in the NFL passed on both of those guys at least once. How is that relevant to us picking Clady at #12? :confused:

There are just as many high pick busts as there are late round gems. There is too much depth on the board to gamble on an OT at pick #12. And yes, his lack of gameplay against NFL-caliber talent makes him a gamble IMO. Scouts may see something in him that makes them think he warrants top 15 money...but scouts can be wrong. If anything, we should trade down and take advantage of the tremendous depth in this year's draft field.