Larson starting ILB?

[rcsodak]

How Comfortable is Bronco Nation with Spencer Larsen as a Starting ILB?

Cyborg_tiny by Jeremy Bolander on Mar 21, 2010 7:30 PM MDT in 2010


ProFootballWeekly is reporting that Spencer Larsen may be the lead horse in the Broncos race to find an ILB to start next to DJ Williams inside. From PFW:

After the surprising decision to release Andra Davis, who was a key contributor on defense last season, the Broncos have a vacancy to fill in the starting lineup at inside linebacker. While Denver could address the position early in the draft, sources expect Spencer Larsen to get a shot at winning the job in training camp. Larsen is not a well-known player outside of Denver, but he plays a variety of roles on the team, which has made him a valuable backup. He can play fullback or inside 'backer and helps out on special teams.

We have already floated this idea at MHR, but to actually hear the idea sourced puts it into a whole new light. I got to thinking about just what it is we are looking for in our "other" ILB, and how well Spencer lines up with those needs.

Larsen is a hard hitter, a thinking man's linebacker, and very tough, as his two-way play, especially his rookie year, can attest to. I remember him being tentative as a rookie starter, back when he replaced We..... Web..... , back when he subbed at MLB in late 2008. He had already supplanted Hillis as the starter at FB at that point, and was a constant on special teams, including a jawbreaking tackle against the Chiefs' Dantrell Savage. As a rookie I can forgive some tentative play, especially when I remember how much more settled down the defense seemed in that game (note that I do not say the defense seemed "good"... no, it was more like it had taken its ritalin when Spence was out there). But the question is, has he progressed as an ILB through 2009 and into 2010?

Star-divide



Additionally, our weakest area in the ILB corp was pass coverage, so it makes sense that if Larsen is going to make a run at the starting job, he had better bring something to the table in that vein. This made me remember a play in his rookie season. He backpedaled into zone, trailed across the middle of the field, and then at the last minute leaped out and defensed the pass, reaching around the receiver. Beautiful coverage. BUT does one play a possible coverage 'backer make?

I then went back and looked at my scouting notes from 2008, to see if there was any hint there. Mostly it talks about things we already know about him, his toughness, good tackling. He was also a "stand-up and shout in the lockerroom" kind of leader, willing to call out other players. There is a mention of "not great man-to-man coverage" but under zone I have him with "good read and react, instinctual player. Too slow for the WILL, can play MIKE, would probably be an ideal fit inside in the 3-4." I highlight the last part because I couldn't believe I had forgotten that about Larsen. When Shanny drafted him, the thought of Larsen in the 3-4 was the furthest thing from my mind, and I never really thought about it again.

For his negatives I listed out the standard knock against him at that time: 2 years out of football to go on his Mormon mission. I also had "injury concerns" listed (though this was before I kept track of actual injuries). This to got me to thinking... Larsen's rookie season he injured his hip in his first full game. The next week he would injure his groin which took him out for the last several weeks on a rotating basis. Then to open 2009 he hurts his shoulder and misses a half dozen weeks. Do we think the guy is injury prone?

[broncobryce]

I think he will get 'a shot' but I highly doubt he will be the starter. I think he is more valuable as a FB/special teams player.

[topscribe]

Larsen may surprise. At Arizona (University), he was regarded by many as the
second-best LB in the conference behind Maualuga. Even though he does not
have impressive 40 times, he has proven that the game of football is not played
in track shorts . . . i.e., his football speed belies his 40 times. More than once,
I have seen him run a RB out at the sidelines after chasing him from midfield.

Larsen is strong, tough, smart, and fast as he needs to be for the Mike position.
Don't count him out . . .

-----

[BigBroncLove]

I actually think it makes pretty good sense under the broncos "Fairbanks-Bullough" 3-4 system that they run. I could be wrong, but that's what the Broncos 3-4 is right? It's the preferred one in NE so I have to imagine McDaniels has preferences to it as well.

I posted in the football 101 forums an article about the primary responsibility of the Ted LB (weak ILB next to the Mike LB) which is the position were talking about and I think Larsen is certainly a good fit.

The Ted LB's primarily has to be the tough blue-collar guy that Larsen is (or from Mcdaniels view experience, like Bruschi). Obviously all the LB's have to be versatile enough to drop into coverage and move through traffic to make a tackle, but the Ted LB's primary responsibility from my understanding is to clear paths for the Mike to make his tackles or create sacks. The Ted is the workhorse who gets all the dirty work. As a result because of the taxing assignment of filling gaps or creating blitz lanes in the middle of the field against guards, centers, fb's, and rb's most teams don't like to invest a ton of money in their Ted LB. No player is one dimensional, the Ted is expected to do everything else as well. However I think given what type of 3-4 the Broncos will be using and how the Ted LB was utilized in NE (which is what I imagine McDaniels would be doing, going with what he knows) I think Larsen could be a good fit.

I think ideally you would like to have two guys that are solid like in Pittsburgh (with Timmons and Farrior) who have the toughness and versatility to do both Mike and Ted positions, but if they choose to not draft high for a great ILB, I think Larsen could be a good fit.

Just my two cents.

[WARHORSE]

He ran just as fast as Cushing did.

4.7 something.

He is good on the inside. Im not sure if he will be a liability against the pass, but one thing I believe, he is smart. He plays with his head, and he reacts quickly which allows him to play faster.

[Zweems56]

Every time I see someone misspell Larsen, i think of Christopher Reeve yelling "HAAAACKMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN" in South Park.

[broncofaninfla]

I hope he gets a legit shot at starting. I liked what I saw of him in 2008 and feel he could be a solid starter for us.

[SR]

This is funny because when my dad and I were talking about why Denver cut Davis, I told my dad I bet Larsen will be one of the starters in the middle.

[LRtagger]

I would rather go with Larsen then draft that slow turd Spikes in the second round. People clamor that Spikes is good value in the second because he is a sound tackler, but so is Larsen. They are both equally slow, so I'm not sure Spikes is any upgrade over Larsen.

I would rather draft a FB in the 7th to replace Larsen then draft a turd LB in the second to replace him.

[broncofaninfla]

May the best man with the job, I'll be pulling for Larsen but like Haggan and Woodyard as well.

As for slow, in the 2008 game against Atlanta, I saw no signs of slow, in fact there were several sideline to sideline plays in which he showed plent of speed.

[SOCALORADO.]

Larsen could easily win the job. He hasnt had an opportunity to just focus on one position, and be able to give 110% attention to it.
Finally, he may just have that opportunity.
And yes, he was a very good player at ARI. I think Mayock had him at #2 LB for the longest time, right up to the combine. He was always in his top 5, if i remember correctly. That was a while ago..

[LRtagger]

As for slow, in the 2008 game against Atlanta, I saw no signs of slow, in fact there were several sideline to sideline plays in which he showed plent of speed.

Larsen has great football instincts and good reaction time. Dont mistake that for speed...by NFL standards he is a slow LB.

[T.K.O.]

if this article ends up being true, it's another move that tells me bowlen is trying to keep the young "cheaper" talent and shy away from heavy spending this year.
it could be because he intends to fork over some serious $$$ to doom and marshall,or it could be that he knows 2 1st rounders are gonna take a big chunk o change to sign.....and last but not least he could be pocketing some scratch to cover a lockout year.....hmmmmm:confused:
either way getting a qb in at 700k,tendering others slightly below market value,releasing guys like davis etc...
i get the feeling we are pretty much done in the FA market

[SOCALORADO.]

if this article ends up being true, it's another move that tells me bowlen is trying to keep the young "cheaper" talent and shy away from heavy spending this year.
it could be because he intends to fork over some serious $$$ to doom and marshall,or it could be that he knows 2 1st rounders are gonna take a big chunk o change to sign.....and last but not least he could be pocketing some scratch to cover a lockout year.....hmmmmm:confused:
either way getting a qb in at 700k,tendering others slightly below market value,releasing guys like davis etc...
i get the feeling we are pretty much done in the FA market

Or it means that Larsen is good enough to start at ILB, and has not been givine a chance to do so.

[T.K.O.]

Or it means that Larsen is good enough to start at ILB, and has not been givine a chance to do so.

i doubt decisions of that magnitude are being made based on a few days of ota's. i agree that this shows that the team has some faith in larsen. however i would say its either more of a financial statement or shows the team plans on aquiring another lb via draft or fa.
you dont start naming starters in march.....even if florio thinks you should:laugh:

[SOCALORADO.]

i doubt decisions of that magnitude are being made based on a few days of ota's. i agree that this shows that the team has some faith in larsen. however i would say its either more of a financial statement or shows the team plans on aquiring another lb via draft or fa.
you dont start naming starters in march.....even if florio thinks you should:laugh:

Tell that to Pat Bowlen!!:laugh:
And i have been naming starters all morning!:D

[hamrob]

I hope they allow Larson to compete. I don't like Woodyard in the middle at 220lbs and I'm not sold on a 29yr Old Haagan who has really done nothing during his career.

Come to think of it. It's becomeing more and more clear:

We're drafting McClain at #11.

[rcsodak]

I actually think it makes pretty good sense under the broncos "Fairbanks-Bullough" 3-4 system that they run. I could be wrong, but that's what the Broncos 3-4 is right? It's the preferred one in NE so I have to imagine McDaniels has preferences to it as well.

I posted in the football 101 forums an article about the primary responsibility of the Ted LB (weak ILB next to the Mike LB) which is the position were talking about and I think Larsen is certainly a good fit.

The Ted LB's primarily has to be the tough blue-collar guy that Larsen is (or from Mcdaniels view experience, like Bruschi). Obviously all the LB's have to be versatile enough to drop into coverage and move through traffic to make a tackle, but the Ted LB's primary responsibility from my understanding is to clear paths for the Mike to make his tackles or create sacks. The Ted is the workhorse who gets all the dirty work. As a result because of the taxing assignment of filling gaps or creating blitz lanes in the middle of the field against guards, centers, fb's, and rb's most teams don't like to invest a ton of money in their Ted LB. No player is one dimensional, the Ted is expected to do everything else as well. However I think given what type of 3-4 the Broncos will be using and how the Ted LB was utilized in NE (which is what I imagine McDaniels would be doing, going with what he knows) I think Larsen could be a good fit.

I think ideally you would like to have two guys that are solid like in Pittsburgh (with Timmons and Farrior) who have the toughness and versatility to do both Mike and Ted positions, but if they choose to not draft high for a great ILB, I think Larsen could be a good fit.

Just my two cents.

Not really sure McD's D will emulate NE's. *WINK* is a family friend/student of the Ryans. He likes the attacking, 1gap system/46, etc.
By the looks of the recent signings, it looks to me like they're going to be more like Bal's D. (?)

[rcsodak]

I would rather go with Larsen then draft that slow turd Spikes in the second round. People clamor that Spikes is good value in the second because he is a sound tackler, but so is Larsen. They are both equally slow, so I'm not sure Spikes is any upgrade over Larsen.

I would rather draft a FB in the 7th to replace Larsen then draft a turd LB in the second to replace him.

....Maalox might help.....

:couch:

[T.K.O.]

I hope they allow Larson to compete. I don't like Woodyard in the middle at 220lbs and I'm not sold on a 29yr Old Haagan who has really done nothing during his career.

Come to think of it. It's becomeing more and more clear:

We're drafting McClain at #11.

seems likely at this point

[rcsodak]

i doubt decisions of that magnitude are being made based on a few days of ota's. i agree that this shows that the team has some faith in larsen. however i would say its either more of a financial statement or shows the team plans on aquiring another lb via draft or fa.
you dont start naming starters in march.....even if florio thinks you should:laugh:

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when there was nobody better, Davis was it.
He hasn't had the ability to 'stick' with teams. He's brought in at the early stages of the 'new 3-4', then dumped.
He's a "fillgap" player. He'd have been a decent player as a backup, but he probably wanted starter money. That's not feasible in this environment.

Ex-players/FO guys on Sirius NFL thought it didn't hurt the team. What's that tell you? ;)

[SoCalImport]

He hasn't had the ability to 'stick' with teams. He's brought in at the early stages of the 'new 3-4', then dumped.

Davis only ever played for one team before coming to Denver. He Stuck in Cleveland for 7 years.

[T.K.O.]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that when there was nobody better, Davis was it.
He hasn't had the ability to 'stick' with teams. He's brought in at the early stages of the 'new 3-4', then dumped.
He's a "fillgap" player. He'd have been a decent player as a backup, but he probably wanted starter money. That's not feasible in this environment.

Ex-players/FO guys on Sirius NFL thought it didn't hurt the team. What's that tell you? ;)

i agree....but we were talking about wether or not larsen is now the pressumed starter...i dont think we are even close to picking davis' replacement.we could well draft mcclain or bring in another fa....the off season is young

[dogfish]

Davis only ever played for one team before coming to Denver. He Stuck in Cleveland for 7 years.

oops. . . :lol:


RC, did you confuse andra davis with andre davis?

[BigBroncLove]

Not really sure McD's D will emulate NE's. *WINK* is a family friend/student of the Ryans. He likes the attacking, 1gap system/46, etc.
By the looks of the recent signings, it looks to me like they're going to be more like Bal's D. (?)

It would be nice to see that shift in my opinion. Last year I think it was fairly clear in how they used Andra Davis that it was largely a Fairbanks/Bullough system with elements of the Lebaugh 3-4 Zone blitz tagged in ala Nolan. At least that's what I got from watching the games.

I certainly hope that your right about "wink" martindale with his connection to Baltimore as I know little of martindale's preferences. I know that the split between Nolan and McD was largely due to McD's preferences in play calling and hopefully he'll give more space to his D coordinator now to make decisions regarding both play calling and primary system (even though I think he gave Nolan a fair hand as far as creating the tone and system of the unit). Honestly I doubt they will follow any specific system to the T, varying it slightly from week to week depending on opponent. None the less they should have a base system they will use and I hope it tends to lean the way your suggesting.