Great O-line and Average Back, or.......

[Ziggy]

OK, the forum seems to be split on wether we should grab a great RB and address the O-line later, or improve the O-line and address the RB later. We all know the championships in the NFL are won with defense and a running game, with very few exceptions. So for the purpose of the argument let's forget about he D for a moment and discuss the other half of the equation.

Here is my question. Would you rather have a great offensive line and an average running back, or an average offensive line and a great running back?

I'm a beleiver that a great offensive line and an average running back will take you a lot farther. Heres why:
1. A great offensive line not only opens holes for the running game, but gives the qb and receivers time to connect on routes in the passing game, making the offense a viable threat to pass it on every down. Defenses can't put 8 or 9 in the box to shut down the run for fear that they'll give up a big pass downfield. That in turn opens up the running game. A one-dimensional offense will get you nowhere in the NFL.
2. The more successfully the offensive line controlls the line of scrimage, the more worn down a defense gets throughout the course of a game(see the Denver Broncos defense 2007). You can put Ladanian Tomlinson behind an average offensive line and he's not going to put up near the numbers he is in San Diego.
3. A great offensive line helps keep a RB healthy. RB's can get hurt at any time, but if they aren't getting contact until they are 3-5 yards downfield, they can somewhat dictate what kind of hit they are going to take when they do get tackled. How many times have you seen Ladanian Tomlinson take a big hit? Not too many. How about Emmit Smith in the Cowboys heyday? Part of that is directly attributed to the backs ability, but a big part is also stems from the backs having time to get low, run out of bounds, or just square up the shoulders.
4. A great offensive line in and of itself is going to bring you more success than a great running back by himself. Which is harder to obtain? The offensive line of course. You have to hit on 5 positions instead of just 1. In the long run, (pardon the pun) it's well worth the investments.

[jrelway]

OK, the forum seems to be split on wether we should grab a great RB and address the O-line later, or improve the O-line and address the RB later. We all know the championships in the NFL are won with defense and a running game, with very few exceptions. So for the purpose of the argument let's forget about he D for a moment and discuss the other half of the equation.

Here is my question. Would you rather have a great offensive line and an average running back, or an average offensive line and a great running back?

I'm a beleiver that a great offensive line and an average running back will take you a lot farther. Heres why:
1. A great offensive line not only opens holes for the running game, but gives the qb and receivers time to connect on routes in the passing game, making the offense a viable threat to pass it on every down. Defenses can't put 8 or 9 in the box to shut down the run for fear that they'll give up a big pass downfield. That in turn opens up the running game. A one-dimensional offense will get you nowhere in the NFL.
2. The more successfully the offensive line controlls the line of scrimage, the more worn down a defense gets throughout the course of a game(see the Denver Broncos defense 2007). You can put Ladanian Tomlinson behind an average offensive line and he's not going to put up near the numbers he is in San Diego.
3. A great offensive line helps keep a RB healthy. RB's can get hurt at any time, but if they aren't getting contact until they are 3-5 yards downfield, they can somewhat dictate what kind of hit they are going to take when they do get tackled. How many times have you seen Ladanian Tomlinson take a big hit? Not too many. How about Emmit Smith in the Cowboys heyday? Part of that is directly attributed to the backs ability, but a big part is also stems from the backs having time to get low, run out of bounds, or just square up the shoulders.
4. A great offensive line in and of itself is going to bring you more success than a great running back by himself. Which is harder to obtain? The offensive line of course. You have to hit on 5 positions instead of just 1. In the long run, (pardon the pun) it's well worth the investments.

id rather have an average RB and a great O Line..you still have to pass protect. average line means average RB

[BOSSHOGG30]

Give me Stewart and Mendenhall right now and use the other picks for the trenches. I like a lot more OL in the later rounds than I do RB's considering we need a bigger back to compliment Selvin Young's running style.

Unless we can get Forte or Ellis I don't see too many promising power backs.

[lex]

OK, the forum seems to be split on wether we should grab a great RB and address the O-line later, or improve the O-line and address the RB later. We all know the championships in the NFL are won with defense and a running game, with very few exceptions. So for the purpose of the argument let's forget about he D for a moment and discuss the other half of the equation.

Here is my question. Would you rather have a great offensive line and an average running back, or an average offensive line and a great running back?

I'm a beleiver that a great offensive line and an average running back will take you a lot farther. Heres why:
1. A great offensive line not only opens holes for the running game, but gives the qb and receivers time to connect on routes in the passing game, making the offense a viable threat to pass it on every down. Defenses can't put 8 or 9 in the box to shut down the run for fear that they'll give up a big pass downfield. That in turn opens up the running game. A one-dimensional offense will get you nowhere in the NFL.
2. The more successfully the offensive line controlls the line of scrimage, the more worn down a defense gets throughout the course of a game(see the Denver Broncos defense 2007). You can put Ladanian Tomlinson behind an average offensive line and he's not going to put up near the numbers he is in San Diego.
3. A great offensive line helps keep a RB healthy. RB's can get hurt at any time, but if they aren't getting contact until they are 3-5 yards downfield, they can somewhat dictate what kind of hit they are going to take when they do get tackled. How many times have you seen Ladanian Tomlinson take a big hit? Not too many. How about Emmit Smith in the Cowboys heyday? Part of that is directly attributed to the backs ability, but a big part is also stems from the backs having time to get low, run out of bounds, or just square up the shoulders.
4. A great offensive line in and of itself is going to bring you more success than a great running back by himself. Which is harder to obtain? The offensive line of course. You have to hit on 5 positions instead of just 1. In the long run, (pardon the pun) it's well worth the investments.

In relation to this years draft, it only takes drafting one player to have a great running back while one player does not make a great offensive line and rarely do great offensive lines have all first round draft picks. So for our situation, id say take the running back.

[OB]

Im not much on draft knowledge but what good is a great running back if he doesnt have an O Line that can make holes for him to run through - not to mention the pass protection - but maybe we should draft a RB since we seem to have esp. good luck in that dept. and do FA for the OLine holes - JMHGO - (just my humble girl opinion ;) )

[lex]

Im not much on draft knowledge but what good is a great running back if he doesnt have an O Line that can make holes for him to run through - not to mention the pass protection - but maybe we should draft a RB since we seem to have esp. good luck in that dept. and do FA for the OLine holes - JMHGO - (just my humble girl opinion ;) )

Wouldnt that be a poor offensive line?

[OB]

Wouldnt that be a poor offensive line?

Kinda my point :confused:

[OB]

OK - I'll try again - just for you lex

I would rather have a great OLine and avg RB because.....see my previous post (which included material that was a tad off subject by mentioning how I thought we could go about accomplishing this task)

Does that make it all better :coffee:

[ursak]

i'd rather have a great offensive line.

But with our #12, i'm all for Mendenhall. It's a safer pick than a OL.
This kid will produce imediately for us.
Let's have a great offensive line with playingtime with Kuper and Harris and guys drafted later...

#12 Mendenhall
#42 Cherilus/Baker/Brown

[LRtagger]

I want a stud back. I miss the TD days. Granted I know we had a great Oline then, but still...I would be willing to bet that both Mendenhall and Stewart could rush for 1500 yards behind our current Oline and both be able to punch it into the endzone from inside the 5.

Either that or we need a bulldozer at FB, but that is the least likely scenario.

[Den21vsBal19]

I want a stud back. I miss the TD days. Granted I know we had a great Oline then, but still...I would be willing to bet that both Mendenhall and Stewart could rush for 1500 yards behind our current Oline and both be able to punch it into the endzone from inside the 5.

Either that or we need a bulldozer at FB, but that is the least likely scenario.

Amen to that, it's been way too long.................

Otherwise, why not try to be a little creative? What his name with the Pansies, and Allen at the Chiefs have both had success in goal line situations.......if what we're doing doesn't work (and it blatantly doesn't) then try something new!!!!!

On point though, I'd rather improve the line than take a stud back, although that depends on the quality when we pick

[Broncospsycho77]

This year, overall, is a little different than most years' drafts, because the RB class isn't great, and the OL class is about to par, but deeper than average. We would get better value overall taking RBs earlier and OL later, though we wouldn't necessarily get better players.

This year, though, I hope we go linemen all the way in the first round, because, in all honesty, we're pretty weak on both sides of the ball in that department. Give Jay the security to not have to look over his left shoulder every other play, and also create some good cutback lanes for whoever's our project RB this year.

[Retired_Member_001]

I always go for a great offensive line. I believe an offense is automatically good if they have a great offensive line and a average something else (Quarterback, Wide receivers, running back). I just think a great offensive line will take you along way since the offensive line is the core of an offense.

However, in this draft I want Jonathan Stewart because I think he is just too good to pass up on. He will bring the TD days back.

[Broncospsycho77]

I always go for a great offensive line. I believe an offense is automatically good if they have a great offensive line and a average something else (Quarterback, Wide receivers, running back). I just think a great offensive line will take you along way since the offensive line is the core of an offense.

However, in this draft I want Jonathan Stewart because I think he is just too good to pass up on. He will bring the TD days back.

Agreed.

For example, look at the Browns last year. By revamping the O-line, You give Derek Anderson that extra half-second to throw (though that may have been the peak of his career last year), give Jamal Lewis (on the downfall of his career) that extra yard or so, and you improve greatly. Add Thomas and Steinbach, and there's immediate improvement.

[Nature Boy]

I vote C. Best to have a great RB and a great O-Line. I think Travis Henry is that great RB Mikey's been looking for since TD retired. We just need to buff up that O-Line. I hope Nalen can still grind out a couple more pro-bowl caliber seasons.

Here is a question. Was Terrell Davis that good or was it the O-Line/system? I say a lot of both.

[Retired_Member_001]

I vote C. Best to have a great RB and a great O-Line. I think Travis Henry is that great RB Mikey's been looking for since TD retired. We just need to buff up that O-Line. I hope Nalen can still grind out a couple more pro-bowl caliber seasons.

Here is a question. Was Terrell Davis that good or was it the O-Line/system? I say a lot of both.

Henry the back Shanahan has been looking for?

The man is a to be-30 year old, drug dealing, injury prone, slow running back. Why would Shanahan want him?

Oh wait, Shanahan likes those types.

[underrated29]

Henry the back Shanahan has been looking for?

The man is a to be-30 year old, drug dealing, injury prone, slow running back. Why would Shanahan want him?

Oh wait, Shanahan likes those types.



Henry is not slow, not by any means. He is old and injury prone though. I like him a lot, even more if he could finish a season.

[r8rh8r]

I'd rather have a dominant O-line all day. That said, I think Denver's needs at O-line are as follows:

Right Tackle
Center
Backup Guard

...in that order. We don't need to spend high picks to fill these needs. The top Center in this year's draft is likely a late-3rd/early-4th round draft pick. Great right tackles like Cherilius are available in the second round.

The beauty of this year's draft is that we can have our cake and eat it too: the selection of a top RB doesn't preclude Denver from adding offensive line talent with their other eight picks.

That said, I don't think Denver is auditioning Mendenhall this week to draft him. I think its a smoke screen to entice Houston, Dallas, or Detroit into trading up.

[Nomad]

I want a stud back. I miss the TD days. Granted I know we had a great Oline then, but still...I would be willing to bet that both Mendenhall and Stewart could rush for 1500 yards behind our current Oline and both be able to punch it into the endzone from inside the 5.

Either that or we need a bulldozer at FB, but that is the least likely scenario.

TD was drafted late and turned out great for the time he was here but he was on one of the best teams and ran behind some bruising blockers! I believe a team wins with it's foundations (oline and dline) and everything else falls into place once the foundation is set. A great fullback would be a great bonus for any tailback!

[underrated29]

That said, I don't think Denver is auditioning Mendenhall this week to draft him. I think its a smoke screen to entice Houston, Dallas, or Detroit into trading up.



Precicely what i think. I breifly mentioned that in another thread too. But why wouldnt we want to shake up their boards a little bit and see if we just cant bait one those teams.

[Nature Boy]

Henry the back Shanahan has been looking for?



I guess you forget how Coach Shanny was touting about how he can do so much with a QB and RB tandem in Cutler and Henry right up until Henry had the whole urine test fiasco.

[lex]

TD was drafted late and turned out great for the time he was here but he was on one of the best teams and ran behind some bruising blockers! I believe a team wins with it's foundations (oline and dline) and everything else falls into place once the foundation is set. A great fullback would be a great bonus for any tailback!

But once again, we're in a situation where with one pick we can have a great running back but with one pick we're not as likely to have a great offensive line.

[Retired_Member_001]

I guess you forget how Coach Shanny was touting about how he can do so much with a QB and RB tandem in Cutler and Henry right up until Henry had the whole urine test fiasco.

I'm just saying that at this point in time, Henry is far from the back Shanahan wants.

[Nature Boy]

I'm just saying that at this point in time, Henry is far from the back Shanahan wants.

I think Shanny knows that Henry is the best back he's had since Portis was traded.

[r8rh8r]

Age 30 is a death sentence to running backs. I hardly think Shanahan feels Henry is a long term solution given his comments about Henry needing "a great training camp" to even keep his job.

[lex]

I think Shanny knows that Henry is the best back he's had since Portis was traded.


Yeah, because Henry was so much better than Young last year.

[Nature Boy]

Henry was til the distraction then the injuries.

[lex]

Henry was til the distraction then the injuries.

What was Henry's APC before his injury? What was Youngs? And during most of Youngs time he was running behind a backup LG and C.

[Stargazer]

OK, the forum seems to be split on wether we should grab a great RB and address the O-line later, or improve the O-line and address the RB later. We all know the championships in the NFL are won with defense and a running game, with very few exceptions. So for the purpose of the argument let's forget about he D for a moment and discuss the other half of the equation.



Why not have both?

[Nature Boy]

What was Henry's APC before his injury? What was Youngs? And during most of Youngs time he was running behind a backup LG and C.

Before Henry's distraction and injury in the 1st 3-4 games, Henry was a terror. Henry will consistently get you those tough 3,4, and 5 yards where as Young would tear a long run once in a while to make his YPC look good. I'll take the consistent tough yards 1st.

[Simple Jaded]

In relation to this years draft, it only takes drafting one player to have a great running back while one player does not make a great offensive line and rarely do great offensive lines have all first round draft picks. So for our situation, id say take the running back.

You make a good point, but, even more rare is the great offensive line with ZERO first round draft picks. Imo, if Shanahan hadn't been getting his OLman out of the yellow pages for a decade he'd have a better chance at putting together a great line with just one pick in this draft.

My wish every year is for Denver to draft legitimate OLman, but common sense tells me that's not going to happen while Shanahan is still running personnel.

I guess either/or would be fine with me......ya know? Instead of having an Average Offensive Line AND an Average Running Back, like they seemingly always do.

I'd be more than happy with just a Great Back, because I know trying to put a Great Offensive Line together WITH a Great Running Back makes far too much sense for Mike Shanahan the GM......

[lex]

Before Henry's distraction and injury in the 1st 3-4 games, Henry was a terror. Henry will consistently get you those tough 3,4, and 5 yards where as Young would tear a long run once in a while to make his YPC look good. I'll take the consistent tough yards 1st.

I dont remember Henry getting those tough yards inside the 10. Not only that but he has only had 300 carries twice in his career according to what someone else posted...and I have no reason to not believe it. Henry has been injured practically every year. Not only that but if Henry is SO good, why did Buffalo let him go? Why did Tennessee draft LenDale White and let him go? Thats two teams that dont think he is as good as you do and those teams actually had a younger version of Travis Henry.

[Nature Boy]

Henry was a STUD when he left Buffalo. Why Tenn. let him go? Guys they had a full backfield and Henry was due $$$? That's my guess and I'm not gonna go reading into it. Henry will be our starting RB this coming season. If he is able to get a solid O-line, he'll get 1500yrds on the ground.

[BOSSHOGG30]

The 1st round LT thing is great if you have a shot at the best LT available, other than that, it looks like you are better off waiting till the 2nd round on.

Last years starting LT's:

Rams, Alex Barron - 1st round
Redskins, Chris Samuels- 1st round
Jets, D'Brickashaw Ferguson - 1st round
Seahawks, Walter Jones- 1st round
Dolphins, Vernon Carey - 1st round
Eagles, William Thomas - 1st round
Vikings, Bryant McKinnie - 1st round
Bears, John Tait - 1st round
Lions, Jeff Backus - 1st round
Saints, Jammal Brown - 1st round
Browns, Joe Thomas - 1st round
Bengals, Levi Jones - 1st round
Ravens, Jonathan Ogden - 1st round
Falcons, Wayne Gandy - 1st round
Patriots, Matt Light- 2nd round
Colts, Tony Ugoh- 2nd round
Jaguars, Khalif Barnes- 2nd round
Chargers, Marcus McNeill- 2nd round
Steelers, Marvel Smith- 2nd round
Titans, Michael Roos- 2nd round
Cowboys, Flozell Adams- 2nd round
Buccaneers, Luke Petitgout - 2nd round
Packers, Chad Clifton - 2nd round
Panthers, Travelle Wharton - 3rd round
Chiefs, Damion McIntosh - 3rd round
Cardinals, Mike Gandy - 3rd round
49ers, Adam Snyder - 3rd round
Giants, David Diehl- 5th round
Texans, Ephraim Salaam - 7th round
Broncos, Matt Lepsis - undrafted free agent
Raiders, Barry Sims - undrafted free agent
Bills, Jason Peters - undrafted free agent

[Den21vsBal19]

Before Henry's distraction and injury in the 1st 3-4 games, Henry was a terror. Henry will consistently get you those tough 3,4, and 5 yards where as Young would tear a long run once in a while to make his YPC look good. I'll take the consistent tough yards 1st.
Didn't Henry lead the league after the first month?

Problem was when he got put back in against Indy when he was obviously struggling with an ankle knock

[r8rh8r]

He led the league in yards but had 0 TD's in 4 games. If you read this article (http://www.rockymountainfever.net/2008/04/signalizing-selvin-youngs-success.html), I clearly broke down the deficiencies in our running game.

Selvin Young gave us a lot of 10+ yard plays (1/3rd of his yards came on 14 of about 175 plays). Travis Henry's success % was a little better; however neither is serviceable in the power running game. Denver ranked dead last in that territory. Until we get a guy in the backfield that can move a pile, and a line that can make some gaps, we will continue to suck in the red zone.

Denver has consistently boasted a 60% touchdown rate in the red zone during Shanahan's tenure. Last year we were dead last. We were also at the bottom of the league in success on 3rd/4th-and-less-than-2.

To solve this, we need lineman and we need a running back with some power. Right tackle could use an upgrade. I'd love to add Cherilius.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Look at the round each RB who ran for 1,000 yards last year:

LaDainian Tomlinson 1st
Adrian Peterson 1st
Jamal Lewis 1st
Edgerrin James 1st
Willis McGahee 1st
Fred Taylor 1st
Thomas Jones 1st
Marshawn Lynch 1st
Joseph Addai 1st
Steve Jackson 1st


Brian Westbrook 3rd
Willie Parker UDFA
Clinton Portis 2nd
LenDale White 2nd
Frank Gore 3rd
Justin Fargas 3rd
Brandon Jacobs 4th

[Nature Boy]

Didn't Henry lead the league after the first month?

Problem was when he got put back in against Indy when he was obviously struggling with an ankle knock

Yep, after 1st 4 games, Henry led the league in yards with over 100+yrds per game. I don't know the exact numbers but in my fantasy team, he gave me 17,12,9 and 13 pts thru 4 games. Most of which were through yards as he did not score many TDs and the Broncos sucked in the red zone all year.

[Nature Boy]

To solve this, we need lineman and we need a running back with some power.

I say it's more the O-line's fault more so than the RBs we have. Look at Jacksonville. The human Bowling ball, Maurice Jones who no more than 5'6'' is able to pound out massive yards. He's definitely more speed and quickness then power.

[Nature Boy]

Look at the round each RB who ran for 1,000 yards last year:

LaDainian Tomlinson 1st
Adrian Peterson 1st
Jamal Lewis 1st
Edgerrin James 1st
Willis McGahee 1st
Fred Taylor 1st
Thomas Jones 1st
Marshawn Lynch 1st
Joseph Addai 1st
Steve Jackson 1st


Brian Westbrook 3rd
Willie Parker UDFA
Clinton Portis 2nd
LenDale White 2nd
Frank Gore 3rd
Justin Fargas 3rd
Brandon Jacobs 4th

7 of the 17 backs, 41%, listed there are drafted after the 1st, Willie Parker was not drafted at all. So what does that tell you? Great RBs can be had in the middle rounds. It is wise the Broncos do not spend their 12th on Mendenhall or Stewart. They need to address the O-line.

[BOSSHOGG30]

7 of the 17 backs, 41%, listed there are drafted after the 1st, Willie Parker was not drafted at all. So what does that tell you? Great RBs can be had in the middle rounds. It is wise the Broncos do not spend their 12th on Mendenhall or Stewart. They need to address the O-line.


Yet the % is higher for LT's

14 1st rounders
18 other

57% of the LT's in the league aren't 1st rounders

[lex]

Yet the % is higher for LT's

14 1st rounders
18 other

57% of the LT's in the league aren't 1st rounders

With Kuper, were now hearing that we have three guys who could conceivably play LT. Lets say Kuper ends up being the best LT, do we really need to draft a RT or a OG at 12?

[lex]

I say it's more the O-line's fault more so than the RBs we have. Look at Jacksonville. The human Bowling ball, Maurice Jones who no more than 5'6'' is able to pound out massive yards. He's definitely more speed and quickness then power.

What torpedos your argument is that Selvin Young actually averaged over 5.0 per carry. Its not even as though Henry is better than Young. And if the OL is as poor as you say, why is Young getting 5.0 per carry? We need to upgrade RB as well as OLine. And if Kuper can play left tackle, taking a RB at 12 makes even more sense.

[BOSSHOGG30]

With Kuper, were now hearing that we have three guys who could conceivably play LT. Lets say Kuper ends up being the best LT, do we really need to draft a RT or a OG at 12?

I'm more worried about RT myself and depth at gaurd and center.

Pears played a pretty good LT, he struggled at RT.
Harris is a LT, I think he will struggle at RT.
Kuper is a guard but seems athletic enough to play any position.

Like you said lex, we have lots of talent for LT, but we don't have anyone as a proven RT. Plus our injuried guys coming back are Hamilton and Nalen, what if they get hurt again? We need someone to back these guys up.

I really hope Denver goes after guys like Zuttah who can play mulitple positions and play them well.

[BOSSHOGG30]

I say it's more the O-line's fault more so than the RBs we have. Look at Jacksonville. The human Bowling ball, Maurice Jones who no more than 5'6'' is able to pound out massive yards. He's definitely more speed and quickness then power.

I bet you Jacksonville doesn't have one starting 1st round lineman either.

[Nature Boy]

Yet the % is higher for LT's

14 1st rounders
18 other

57% of the LT's in the league aren't 1st rounders

An elite LT is more valuable than an elite RB. Elite LTs are harder to find. Your Elite RB gets hurt and his backup will likely get the job done as long as the Oline does their job. Your elite LT goes down and likely, the offense will struggle. Your QB will likely get clobbered a few times more than necessarily.

[BOSSHOGG30]

An elite LT is more valuable than an elite RB. Elite LTs are harder to find. Your Elite RB gets hurt and his backup will likely get the job done as long as the Oline does their job. Your elite LT goes down and likely, the offense will struggle. Your QB will likely get clobbered a few times more than necessarily.

Your not getting an elite LT at pick 12. Jake Long is the best tackle and he is no Joe Thomas or Orlando Pace. After Jake Long you have a little drop off, but not much and that OL crop is pretty deep from there on until the 3rd round.

[Nature Boy]

I bet you Jacksonville doesn't have one starting 1st round lineman either.

Neither do the Broncos. What's your point? OT is the dire need in Denver.

[Nature Boy]

The Broncos have always gotten it done on the ground with average RBs. Let's get Jay some help. That extra 1/2 second in the pocket may be the difference for Jay's TD totals. Jay has to get more than 20TDs in 2008.

[OB]

Its all "ifs, ands, n buts" - and if that was the case - oh what a party it'd be

Kup - i love him - only cause his dad posted at the BM - but still I root for him and would TOTALLY love it if he was an awesome stud tackle -

We, as i said before, should prolly DRAFT a good RB this year and try to beef the line in FA (if thats still an option - im clueless as to when FA stuff begins n ends)

Do i have suggestions - nope - im just a girl :D

[BOSSHOGG30]

Neither do the Broncos. What's your point? OT is the dire need in Denver.

Point is, you reference Jacksonville's offensive line. Jacksonville's O-line is perfect proof that you don't need to have a 1st round talent to have a great line.

Denver not only has this fact going for them, but because of Denver's ZBS they don't have to worry about jumping early on OL, they can address other needs.

This year is one of the best RB classes ever.......EVER, you have three stud running backs, McFadden, Mendenhall, and Stewart. These guys are ELITE, cream of the crop, the big daddys. Sitting at 12 we have a great chance to get one of these guys. Normally we find ourselves trading up to get this high. This year we don't have to. We need to take advantage of this.

OT is good, but there really is no one ELITE. Why use the best pick Denver has had in a very long time on anything but ELITE. It's all about value, and where I'm sitting, I can't see why we wouldn't take advantage of this golden oppurtunity.

We are young a tackle, we already invested a 3rd rounder on Harris. Denver must like him because they typically don't pick lineman that high. Henry is getting old, is injury prone, and a character issue. Young is a one demensional player and Hall is a solid back up.

[lex]

The Broncos have always gotten it done on the ground with average RBs. Let's get Jay some help. That extra 1/2 second in the pocket may be the difference for Jay's TD totals. Jay has to get more than 20TDs in 2008.

Yeah, a RB that well enhance Jays play action pass.

[lex]

Neither do the Broncos. What's your point? OT is the dire need in Denver.

Wow...just wow.

[BOSSHOGG30]

The Broncos have always gotten it done on the ground with average RBs. Let's get Jay some help. That extra 1/2 second in the pocket may be the difference for Jay's TD totals. Jay has to get more than 20TDs in 2008.

Get a solid back and you would be amazed how much less attention gets focused on the QB. Ask Elway, he had a good line and won games, but Denver didn't really kick ass till they drafted Terrell Davis.

If you want to say, oh but Davis was a 6th rounder, please save me the arguement, because if you want to keep looking for diamonds in the rough, you will be looking for a long time.... I'll save you some time... draft one of the top 3 backs in this very good RB class and I gaurantee you that Cutler's game improves and Denver will put up more points.

Either that, or pray to god that Henry can stay healthy for a full season. That would be a miracle itself considering he has only stayed healthy once in seven seasons.

[lex]

I'm more worried about RT myself and depth at gaurd and center.

Pears played a pretty good LT, he struggled at RT.
Harris is a LT, I think he will struggle at RT.
Kuper is a guard but seems athletic enough to play any position.

Like you said lex, we have lots of talent for LT, but we don't have anyone as a proven RT. Plus our injuried guys coming back are Hamilton and Nalen, what if they get hurt again? We need someone to back these guys up.

I really hope Denver goes after guys like Zuttah who can play mulitple positions and play them well.

You should be worried about RT...and I see the reasoning that many have for penciling Kuper in at RT or Guard but the thing is, if Kuper is a better left tackle than Harris or Pears, shouldnt Kuper be playing LT? I think there are a few candidates to play RT or OG from the draft. And then theres also Duane Brown who might be one of the better LTs. Plus if you dont mind the fact that Carl Nicks was recently arrested, he might be there in the 4th.

[Nature Boy]

Get a solid back and you would be amazed how much less attention gets focused on the QB. Ask Elway, he had a good line and won games, but Denver didn't really kick ass till they drafted Terrell Davis.

If you want to say, oh but Davis was a 6th rounder, please save me the arguement, because if you want to keep looking for diamonds in the rough, you will be looking for a long time.... I'll save you some time... draft one of the top 3 backs in this very good RB class and I gaurantee you that Cutler's game improves and Denver will put up more points.

Either that, or pray to god that Henry can stay healthy for a full season. That would be a miracle itself considering he has only stayed healthy once in seven seasons.


Our O-Line sucks. Is the stem of the Broncos problems the last 2 years. I say fix what is broken. Henry, Young, Hall will hold it down. Like you said, RBs are deep this year, why spend a #12 for one? If we can a Clady, Otah, Cherilus or Williams beyond the #12 spot, then I say we trade down and 1 if not 2 of them.

I really don't see Coach Shanny spending a mid-high 1st rounder on a RB, especially with this deep RB field.

[lex]

Our O-Line sucks. Is the stem of the Broncos problems the last 2 years. I say fix what is broken. Henry, Young, Hall will hold it down. Like you said, RBs are deep this year, why spend a #12 for one? If we can a Clady, Otah, Cherilus or Williams beyond the #12 spot, then I say we trade down and 1 if not 2 of them.

I really don't see Coach Shanny spending a mid-high 1st rounder on a RB, especially with this deep RB field.

No one is saying not to draft OLine help...just not at 12.

[Nomad]

You're right OB420! It's all 'ifs' and 'buts', the draft is one big gamble and everyone knows whats best. Denver could draft a first round olineman and he could turn out to be a bust like Robert Gallery or vice versa he could be great. Or we could draft one of the 'elite' running backs and they could be a bust or great. I've witnessed too many average backs succeeding at Denver behind a solid oline, so I would focus on the line.

[Broncospsycho77]

Hopefully, this whole argument can be void when, at the 12 slot, Sedrick Ellis is (:pray:) available.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Hopefully, this whole argument can be void when, at the 12 slot, Sedrick Ellis is (:pray:) available.

I was about to say that we are all talking about RB and OT, but watch Shanny go a different route like Balmer or Phillips

[Hoshdude7]

Let's just get the best player that we can get that will address a need.

[Nature Boy]

I was about to say that we are all talking about RB and OT, but watch Shanny go a different route like Balmer or Phillips


Kenny Phillups? With the #12? No way.

[lex]

I was about to say that we are all talking about RB and OT, but watch Shanny go a different route like Balmer or Phillips

..or Rivers...or DeSean Jackson.

[Nature Boy]

Yeah, a RB that well enhance Jays play action pass.

What? You can't play action with Travis Henry? What is he, tomato? Have you guys seen how hard it is to tackle Travis Henry? I can't remember the last Broncos RB that broke as any tackles as often as Travis Henry.

[TXBRONC]

In '97 and '98 we had both.

[lex]

What? You can't play action with Travis Henry? What is he, tomato? Have you guys seen how hard it is to tackle Travis Henry? I can't remember the last Broncos RB that broke as any tackles as often as Travis Henry.

No but Henry is a tomato can. He had his chance last year. Its time to give someone else a chance. Also, I dont even think Henrys a better option than Young so its silly for you to keep selling Henry if youre trying to make the point that we dont need to draft a RB.

[Nature Boy]

Look at the round each RB who ran for 1,000 yards last year:

LaDainian Tomlinson 1st
Adrian Peterson 1st
Jamal Lewis 1st
Edgerrin James 1st
Willis McGahee 1st
Fred Taylor 1st
Thomas Jones 1st
Marshawn Lynch 1st
Joseph Addai 1st
Steve Jackson 1st


Brian Westbrook 3rd
Willie Parker UDFA
Clinton Portis 2nd
LenDale White 2nd
Frank Gore 3rd
Justin Fargas 3rd
Brandon Jacobs 4th


Yet the % is higher for LT's

14 1st rounders
18 other

57% of the LT's in the league aren't 1st rounders

We'll use your comparison and logic here. Of the 7 out of the 17 RBs on this list that got 1000+ yards who were not 1st rounders, I would give 5 of the 7 non-1st round backs A grades in perspective to their colleagues(LenDale White and Fargas I would rate a B and C+).

Now, of the 18 of 32 non-1st round LTs in league, how many can you say are grade A, LTs? I'm not gonna do the homework but I'll bet that it's worst than a 5/7 ratio like that of the RBs on the list above.

[Nature Boy]

No but Henry is a tomato can. He had his chance last year. Its time to give someone else a chance. Also, I dont even think Henrys a better option than Young so its silly for you to keep selling Henry if youre trying to make the point that we dont need to draft a RB.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that Travis Henry was distracted by his grievance with the NFL and the injuries that slowed him down. It's hard to name any back that runs harder and breaks more tackles that Travis Henry. Henry has said publicly that he wants to make it up Coach Shanny and the Broncos for sticking by him during his test fiasco.

[OB]

I was about to say that we are all talking about RB and OT, but watch Shanny go a different route like Balmer or Phillips

Scary :ahhhhh: funny :lol: true :ahhhhh:

[LRtagger]

We'll use your comparison and logic here. Of the 7 out of the 17 RBs on this list that got 1000+ yards who were not 1st rounders, I would give 5 of the 7 non-1st round backs A grades in perspective to their colleagues(LenDale White and Fargas I would rate a B and C+).

Now, of the 18 of 32 LTs in league, how many can you say are grade A, LTs? I'm not gonna do the homework but I'll bet that it's worst than a 5/7 ratio like that of the RBs on the list above.


Thats because you are comparing a select number of RB's (who surpassed 1000 yards) to the ENTIRE LEAGUE's starting left tackles. You cant compare that.

[TXBRONC]

I bet you Jacksonville doesn't have one starting 1st round lineman either.

They do have at least one. Chris Naeole was originally drafted in the first round by the Saints.

[Nature Boy]

Thats because you are comparing a select number of RB's (who surpassed 1000 yards) to the ENTIRE LEAGUE's starting left tackles. You cant compare that.

Hey, I didn't make the list and I didn't make the comparison 1st. But since he did so, so I did. And I broke it down clearer. You can get top caliber RBs outside of the 1st round but it's pretty hard to get a top caliber LT outside the 1st round, especially the mid-late rounds.

[Nature Boy]

They do have at least one. Chris Naeole was originally drafted in the first round by the Saints.

Thank You.

[TXBRONC]

Thank You.

No problem NB. :salute:

[Stargazer]

They do have at least one. Chris Naeole was originally drafted in the first round by the Saints.

They do not now. He was released in March.

[Stargazer]

and the injuries that slowed him down.

Out of 7 NFL seasons, Travis Henry has played 16 games only once. Injuries will always be a concern when mentioning Travis Henry.

[Nature Boy]

They do not now. He was released in March.

That's not relevant. The Jags rushing success was previous to the release.

[Ziggy]

Point is, you reference Jacksonville's offensive line. Jacksonville's O-line is perfect proof that you don't need to have a 1st round talent to have a great line.

Denver not only has this fact going for them, but because of Denver's ZBS they don't have to worry about jumping early on OL, they can address other needs.
This year is one of the best RB classes ever.......EVER, you have three stud running backs, McFadden, Mendenhall, and Stewart. These guys are ELITE, cream of the crop, the big daddys. Sitting at 12 we have a great chance to get one of these guys. Normally we find ourselves trading up to get this high. This year we don't have to. We need to take advantage of this.

OT is good, but there really is no one ELITE. Why use the best pick Denver has had in a very long time on anything but ELITE. It's all about value, and where I'm sitting, I can't see why we wouldn't take advantage of this golden oppurtunity.

We are young a tackle, we already invested a 3rd rounder on Harris. Denver must like him because they typically don't pick lineman that high. Henry is getting old, is injury prone, and a character issue. Young is a one demensional player and Hall is a solid back up.

Boss, the Broncos offense is horrible. Don't even come at me with the yardage numbers, because they don't matter one bit. Even with one of the best young QB's and WR's in the league. I keep hearing that Denver doesn't need to jump early on the OLine because they have the ZBS. That's the mentality that got us in this mess. The line stinks, Jay has no time to throw the ball, and our defense has been worn down in the second half of the last 2 seasons because our offense can't stay on the field. It's time to fix the LINE OF SCRIMMAGE, you know, that area where games are won and lost. Shanahan began to address the defensive LOS last year in the draft and will probably do so again this year with a trade for Dwayne Robertson. It's time to work on the other side of the line, and it should start with high draft picks for a change, because the old way (drafting Olineman in the later rounds) just isnt working. If it's not broke, don't fix it. If it is, and it is.....fix it! You say that there are no elite tackles in this draft. That's your opinion. I and many others disagree. We'll see what happens on draft day. Hopefully Sedrick Ellis will drop and we can agree that Denver got a steal by taking neither the guy I wanted or the one you wanted at 12. :beer:

[lex]

That's not relevant. The Jags rushing success was previous to the release.
It is relevant as far as saying that even 1st round OLinemen arent always what you hoped they would be. He was so good that Jax cut him.

[Ziggy]

It is relevant as far as saying that even 1st round OLinemen arent always what you hoped they would be. He was so good that Jax cut him.

And the giants cut Eddie Mcaffrey. That mean he wasn't good?

[BOSSHOGG30]

Boss, the Broncos offense is horrible. Don't even come at me with the yardage numbers, because they don't matter one bit. Even with one of the best young QB's and WR's in the league. I keep hearing that Denver doesn't need to jump early on the OLine because they have the ZBS. That's the mentality that got us in this mess. The line stinks, Jay has no time to throw the ball, and our defense has been worn down in the second half of the last 2 seasons because our offense can't stay on the field. It's time to fix the LINE OF SCRIMMAGE, you know, that area where games are won and lost. Shanahan began to address the defensive LOS last year in the draft and will probably do so again this year with a trade for Dwayne Robertson. It's time to work on the other side of the line, and it should start with high draft picks for a change, because the old way (drafting Olineman in the later rounds) just isnt working. If it's not broke, don't fix it. If it is, and it is.....fix it! You say that there are no elite tackles in this draft. That's your opinion. I and many others disagree. We'll see what happens on draft day. Hopefully Sedrick Ellis will drop and we can agree that Denver got a steal by taking neither the guy I wanted or the one you wanted at 12. :beer:

No, the Broncos red zone offense is horrible. Denver's offense moved the ball very well and finished 11th overall in total yards for the season despite losing 5 starters on the offense.

They need to improve in two areas... Turnovers and red zone production.

[r8rh8r]

No, the Broncos red zone offense is horrible. Denver's offense moved the ball very well and finished 11th overall in total yards for the season despite losing 5 starters on the offense.

They need to improve in two areas... Turnovers and red zone production.

Cherilius
Pollack
Mendenhall/Stewart

Problem solved.

[Ziggy]

No, the Broncos red zone offense is horrible. Denver's offense moved the ball very well and finished 11th overall in total yards for the season despite losing 5 starters on the offense.

They need to improve in two areas... Turnovers and red zone production.

Yardage between the 20's doesn't win games in the NFL. If you want to finish in the redzone, you have to have a decent O-line. We don't. That's the main reason we lose games in the red zone. You can have the yardage all day. I'll take the offense that can score. That would be the one with the decent O-line. Denver was horrible in the only 2 stats that count on offense. 21st in scoring, and 9 losses. Does anyone really think that moving the ball between the 20's makes you a good offense?

[BOSSHOGG30]

Yardage between the 20's doesn't win games in the NFL. If you want to finish in the redzone, you have to have a decent O-line. We don't. That's the main reason we lose games in the red zone. You can have the yardage all day. I'll take the offense that can score. That would be the one with the decent O-line. Denver was horrible in the only 2 stats that count on offense. 21st in scoring, and 9 losses.

We do have a decent O-line, especially now that Hamilton and Nalen will be back.

What normally happens as young players get experience in the NFL? They usually get better...right?

Kuper, Pears, Harris, Holland........All young guys who now have another years experience.

Plus you have to look at other issues outside the o-line. Cutler had problems, Rookie Young had problems, 1st year players that have to learn the offense and adjust to new system, Graham, Holland, and Stokely.

Denver's O-line isn't great, but it is decent and it should get better as long as we stay healthy... if not we need the depth and we would be wise drafting some guys in the later round with this in mind.

As for you question... does moving the ball between the 20's make you a better offense... yes I do think so.

[HolyDiver]

And the giants cut Eddie Mcaffrey. That mean he wasn't good?


Droughns wasn't good enough to play for Detroit either............. A change of scenery can sometimes really help a player.

[haroldthebarrel]

look at the Chiefs and Holmes/Johnson. Look at our superbowl runs.
TD was good but I think Barry Sanders would have ran for more yards.

It isnt even a doubt in my mind. Id like a great Oline than a great running back. And that is not even considering the pass protection as well.

[Ziggy]

We do have a decent O-line, especially now that Hamilton and Nalen will be back.

What normally happens as young players get experience in the NFL? They usually get better...right?

Kuper, Pears, Harris, Holland........All young guys who now have another years experience.

Plus you have to look at other issues outside the o-line. Cutler had problems, Rookie Young had problems, 1st year players that have to learn the offense and adjust to new system, Graham, Holland, and Stokely.

Denver's O-line isn't great, but it is decent and it should get better as long as we stay healthy... if not we need the depth and we would be wise drafting some guys in the later round with this in mind.

As for you question... does moving the ball between the 20's make you a better offense... yes I do think so.


I hope you're right, I really do. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree once again on the O-line. I see them as average at best, even with Hamilton and Nalen. Hopefully they stay healthy this year and play better, protect the QB, give him time to throw, controll the game where and when it counts instead of just between the 20's, and keep the defense rested. If so, I'll be happy. If not, I guess I'll be on this same soap box next year.

As far as the draft goes, an OT is my first choice, but there are about 8 players I would be happy seeing the Broncos take at 12.

[underrated29]

I will repeat an old post.

Oline is good, but you dont need a great oline to make holes for a back if the back doesnt need one to run through.

Stew/mend dont need a hole. They MAKE their own hole. They plow the road. Our offense is good, in the 20's we sucked. A good Oline would help. But so would a runner who can take on 1-2 players and still churn for more yards, whilst it takes a 3rd defender to finally slow him up and tackle him.

A man with that much size and muscle, and speed with a head of steam has got to have the kinetic force of a truck. Its just too hard to stop something moving that fast and that hard when it really wants through.

[r8rh8r]

Yardage between the 20's doesn't win games in the NFL. If you want to finish in the redzone, you have to have a decent O-line. We don't. That's the main reason we lose games in the red zone. You can have the yardage all day. I'll take the offense that can score. That would be the one with the decent O-line. Denver was horrible in the only 2 stats that count on offense. 21st in scoring, and 9 losses. Does anyone really think that moving the ball between the 20's makes you a good offense?

I don't think anyone is going to try and make the argument that we have a great offensive line. I certainly haven't tried to sell that point. What I have tried to sell, is that Denver has two prospects at left tackle with tons of upside. Holland can play another 5 years. We need a solid guard and maybe another project for depth. Pears is probably a career backup at right tackle. I like to add a right-tackle type in the draft.

That said, we don't need to use the #12 pick to get this done.

Denver is reportedly looking at Gosder Cherilius with their 12th pick. There are a couple of interesting things about that pick. Its quite possible that the draft analysts have completely missed Cherilius on their boards. I've seen him ranked as high as 27th (San Deigo). This might be a realistic possibility. Cherilius can play guard or right tackle. He's ultimately a great fit at right tackle. He doesn't project as a left tackle because he's only an average pass protector. In the running game, however, he's a mauler. Could be a great left guard.

If Cherilius is Denver's coveted first-round pick, I think a trade with Detroit, Houston, or Philly is possible if not probable. We move down, get a 2nd or 3rd rounder, and Cherilius is our guy.

If we did add an extra first day pick, I'd have a far easier time parting with a pair of second day picks for gimpy-knees Robertson.

[lex]

And the giants cut Eddie Mcaffrey. That mean he wasn't good?

That doesnt even remotely apply here. Nice try though.

[NameUsedBefore]

I think we have to evaluate the system. Every new NFL system in history, whether it is playing your DBs rough or developing a short passing game, has eventually met its counter. Every year we have to make sure that the system is still working or the bottom is gonna fall out right under our noses. Until that happens, or until we see it happening, I say you keep drafting o-line and running-back where we've had plenty of success doing it: in the later rounds or in the undrafted pool.

[BOSSHOGG30]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTbCtjX_y0w

This is what Denver needs to be better in the redzone... a back who can lay Merriman on his ass like Drew did in this video. I love this video... one of the best I've ever seen..... Always brings a smile to my face.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Schmitt blocking for Stewart or Mendenhall.........this will make us a dangerous team for years to come

[mclark]

What about the passing game? I really don't want to see Cutler picking himself off the ground all game, or watching from the sideline with his arm in a sling?

We are good enough at running back for another year, if we have to sit still.

Are we good enough in the offensive line? I don't think so. (I know we're not good enough at defensive tackle.)

[mclark]

I like a bunch of your sleepers, Boss. I'll add one more after I make my last pick for Tampa Bay in our Mock Draft. I especially like the ones with arrows (I don't know all of them).

My sleeper picks:
RB, Thomas Brown (homer pick) <---
WR, Luke Dillon
LB, Andy Studebaker <-----
S, Bobbie Williams <-----
LB, Jon Banks
WR, Chaz Schilens
WR, Micah Rucker
DE, Brian Johnston <-----
DB, Tierre Green
OL, Shawn McMackin
LB, David Vabora
WR, James Banks
[color="orange"]WR, Pierre Garcon
RB, Jonathan Stewart

[Lonestar]

We do have a decent O-line, especially now that Hamilton and Nalen will be back.

What normally happens as young players get experience in the NFL? They usually get better...right?

Kuper, Pears, Harris, Holland........All young guys who now have another years experience.

Plus you have to look at other issues outside the o-line. Cutler had problems, Rookie Young had problems, 1st year players that have to learn the offense and adjust to new system, Graham, Holland, and Stokely.

Denver's O-line isn't great, but it is decent and it should get better as long as we stay healthy... if not we need the depth and we would be wise drafting some guys in the later round with this in mind.

As for you question... does moving the ball between the 20's make you a better offense... yes I do think so.


YOU state it above so clearly I do not understand.

"We do have a decent O-line

now that Hamilton and Nalen will be back.

Denver's O-line isn't great, but it is decent and it should get better as long as we stay healthy.."

Lets make it as close to elite as we can. Sure rookie would struggle somewhat but if we get one of the top 3, he should be up to speed by bye week at the latest..

Having Kuper at OG with a Rookie next to him..

I have very little faith that Nalen (AGE) or Hamilton (concussions) will last the season. Having a great offense between the 20's is just that great but when you can't score inside it and especially inside the 5 that kills all chances of winning consistently..

If we can get a dominant OLT this year the need for Stewart WHOM I'd really like to have also.. Great but I suspect that will not happen.. Everyone knows that we win and lose it at the LOS.. time for us to stop being cheap here..

[BOSSHOGG30]

YOU state it above so clearly I do not understand.

"We do have a decent O-line

now that Hamilton and Nalen will be back.

Denver's O-line isn't great, but it is decent and it should get better as long as we stay healthy.."

Lets make it as close to elite as we can. Sure rookie would struggle somewhat but if we get one of the top 3, he should be up to speed by bye week at the latest..

Having Kuper at OG with a Rookie next to him..

I have very little faith that Nalen (AGE) or Hamilton (concussions) will last the season. Having a great offense between the 20's is just that great but when you can't score inside it and especially inside the 5 that kills all chances of winning consistently..

If we can get a dominant OLT this year the need for Stewart WHOM I'd really like to have also.. Great but I suspect that will not happen.. Everyone knows that we win and lose it at the LOS.. time for us to stop being cheap here..

We lost a lot of games with poor defense (1st play in overtime of the Green Bay game), poor special teams (Devin Hester), and turnovers(too many games to list)... Not really things the offensive line can fix.

[underrated29]

Heres my biggest thing with the OLine people

Do you really believe that taking a LT will immediately make our run game better? Does just that one position make our line great now? I am not so sure it would. I know it would help jay, but i also think they guys we got will do fine.

So then maybe to improve the line more we would need to take another lineman with our 2nd rdr too. But thats not smart. We have other needs. And how much better do you think anyone we draft will be over hammy, nalen, kuper, hollland?

I just dont see a big enough upgrade to justify taking a guy there at 12 then a rb.

And if the rb does his job well enough he should make everyone on the lines job easier as the defense will be on the heals ready to stop him instead of getting to jay.

I just dont think its possible to improve our line drastcially this year with any of the first rd pick players. I think that the 2/3rd rd players will be equally as good.

[Ziggy]

We lost a lot of games with poor defense (1st play in overtime of the Green Bay game), poor special teams (Devin Hester), and turnovers(too many games to list)... Not really things the offensive line can fix.

The defense was bad because we're defeicient in talent on that side of the line also. They were also bad because the offense couldn't keep them off of the field. They were just plain exhausted in the second half of some of those games. You keep bringing up the turnover factor, but the fact is that we were +1 in turnover ratio. Not great, but not horrible either. We were tied for 13th in the league. Special teams in Denver are far from special, I'll give you that.

[broncohead]

I think that we do a decent job at grabbing later round OL. Grabbing Stewart or Mendenhall in the first would instently help Cutler. DB's and LB's will bite on the PA. As far as the OL I don't think that there are any that can come in a make an impact in the first year. A RB would.

[BOSSHOGG30]

The defense was bad because we're defeicient in talent on that side of the line also. They were also bad because the offense couldn't keep them off of the field. They were just plain exhausted in the second half of some of those games. You keep bringing up the turnover factor, but the fact is that we were +1 in turnover ratio. Not great, but not horrible either. We were tied for 13th in the league. Special teams in Denver are far from special, I'll give you that.

Our losses last season:

Jags
Colts
Chargers
Packers in OT
Lions
Bears in OT
Raiders
Texans
Chargers

Am I missing any?

Broncos turnovers in those losses = 21 total

Breakdown by game:
Jags: 2
Colts: 2
Chargers: 3
Packers: 1
Lions: 4
Bears: 2
Raiders: 4
Texans: 0
Chargers: 3


Funny how the games we actually keep close we had fewer turnovers.

Our defense was on the field because our offense turned the ball over too much and we didn't have a back that could keep the clock running. If you look at each game throughout the season, Go ahead, go to NFL.com, and you can see a stat that shows 1st downs... almost every game Denver had 2/3 to 3/4 of their first downs passing. Denver just didn't get it done on the ground.

Terrell Davis moved the chains. Everyone knew that Elways could do it with his arm but TD helped him.... Right now Denver is too one demensional at too many places.

Safeties... slow struggle in coverage
Bly.... struggles vs. run
Doom, Gold, Moss....struggle vs. run
WR... no real deep threat
Graham..... blocking TE
Scheffler..... receiving TE
Sapp.... struggles with blocking
Elam.... doesn't have the distance


We need some versatile player and playmakers that we can keep on the field!

[Ziggy]

Our losses last season:

Jags
Colts
Chargers
Packers in OT
Lions
Bears in OT
Raiders
Texans
Chargers

Am I missing any?

Broncos turnovers in those losses = 21 total

Breakdown by game:
Jags: 2
Colts: 2
Chargers: 3
Packers: 1
Lions: 4
Bears: 2
Raiders: 4
Texans: 0
Chargers: 3


Funny how the games we actually keep close we had fewer turnovers.

Our defense was on the field because our offense turned the ball over too much and we didn't have a back that could keep the clock running. If you look at each game throughout the season, Go ahead, go to NFL.com, and you can see a stat that shows 1st downs... almost every game Denver had 2/3 to 3/4 of their first downs passing. Denver just didn't get it done on the ground.

Terrell Davis moved the chains. Everyone knew that Elways could do it with his arm but TD helped him.... Right now Denver is too one demensional at too many places.

Safeties... slow struggle in coverage
Bly.... struggles vs. run
Doom, Gold, Moss....struggle vs. run
WR... no real deep threat
Graham..... blocking TE
Scheffler..... receiving TE
Sapp.... struggles with blocking
Elam.... doesn't have the distance


We need some versatile player and playmakers that we can keep on the field!

That can be said about every team in the NFL every year. The Broncos passed the ball so much on first down because with the O-line that we have, we can't man up and run the ball on running downs. They were overmatched. I agree that we need a better running game. We also need a better passing game. You can get both with a better line, and keep Cutler healthy at the same time. One running back can only do so much. Terrell Davis moved the chains because he was a great back, but he also had a great O-line. Denver could run the ball on any down and distance because we dominated the LOS.

[r8rh8r]

Boss:

That Selvin Young article I wrote really breaks down the deficiencies in the power running game last season. We were the absolute worst team in the league on 3rd/4th-and-less-than-2. Our TD% in the red zone was the worst in Shanahan's tenure.

I completely agree with you. We sprang a lot of big runs last year with Henry and Young. That made our rushing offense look a lot better than it was. Hamilton and Nalen's health may correct these problems for a year, but if we don't find these guy's successors, it could be a long decade.

That said, left tackle is the least of our problems. That's the one position we are actually young and talented at. I think a young, powerful running back who can put an exclamation point on our short yardage game and on first and second downs is a huge need. Stewart and Mendenhall both have the size to be that guy. After those two are off the board, there's a lot of change-of-pace types and some projects, but no one else who can solve the problem.

I think Denver would ultimately like to swap picks with Detroit. That way, either Mendenhall or Stewart falls to them and they can get a 3rd or 4th rounder out of the deal.

[Joel]

OK, the forum seems to be split on wether we should grab a great RB and address the O-line later, or improve the O-line and address the RB later. We all know the championships in the NFL are won with defense and a running game, with very few exceptions. So for the purpose of the argument let's forget about he D for a moment and discuss the other half of the equation.

Here is my question. Would you rather have a great offensive line and an average running back, or an average offensive line and a great running back?

I'm a beleiver that a great offensive line and an average running back will take you a lot farther. Heres why:
1. A great offensive line not only opens holes for the running game, but gives the qb and receivers time to connect on routes in the passing game, making the offense a viable threat to pass it on every down. Defenses can't put 8 or 9 in the box to shut down the run for fear that they'll give up a big pass downfield. That in turn opens up the running game. A one-dimensional offense will get you nowhere in the NFL.
2. The more successfully the offensive line controlls the line of scrimage, the more worn down a defense gets throughout the course of a game(see the Denver Broncos defense 2007). You can put Ladanian Tomlinson behind an average offensive line and he's not going to put up near the numbers he is in San Diego.
3. A great offensive line helps keep a RB healthy. RB's can get hurt at any time, but if they aren't getting contact until they are 3-5 yards downfield, they can somewhat dictate what kind of hit they are going to take when they do get tackled. How many times have you seen Ladanian Tomlinson take a big hit? Not too many. How about Emmit Smith in the Cowboys heyday? Part of that is directly attributed to the backs ability, but a big part is also stems from the backs having time to get low, run out of bounds, or just square up the shoulders.
4. A great offensive line in and of itself is going to bring you more success than a great running back by himself. Which is harder to obtain? The offensive line of course. You have to hit on 5 positions instead of just 1. In the long run, (pardon the pun) it's well worth the investments.
I really don't have much to add apart from the fact that where one should focus has a lot to do with what one already has. You see it every time we get a new expansion team; the temptation to bet the farm on a stud runner or passer is almost overwhelming, but without accomplishing the far greater task of getting a great line it's a pointless move to get either. All it really does is doom a promising young athlete to a career of mediocre numbers, often a prematurely shortened career due to injury. What did Vinny Testaverde do for the Bucs? Answer: About what David Carr did for the Texans....

It's a lot harder to build a line because, as you rightly note, it involves multiple players that succeed or fail as a unit. HOWEVER, the return, as you also note correctly, is FAR greater. A team with a dominant offensive line can still do very well with average (or worse... ) passers and runners, but if the D starts every play three yards in the offensive backfield the playcalling quickly becomes irrelevant.

The point about one dimensional offenses is a good one (as good as the Cowboys dynasty was, it's hard for anyone who closely followed the team to deny they slipped a bit when Alvin Harper left and they suddenly had ONE (and ONLY one) Pro Bowl WR, RB and QB) but I'd go even further than you have. If you've got a good line and they've stuffed your running game, you still have some hope with passing, which can take pressure of the run and allow it to start producing. The reverse is true as well, although to a lesser degree. But without at least a decent offensive line even the punting game becomes an exercise in drama; you can't do ANYTHING, however much talent you have under center or behind your QB. Troy Aikman's a HoFer, but when his line was reduced to Larry Allen and a bunch of scrubs he went from the guy who threw a total of 6 INTs in a defense of a Super Bowl to the guy who tearfully announced his retirement when the Cowboys cut him in the wake of two concussions in the same season.

Granted that analogy only goes so far; Aikman was one of the all time great pocket passers, but a pocket passer without a line is just an immobile target (see: Brian Griese.... ) That said, the core argument remains valid: You can pass with a poor running back or run with a poor quarterback but all you can do with a poor offensive line is punt. The last NFL game I know of that was won by a punter was in 1919, and we don't have Jim Thorpe, so go for the line....

[lex]

Boss:

That Selvin Young article I wrote really breaks down the deficiencies in the power running game last season. We were the absolute worst team in the league on 3rd/4th-and-less-than-2. Our TD% in the red zone was the worst in Shanahan's tenure.

I completely agree with you. We sprang a lot of big runs last year with Henry and Young. That made our rushing offense look a lot better than it was. Hamilton and Nalen's health may correct these problems for a year, but if we don't find these guy's successors, it could be a long decade.

That said, left tackle is the least of our problems. That's the one position we are actually young and talented at. I think a young, powerful running back who can put an exclamation point on our short yardage game and on first and second downs is a huge need. Stewart and Mendenhall both have the size to be that guy. After those two are off the board, there's a lot of change-of-pace types and some projects, but no one else who can solve the problem.

I think Denver would ultimately like to swap picks with Detroit. That way, either Mendenhall or Stewart falls to them and they can get a 3rd or 4th rounder out of the deal.

Henry didnt really have nearly as many long runs as Young. Actually, I think Henry's longest run was on the first play of the year was that option pitch vs Buffalo that went for 30 something yards. Young had several long runs but they usually didnt end with him end the endzone. If memory serves, a lot of Youngs long runs ended with him being tackled in or around the red zone, which resulted in us kicking FGs instead of scoring a TD. Had Young been able to put it in the end zone on more of his long runs, there would have been fewer occurrences of floundering in short yardage and, obviously, more touch downs. In this offense there are going to be opportunities for big runs and having a guy who can cash in on those long runs is just as important as having a guy who gets 3 yards when theres only 3 yards. Why else did Denver let Anderson walk and let Bell step into the fold. And I know it didnt end well with Bell but thats primarily because Bell couldnt perform through the normal wear and tear of the season. If you look at the Ravens game in 2006, he actually did a great job of taking what was there. Everyone seems to thing we're better off with some slow guy. This is nonsense. Theres too much lost opportunity.

[lex]

I really don't have much to add apart from the fact that where one should focus has a lot to do with what one already has. You see it every time we get a new expansion team; the temptation to bet the farm on a stud runner or passer is almost overwhelming, but without accomplishing the far greater task of getting a great line it's a pointless move to get either. All it really does is doom a promising young athlete to a career of mediocre numbers, often a prematurely shortened career due to injury. What did Vinny Testaverde do for the Bucs? Answer: About what David Carr did for the Texans....

It's a lot harder to build a line because, as you rightly note, it involves multiple players that succeed or fail as a unit. HOWEVER, the return, as you also note correctly, is FAR greater. A team with a dominant offensive line can still do very well with average (or worse... ) passers and runners, but if the D starts every play three yards in the offensive backfield the playcalling quickly becomes irrelevant.

The point about one dimensional offenses is a good one (as good as the Cowboys dynasty was, it's hard for anyone who closely followed the team to deny they slipped a bit when Alvin Harper left and they suddenly had ONE (and ONLY one) Pro Bowl WR, RB and QB) but I'd go even further than you have. If you've got a good line and they've stuffed your running game, you still have some hope with passing, which can take pressure of the run and allow it to start producing. The reverse is true as well, although to a lesser degree. But without at least a decent offensive line even the punting game becomes an exercise in drama; you can't do ANYTHING, however much talent you have under center or behind your QB. Troy Aikman's a HoFer, but when his line was reduced to Larry Allen and a bunch of scrubs he went from the guy who threw a total of 6 INTs in a defense of a Super Bowl to the guy who tearfully announced his retirement when the Cowboys cut him in the wake of two concussions in the same season.

Granted that analogy only goes so far; Aikman was one of the all time great pocket passers, but a pocket passer without a line is just an immobile target (see: Brian Griese.... ) That said, the core argument remains valid: You can pass with a poor running back or run with a poor quarterback but all you can do with a poor offensive line is punt. The last NFL game I know of that was won by a punter was in 1919, and we don't have Jim Thorpe, so go for the line....

How often do great offensive lines have all first round draft picks? Its not unthinkable for a great offensive line to have 1 or no first round draft picks. So then, with that in mind, whats the difference between drafting a RB in the first and OL in the 2nd?

[BOSSHOGG30]

The history of the draft has shown one interesting stat... Offensive line who have more expience usually translate into the NFL better than those that don't.... Here is a list of OLinemen and their career starts.

G. Cherilus: 51 starts
R. Schuening (OG): 50 starts
S. Baker: 49 starts
J. Greco: 49 starts
K. Brown (OG): 46 starts
B. Richardson: 45 starts
C. Rinehart: 44 starts
K. Barton: 42 starts
R. Felton (OG): 42 starts
M. McGlynn (OG): 42 starts
J. Long: 41 starts
J. Sullivan (C): 41 starts
J. Zuttah: 40 starts
S. Justice (C): 39 starts
D. Brown: 38 starts
R. Clady: 37 starts
B. Albert: 37 starts
Corey Clark: 37 starts
C. Williams: 35 starts
J. Otah: 24 starts
A. Collins: 24 starts
T. Hills: 24 starts
K. Dunlap: 24 starts
E. Young: 23 starts
C. Rachal: 23 starts
O. Cousins: 18 starts
C. Nicks: 13 starts

[Npba900]

I'm more worried about RT myself and depth at gaurd and center.

Pears played a pretty good LT, he struggled at RT.
Harris is a LT, I think he will struggle at RT.
Kuper is a guard but seems athletic enough to play any position.

Like you said lex, we have lots of talent for LT, but we don't have anyone as a proven RT. Plus our injuried guys coming back are Hamilton and Nalen, what if they get hurt again? We need someone to back these guys up.

I really hope Denver goes after guys like Zuttah who can play mulitple positions and play them well.

Those are all great points and concerns. This is why I think Denver should look at the O linemen who are rated as Sleepers in this years draft, but draft experts believe they could be contributors by the 2nd half of the season and starter or pushing the starters by 2009. The following O linemen should be looked at on the 2nd day of the draft. Here are the sleepers:

Brandon Keith, OL, Northern Iowa: Keith, who started his college career at Oklahoma, has watched his draft stock soar the past nine months. He capped off a solid combine performance with an even better pro day, running under five seconds in the 40 after weighing 340 pounds. Keith has visited a number of teams, including a pair of NFC East franchises, the New York Giants and Philadelphia Eagles.

Thaddeus Coleman, T, Mississippi Valley State: Coleman could well be the best-kept secret at the offensive tackle position. He stands a shade under 6-8 yet has the athleticism and footwork necessary to protect the blind side. Coleman is fresh off meeting with the Minnesota Vikings and has a host of other squads who want to speak with him.


Shawn McMackin, G, Hofstra: McMackin is one of the most athletically gifted offensive linemen in the draft. His ability to be used at tackle or guard is added value. McMackin's physical skills have caught the attention of a number of zone blocking teams, including the Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts.

[Joel]

How often do great offensive lines have all first round draft picks? Its not unthinkable for a great offensive line to have 1 or no first round draft picks. So then, with that in mind, whats the difference between drafting a RB in the first and OL in the 2nd?
I'm not saying you're going to get seven first round picks to spend on linemen (though if you bite the bullet and accept you're in rebuilding mode it's quite possible to get two or three.... ) But that argument doesn't really change things; if you NEED a LT to guard the QBs blindside and you FINALLY have a high first round pick, use it while you've got it. What's the difference between a first round lineman and a second round back (as opposed to the reverse, I assume you mean... )? Well, the biggest difference is that the first round lineman can still have his QB throw for 3000+ yards 20+ TDs and <10 picks even if the second round back is a bust.

What NFL history has shown ME is that if you have a team sorry enough to draft in the top five and you go for "skill positions" DESPITE having no offensive line you're about to waste a great draft pick as well as a great athlete. If he's lucky he'll have a mediocre to decent career playing for a .500 team; if he's not he'll play for two or three years before his career is ended by injury.

You wanna know the difference? It's very simple: Barry Sanders vs. Emmit Smith. First round backs drafted a year apart, the difference is three Super Bowl Rings. If Barry plays his senior year and gets drafted by Dallas while Emmit goes to Detroit in the same draft, nothing changes. Dallas still has Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Mark Stepnoski, Kevin Gogan, Erik Williams, Mark Tuinei and Moose Johnston; Detroit still has... the Metrodome....

Again, it's a LOT harder to build a quality line; Dallas' was a legacy from the Vikings, but building the line is a lot more worthwhile and provides a lot more flexibility than a single back or passer. Again I'm forced to cite The Hidden Game of Football; everyone KNOWS the "skill positions" are the most demanding and important, but have you ever noticed how many NFL head coaches are ex-guards...?

[BOSSHOGG30]

Those are all great points and concerns. This is why I think Denver should look at the O linemen who are rated as Sleepers in this years draft, but draft experts believe they could be contributors by the 2nd half of the season and starter or pushing the starters by 2009. The following O linemen should be looked at on the 2nd day of the draft. Here are the sleepers:

Brandon Keith, OL, Northern Iowa: Keith, who started his college career at Oklahoma, has watched his draft stock soar the past nine months. He capped off a solid combine performance with an even better pro day, running under five seconds in the 40 after weighing 340 pounds. Keith has visited a number of teams, including a pair of NFC East franchises, the New York Giants and Philadelphia Eagles.

Thaddeus Coleman, T, Mississippi Valley State: Coleman could well be the best-kept secret at the offensive tackle position. He stands a shade under 6-8 yet has the athleticism and footwork necessary to protect the blind side. Coleman is fresh off meeting with the Minnesota Vikings and has a host of other squads who want to speak with him.


Shawn McMackin, G, Hofstra: McMackin is one of the most athletically gifted offensive linemen in the draft. His ability to be used at tackle or guard is added value. McMackin's physical skills have caught the attention of a number of zone blocking teams, including the Denver Broncos and Indianapolis Colts.


McMackin is one of my sleepers in my sig! Sweet.. my boys are getting some attention

[lex]

I'm not saying you're going to get seven first round picks to spend on linemen (though if you bite the bullet and accept you're in rebuilding mode it's quite possible to get two or three.... ) But that argument doesn't really change things; if you NEED a LT to guard the QBs blindside and you FINALLY have a high first round pick, use it while you've got it. What's the difference between a first round lineman and a second round back (as opposed to the reverse, I assume you mean... )? Well, the biggest difference is that the first round lineman can still have his QB throw for 3000+ yards 20+ TDs and <10 picks even if the second round back is a bust.

What NFL history has shown ME is that if you have a team sorry enough to draft in the top five and you go for "skill positions" DESPITE having no offensive line you're about to waste a great draft pick as well as a great athlete. If he's lucky he'll have a mediocre to decent career playing for a .500 team; if he's not he'll play for two or three years before his career is ended by injury.

You wanna know the difference? It's very simple: Barry Sanders vs. Emmit Smith. First round backs drafted a year apart, the difference is three Super Bowl Rings. If Barry plays his senior year and gets drafted by Dallas while Emmit goes to Detroit in the same draft, nothing changes. Dallas still has Larry Allen, Nate Newton, Mark Stepnoski, Kevin Gogan, Erik Williams, Mark Tuinei and Moose Johnston; Detroit still has... the Metrodome....

Again, it's a LOT harder to build a quality line; Dallas' was a legacy from the Vikings, but building the line is a lot more worthwhile and provides a lot more flexibility than a single back or passer. Again I'm forced to cite The Hidden Game of Football; everyone KNOWS the "skill positions" are the most demanding and important, but have you ever noticed how many NFL head coaches are ex-guards...?

Look at what Emmitt Smiths backups did behind that same offensive line. Its not even close to the same.

[Joel]

Look at what Emmitt Smiths backups did behind that same offensive line. Its not even close to the same.
Meh, some of Emmits backups weren't bad (I always liked Sherman Williams... ) but that's not the point; none of Emmits backups were in the same class as Barry Sanders either, and those are the two I'm comparing, primarily because I think they're comparable backs with VERY different post season careers. The question that raises is: Why...?

I'm just spitballing here, but I think a quick glance at the 1992-1996 NFC Pro Bowl rosters (in particular, the starting offensive linemen... ) would be illuminating.... ;-p

[BOSSHOGG30]

We need a stud runningback as well as an upgrade on the o-line.... thing is we have to go RB in the 1st if we truely want an upgrade and we can still get a guy in the 2nd on the O-line and it would still be an upgrade... this is the only way we can upgrade both positions. If we take a OL in the 1st we upgrade that position, but if we go runningback in the 2nd round or later we aren't really upgrading over what we already got.

[broncohead]

I think there is better value in grabing Stewart or Mendenhall then trying and trade up from our 2nd round pick using Foxworth to try and grab Gosder (sp?) to compete for RT.

[Simple Jaded]

I think there is better value in grabing Stewart or Mendenhall then trying and trade up from our 2nd round pick using Foxworth to try and grab Gosder (sp?) to compete for RT.

That sounds just fine to me too......

[Joel]

We need a stud runningback as well as an upgrade on the o-line.... thing is we have to go RB in the 1st if we truely want an upgrade and we can still get a guy in the 2nd on the O-line and it would still be an upgrade... this is the only way we can upgrade both positions. If we take a OL in the 1st we upgrade that position, but if we go runningback in the 2nd round or later we aren't really upgrading over what we already got.
That makes no sense to me. If you really think we've already got the equivalent of a high 2nd rounder at back (whom do you have in mind here? UDFA Selvin Young? Tennessees oft injured castoff...?) then I don't see how we have a problem at back. And the early '90s Cowboys (and probably The Hidden Game of Football as well... ) were a wake up call for NFL scouts; Pro Bowl offensive linemen go just as fast or faster than Pro Bowl backs, because they're more vital.

In fact, the OVERALL offensive value of linemen is highlighted by the problems with drafting a stud back; an every down NFL back can pick up the blitz, but very few rookies have that ability. I actually like Mike Bell a lot, but watching him try to protect Cutler against Seattle year before last was painful, though certainly not as painful as it must've been for Jay. I don't really want to see Cutler given the Theisman treatment just because folks bought into the hype on the latest Great White Heismann Hope about to fizzle in the REAL League....

I don't really think our line's in as bad a shape as many do; the main problem there is Nalen's aging and guys like Kuper, Meyers and Pears are actually quite good, but keep getting moved around too much to maintain any kind of stability. HOWEVER, we DID just lose a Pro Bowler at what I think is the most important position, and our best current option is to move a starting guard or right tackle over there, which doesn't so much solve the problem as shift it. I admit to some bias here though; if I was running a brand new expansion team the first player I'd select would be my starting LT, not my QB or back. The so called "skill positions" just aren't as important to me as the guys in the trenches, because you can compensate for deficiencies in the former, but can do NOTHING about deficiencies in the latter. Barry Sanders and Walter Payton can have HoF careers taking handoffs from the likes of (TWO TIME Heismann winner) Andre Ware and Jim McMahon, and Warren Moon or Doug Flutie can have HoF careers handing off to the likes of Mike Rozier. If the other teams NT keeps "intercepting" the snap though, you can't do ANYTHING.

[Joel]

I think there is better value in grabing Stewart or Mendenhall then trying and trade up from our 2nd round pick using Foxworth to try and grab Gosder (sp?) to compete for RT.
I don't think RT is really the concern, and I agree it would be a mistake to miss out on a quality back AND give up a quality nickel back just so we can get a guy to sub for Pears while he subs at LT until we find a long term solution there. But, geez, guys, how many "stud" running backs do we have to discover were merely products of the NCAAs "popularly elected" system? Would I blow off a five time Pro Bowl LT for Ricky Williams? Wasn't he just last season trying to get the Broncos to take him while they laughed in his face? A lot of people think Reggie Bush is already a bust; we had Ron Dayne and sent him to Houston. And the list goes on and on....

Meanwhile, Nalen will be entering his 16th season next year and Lepsis is retired, which means pretty soon Ben Hamilton will be our most experienced and talented lineman. I LIKE just about all our young linemen, though Harris is still an unknown quantity for me, but the only reason we have them is because we weren't content to just ride Nalen, Hamilton and Lepsis while hoping George Foster and Cooper Carlisle were future stars (which, as it happens, was a pretty faint hope.... ) Even with our talented young linemen recently promoted to starters, we still need to get some quality depth, especially at LT, or we're going to be hating life for the next decade.

[BOSSHOGG30]

That makes no sense to me. If you really think we've already got the equivalent of a high 2nd rounder at back (whom do you have in mind here? UDFA Selvin Young? Tennessees oft injured castoff...?) then I don't see how we have a problem at back. And the early '90s Cowboys (and probably The Hidden Game of Football as well... ) were a wake up call for NFL scouts; Pro Bowl offensive linemen go just as fast or faster than Pro Bowl backs, because they're more vital.

In fact, the OVERALL offensive value of linemen is highlighted by the problems with drafting a stud back; an every down NFL back can pick up the blitz, but very few rookies have that ability. I actually like Mike Bell a lot, but watching him try to protect Cutler against Seattle year before last was painful, though certainly not as painful as it must've been for Jay. I don't really want to see Cutler given the Theisman treatment just because folks bought into the hype on the latest Great White Heismann Hope about to fizzle in the REAL League....

I don't really think our line's in as bad a shape as many do; the main problem there is Nalen's aging and guys like Kuper, Meyers and Pears are actually quite good, but keep getting moved around too much to maintain any kind of stability. HOWEVER, we DID just lose a Pro Bowler at what I think is the most important position, and our best current option is to move a starting guard or right tackle over there, which doesn't so much solve the problem as shift it. I admit to some bias here though; if I was running a brand new expansion team the first player I'd select would be my starting LT, not my QB or back. The so called "skill positions" just aren't as important to me as the guys in the trenches, because you can compensate for deficiencies in the former, but can do NOTHING about deficiencies in the latter. Barry Sanders and Walter Payton can have HoF careers taking handoffs from the likes of (TWO TIME Heismann winner) Andre Ware and Jim McMahon, and Warren Moon or Doug Flutie can have HoF careers handing off to the likes of Mike Rozier. If the other teams NT keeps "intercepting" the snap though, you can't do ANYTHING.

There is a huge upgrade from Stewart or Mendenhall to Travis Henry and Selvin Young.... HUGE

However..there isn't that big of an upgrade from say Jamaal Charles, Ray Rice, or Matt Forte from Henry and Young.

As for the O-line... We don't really know what we have yet, because of the youth at the tackle spot with Kuper, Pears, and Harris, so it make is hard to judge for one thing and also the fact that there really isn't a Elite OT. How big of an upgrade it Chris Williams (if he is even there at 12) or Ryan Clady (if he is even there at 12) over Kuper/Harris/Pears? Maybe a little...but I don't think it is the same level as Stewart or Mendenhall over Henry and Young.

Then you can compare guys Duane Brown, Sam Baker, Gosder Cherilus, Anthony Collins, Carl Nicks, Tony Hills, Brandon Keith, and Kirk Barton who you would think that at least one or two of these guys would be there in the 2nd round to guys like Kuper/Harris/Pears... still looks like an upgrade... maybe not much... but if you get one of the top runningbacks and one of these guys to add to your already young and athletic o-line, then you are looking pretty good.

[BOSSHOGG30]

When's the last time a truly elite LT went at #12 or later? My question is ... are you happy if we pass on a Walter Payton, Tomlinson type elite RB for say... Todd Steussie? I'm not. Now if we draft an elite RB and take Todd Steussie in the 2nd then yeah, I'm good.

[Joel]

When's the last time a truly elite LT went at #12 or later? My question is ... are you happy if we pass on a Walter Payton, Tomlinson type elite RB for say... Todd Steussie? I'm not. Now if we draft an elite RB and take Todd Steussie in the 2nd then yeah, I'm good.

Stuessie's a pretty good blocker; that would be a tough call for me. HOWEVER, I'd prefer Payton for sure for one simple reason: The guy could pass block the Johnstown Flood (a great line for which I wish I could claim credit.... )

But frankly I don't think a HoF back and a Pro Bowl lineman are on the table. I don't know where Stuessie was drafted, but if he re-entered the draft tomorrow his career numbers would make him a first rounder. And we need the LT more; certainly Jay Cutler does....

I'll be honest though, I'm not a really big fan of rookie backs in general, at least not for the first few years. Pass blocking, receiving and goal line situations in the NFL are NOTHING like what they've experienced in college, and if an NFL back can't do all or most of those things I have no use for him. Any back who gets drafted by Pro team can run; I doubt there's been an NFL back with a 40 time over 4.4 drafted in the last 20 years. It's all the other things that make an "every down back" who can be a legitimate running and receiving threat on 3rd and 12, or pick up the blitz so the QB has time to convert. Without that all the D has to do is check which back is in to know whether it's a run or a pass. I'd rather find a stud who can protect Cutlers blind side in a year or two so this business of "musical linemen" comes to a happy end sooner instead of later. George Fosters of the world aside (and I still think he could do well as a straight up guard in a more vanilla blocking scheme... ) I've just seen too many "stud" RBs explode on the launchpad to pass up an obviously good lineman we need.

We get the back without the lineman and he'll still have problems; we get the lineman without the back and whoever is behind him will do better, and if he still doesn't do well, just drop back and launch an 80 yard TD....

[gobroncsnv]

Those who believe in the power of Madden football will go for the great back first. If you want a real team to succeed, get a good line and you'll never regret it. OJ never got alot of yards behind a crappy line. It wasn't until the 'Electric Company" came along that he started making any kind of mark in the NFL. Just look at Portis' last few years (before the team started trying to improve the line).

[gobroncsnv]

When's the last time a truly elite LT went at #12 or later? My question is ... are you happy if we pass on a Walter Payton, Tomlinson type elite RB for say... Todd Steussie? I'm not. Now if we draft an elite RB and take Todd Steussie in the 2nd then yeah, I'm good.

Take a look at the first 2 picks of the 1995 draft and tell me who did better? Cincy, or Jax... Cincy took KiJana Carter at #1, who ATOMICALLY bombed in his career. Boselli (Jax) may be up there with the best of the tackles who ever played in the NFL. You could do this kind of stuff all day (Mandarich (sp?))... But it's easier for a great line to make a star out of a decent back, than for a stud RB to make for an all-pro line. Plus, you get your QB better protection, which, heaven knows, we could definitely use. I would first put the money on the line. More time to throw makes your receivers better also.

[Ziggy]

When's the last time a truly elite LT went at #12 or later? My question is ... are you happy if we pass on a Walter Payton, Tomlinson type elite RB for say... Todd Steussie? I'm not. Now if we draft an elite RB and take Todd Steussie in the 2nd then yeah, I'm good.

There hasn't been a draft with this many top OT's in the first round in a long time Boss. So looking at stud tackles taken at the 12th spot or later in past drafts doesn't relate. Every draft is different. This one happens to be deep in top OT's that could be franchise guys. Long, Clady, Williams, Alberts, Otah, and Cherilus may all be franchise tackles. They will all go in the first round. That doesn't happen too often. Denver finally has a franchise qb again.

Remember when Elway's numbers started to skyrocket? It was in 1993. A few things happened that year. One of them being that Denver traded for Gary Zimmerman. While Zimmerman was initially a 2nd round pick, Denver knew his value. They gave up a 1st, 2nd, and 6th round pick for him. Was he worth every one of those picks? If you say no, you're either crazy or ignorant. Now I know a few of you are going to say that Zimmerman was drafted with a 2nd round pick. That was a fluke. It was an exception. Most great tackles are taken in the 1st round.

If we want to turn this team around, it's going to have to start in the trenches, not at the glamour positions. Build the lines and then fill in the glamour spots later on. Denver has been trying to grab the glamour spots and fill in the trenches later, and IT ISN"T WORKING. The only position we should consider filling in before the OL is the DL. Games are won in the trenches. No football purist would argue that. So why do so many of them not want to invest the most in the trenches? I don't get it.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Take a look at the first 2 picks of the 1995 draft and tell me who did better? Cincy, or Jax... Cincy took KiJana Carter at #1, who ATOMICALLY bombed in his career. Boselli (Jax) may be up there with the best of the tackles who ever played in the NFL. You could do this kind of stuff all day (Mandarich (sp?))... But it's easier for a great line to make a star out of a decent back, than for a stud RB to make for an all-pro line. Plus, you get your QB better protection, which, heaven knows, we could definitely use. I would first put the money on the line. More time to throw makes your receivers better also.

For the one billion time.... We are not getting the #1 OT at 12....nice try... from the looks of things and with the rumors of teams trying to trade up... we will be lucky to get the #3 or #4 OT. That guy doesn't translate into your Boselli. Also... KiJana Carter had injury problems and was stuck on a horrific team. I find it very, very hard to believe that top or "elite" back will crash and burn in the Broncos scheme. As for the injury aspect.... you can't predict that so don't tell me the injury factor was there and the Bengals should of known, because there is no way they could of.

[BOSSHOGG30]

There hasn't been a draft with this many top OT's in the first round in a long time Boss. So looking at stud tackles taken at the 12th spot or later in past drafts doesn't relate. Every draft is different. This one happens to be deep in top OT's that could be franchise guys. Long, Clady, Williams, Alberts, Otah, and Cherilus may all be franchise tackles. They will all go in the first round. That doesn't happen too often. Denver finally has a franchise qb again.

Remember when Elway's numbers started to skyrocket? It was in 1993. A few things happened that year. One of them being that Denver traded for Gary Zimmerman. While Zimmerman was initially a 2nd round pick, Denver knew his value. They gave up a 1st, 2nd, and 6th round pick for him. Was he worth every one of those picks? If you say no, you're either crazy or ignorant. Now I know a few of you are going to say that Zimmerman was drafted with a 2nd round pick. That was a fluke. It was an exception. Most great tackles are taken in the 1st round.

If we want to turn this team around, it's going to have to start in the trenches, not at the glamour positions. Build the lines and then fill in the glamour spots later on. Denver has been trying to grab the glamour spots and fill in the trenches later, and IT ISN"T WORKING. The only position we should consider filling in before the OL is the DL. Games are won in the trenches. No football purist would argue that. So why do so many of them not want to invest the most in the trenches? I don't get it.

I don't see any Zimmermans in this draft and that was a different era. It's all about value and money and drafting the #3 or #4 OT and hoping we get a franchise tackle and paying that OT top 12 money doesn't make since to me. I much rather get Stewart or Mendenhall who many have as their #1 or #2 back and get the #6 or #7 OT in the 2nd round.

[BOSSHOGG30]

I'll take an elite back and Baker and Zuttah all day long over whatever is left at 12.... probably dumb ass Clady.

[Nomad]

Denver doesn't pick RBs in the 1st round.

[underrated29]

I'll take an elite back and Baker and Zuttah all day long over whatever is left at 12.... probably dumb ass Clady.



Now your talkin!


Oh and nomad, we never took a qb in the first either, but we did with jay. (unless you count the elway trade.



How do you do the mulitple quote thing from different people. I am only able to quote boss.

[lex]

Now your talkin!


Oh and nomad, we never took a qb in the first either, but we did with jay. (unless you count the elway trade.



How do you do the mulitple quote thing from different people. I am only able to quote boss.
Theres a multiquote button ("+)use that for ever quote you want until the last one. For the last one, click the regular quote button.

[lex]

Meh, some of Emmits backups weren't bad (I always liked Sherman Williams... ) but that's not the point; none of Emmits backups were in the same class as Barry Sanders either, and those are the two I'm comparing, primarily because I think they're comparable backs with VERY different post season careers. The question that raises is: Why...?

I'm just spitballing here, but I think a quick glance at the 1992-1996 NFC Pro Bowl rosters (in particular, the starting offensive linemen... ) would be illuminating.... ;-p


Since youre introducing Barry Sanders into it, youre basically pointing to a guy who excelled without a great offensive line. And btw, those Dallas teams did better when they had Emmitt and not Troy than they did when they had Troy but no Emmitt. I seem to remember Dallas winning with Testaverde, whereas when Smith held out at the beginning of 1993, Dallas went 0-2. And like I said, if there offensive line was so good, according to the theory that most seem to have, Emmitts backups would have done better than they did.

[lex]

Those who believe in the power of Madden football will go for the great back first. If you want a real team to succeed, get a good line and you'll never regret it. OJ never got alot of yards behind a crappy line. It wasn't until the 'Electric Company" came along that he started making any kind of mark in the NFL. Just look at Portis' last few years (before the team started trying to improve the line).



Yeah, or what about "Which Way" Thompson of the Cardinals back in 1939? LOL

[Nomad]

Now your talkin!


Oh and nomad, we never took a qb in the first either, but we did with jay. (unless you count the elway trade.



How do you do the mulitple quote thing from different people. I am only able to quote boss.

I understand that! Denver has drafted QBs late with no success and have drafted RBs late with success. Anything can happen with the draft and I understand that, but the RB crowd here act like one of these 3 'elite' RBs are gospel and one will save the BRONCOS. Denver has proven success with drafting RBs late behind a solid line. I'm no historian but for all the factoids around here that throw around stats, what kind of success did Bobby Humphrey's have he was a sup. 1st rounder? And Denver is notorious for drafting defenseover offense in the 1st.

[atwater27]

For the one billion time.... We are not getting the #1 OT at 12....nice try... from the looks of things and with the rumors of teams trying to trade up... we will be lucky to get the #3 or #4 OT. That guy doesn't translate into your Boselli. Also... KiJana Carter had injury problems and was stuck on a horrific team. I find it very, very hard to believe that top or "elite" back will crash and burn in the Broncos scheme. As for the injury aspect.... you can't predict that so don't tell me the injury factor was there and the Bengals should of known, because there is no way they could of.

Kijana Carter was a BUST, Curtis Enis was a BUST, Lawrence Phillips was a BUST, Cedric Benson is a BUST, Reggie bush is almost a BUST.
But, you know, guys like Terrell Davis, Jamal Anderson, Curtis Martin, Brian Westbrook.....etc....... can be had in later rounds without having to pass up PREMIUM offensive tackle talent. Oh yes, I said premium Mr.

[TXBRONC]

Denver doesn't pick RBs in the 1st round.


Ah but they have come close as recently as three years ago. If Cutler had been drafted by the 10th pick Shanahan said he was comfortable taking Maroney with 15th overall pick.

[atwater27]

:eek:
Look at what Emmitt Smiths backups did behind that same offensive line. Its not even close to the same.:eek:
Please tell me you are not serious. Dallas's line was arguably the best line ever. Emmit's backups barely ever played, so how could they have success? There was a reason Emmit ended up with the yards record(besides having gaping holes opened for him every play)..... He didn't get injured and he played forever.

[Nomad]

Ah but they have come close as recently as three years ago. If Cutler had been drafted by the 10th pick Shanahan said he was comfortable taking Maroney with 15th overall pick.

We'll never know! We can play the 'ifs and buts' game all day long. In the long run Denver has always proven success with a solid line and average RBs, whose to say the oline won't turn it around from last year, I don't know as no one else either, I do know it was broken and yes injuries were to blame but whose to say those men can come back from the injuries. Patriots oline makes Maroney look good as does the Vikings for Peterson. Don't get me wrong these men are exceptional RBs with loads of talents that run behind solid olines.

[Ziggy]

I don't see any Zimmermans in this draft and that was a different era. It's all about value and money and drafting the #3 or #4 OT and hoping we get a franchise tackle and paying that OT top 12 money doesn't make since to me. I much rather get Stewart or Mendenhall who many have as their #1 or #2 back and get the #6 or #7 OT in the 2nd round.

That's where our opinions differ. I think that there is a Zimmerman or 2 in this draft. Which 2 they are exactly, I'm not sure. To me, it's worth taking a chance. Star running backs come around a LOT more frequently than star LT's, so when you have a chance to draft that star LT, you do it.

Of course, this is what makes the draft so popular. Armchair GM's like you and I can sit on our couch and claim to know what is best for thier team. In the end, neither of our opinions matter, but it gives us something to do in the offseason. Keep debating Boss, I enjoy the challenge, and you seem to have some football savvy in you. Here's to the Broncos doing what's best for the team, regardless of what any of us say.:beer:

[Nomad]

That's where our opinions differ. I think that there is a Zimmerman or 2 in this draft. Which 2 they are exactly, I'm not sure. To me, it's worth taking a chance. Star running backs come around a LOT more frequently than star LT's, so when you have a chance to draft that star LT, you do it.

Of course, this is what makes the draft so popular. Armchair GM's like you and I can sit on our couch and claim to know what is best for thier team. In the end, neither of our opinions matter, but it gives us something to do in the offseason. Keep debating Boss, I enjoy the challenge, and you seem to have some football savvy in you. Here's to the Broncos doing what's best for the team, regardless of what any of us say.:beer:

:beer:Agreed! Shanny has alot of people gunshy with his personnel decisions, so I hope he does make some good choices!

[lex]

:eek::eek:
Please tell me you are not serious. Dallas's line was arguably the best line ever. Emmit's backups barely ever played, so how could they have success? There was a reason Emmit ended up with the yards record(besides having gaping holes opened for him every play)..... He didn't get injured and he played forever.


I am serious. Apparently its too much for you to handle.

[lex]

We'll never know! We can play the 'ifs and buts' game all day long. In the long run Denver has always proven success with a solid line and average RBs, whose to say the oline won't turn it around from last year, I don't know as no one else either, I do know it was broken and yes injuries were to blame but whose to say those men can come back from the injuries. Patriots oline makes Maroney look good as does the Vikings for Peterson. Don't get me wrong these men are exceptional RBs with loads of talents that run behind solid olines.
Yeah, and offensive lines with no first round draft picks.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Kijana Carter was a BUST, Curtis Enis was a BUST, Lawrence Phillips was a BUST, Cedric Benson is a BUST, Reggie bush is almost a BUST.
But, you know, guys like Terrell Davis, Jamal Anderson, Curtis Martin, Brian Westbrook.....etc....... can be had in later rounds without having to pass up PREMIUM offensive tackle talent. Oh yes, I said premium Mr.

Here we go again... bet we can't come up with a list of bust OT either...

Phillips was only a bust because of his issues off the field... excellent football player... Enis and Carter were injuried.. very talented players as well... but yes they were bust. You can't predict injuries.

[atwater27]

I am serious. Apparently my confused analysis is too much for you to handle.

indeed.

[atwater27]

Here we go again... bet we can't come up with a list of bust OT either...

Phillips was only a bust because of his issues off the field... excellent football player... Enis and Carter were injuried.. very talented players as well... but yes they were bust. You can't predict injuries.

good players can overcome injuries, especially when they are young. These guys never, even after years of rehab and being healthy, ran decent.
They sucked.

[lex]

Here we go again... bet we can't come up with a list of bust OT either...

Phillips was only a bust because of his issues off the field... excellent football player... Enis and Carter were injuried.. very talented players as well... but yes they were bust. You can't predict injuries.

Actually, Enis' biggest problem was that he was the kind of back everyone seems to want in the 4th and 5th. He was a slow grinder with little to no explosiveness. He wasnt explosive enough and then when the team asked him to bulk up, that didnt work either.

KiJana wasnt a bust. He was injured. Tackles arent injury proff either.

[lex]

good players can overcome injuries, especially when they are young. These guys never, even after years of rehab and being healthy, ran decent.
They sucked.

Thats Absolut nonsense and likewise belongs in the toilet.

[BOSSHOGG30]

good players can overcome injuries, especially when they are young. These guys never, even after years of rehab and being healthy, ran decent.
They sucked.

Korey Stringer is a bust too then right

Can you tell me a little bit about these 1st round offensive linemen then since you are so quick to list a few 1st round bust RB's......

George Foster?
Robert Gallery?
Kwame Harris?
Kenyatta Walker?
Stockar McDougle?
Chris McIntosh?
Matt Stinchcomb?
L.J. Shelton?
Aaron Gibson?
Mo Collins?
Victor Riley?
Jermane Mayberry?
John Michels?
Jamain Stephens?
Andre Johnson?
Billy Milner?
Trezelle Jenkins?

There is bust in the 1st round at every position. Don't give me this crap about runningbacks being bust in the 1st round.

[haroldthebarrel]

As far as looking at the offensive line vs talented receivers we must acknowledge that Denver has looked at tackles in the first round several times in the past.
We did look at Kenyatta Walker who ended up with the Bucs and had an average career and was somewhat of a disappointment in the end.
Obviously we took the bust Foster who was one of many busts in that same draft.
In fact that draft was loaded with busts and except of Gross who couldnt play LT all the other OTs in that draft were either busts or replacable players.
To me, Foster was had a strange career where his play was really promising until he injured that player and just lost it mentally. His last year in Denver was just ugly.
Still, we almost made the perfect choice by trading down that year until the Ravens just decided to f... us up.
We have also looked closely at Levi Jones amonst others. I personally suspected that we were looking at both of Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas when there were rumors of Denver trading up to pick #2 to get Johnson.
With that in mind I think the belief that we never really looked closely at OL until the second day of the draft is a truth with heavy modifications.

That brings me to the next point. While we have looked at OTs in the past, the rules have changed dramatically the last few years. The rules favors passing offenses so dearly that every team has to take advantage of it. And as proven by the Giants, the best way to stop a passing offense nowadays isn't playing dime and quarters but attack the offense at the point of its origin.
That and the fact that we have a new QB who IMHO appears to be a true stud makes it even more common sensical that we will be looking at OTs in order to spread the offense.
Remember, we do play a lot of singleback formations anyway.
Thus I really suspect that this year, the rumors that we are looking at OTs in the first round aren't just misinformation spread out by the team like they did so much of in the past.

And on a personal not that is ok with me. The more I learn about this game, the more I have come to believe the games are won in the trenches.
Take any of the superbowl winners or runners up in the last ten years and all of them were good at either one of the lines and at least decent on the other.

[haroldthebarrel]

Korey Stringer is a bust too then right

Can you tell me a little bit about these 1st round offensive linemen then since you are so quick to list a few 1st round bust RB's......

George Foster?
Robert Gallery?
Kwame Harris?
Kenyatta Walker?
Stockar McDougle?
Chris McIntosh?
Matt Stinchcomb?
L.J. Shelton?
Aaron Gibson?
Mo Collins?
Victor Riley?
Jermane Mayberry?
John Michels?
Jamain Stephens?
Andre Johnson?
Billy Milner?
Trezelle Jenkins?

There is bust in the 1st round at every position. Don't give me this crap about runningbacks being bust in the 1st round.

That completely depends on whta you define as busts.
There are a lot of players in that list that I wouldnt call a bust, and the problem I see with expanding the definitions of what a bust is, the less value should be put on draft picks on total.
The chances to get a player fulfilling his potential becomes less likely, and if so I would say that trading established players for draft picks should occur even more often.

[gobroncsnv]

For the one billion time.... We are not getting the #1 OT at 12....nice try... from the looks of things and with the rumors of teams trying to trade up... we will be lucky to get the #3 or #4 OT. That guy doesn't translate into your Boselli. Also... KiJana Carter had injury problems and was stuck on a horrific team. I find it very, very hard to believe that top or "elite" back will crash and burn in the Broncos scheme. As for the injury aspect.... you can't predict that so don't tell me the injury factor was there and the Bengals should of known, because there is no way they could of.

Look, I understand we can all make a straw man point, which is why I also brought up Mandarich in my own post... There have been wasted draft picks at every position in the game. My main concern is that we work first and foremost on getting our lines improved, or the other positions are just jerseys we can sell. You win this game on the line. (ask the Patriots) And I do think we need to improve at the very least at RT, on the oline. Moreso than at RB. So while I agree, we're not getting ANYBODY named Long this year, but we need to spend our best efforts improving where we need it most. Especially since our blocking scheme takes some growing pains for anybody coming into it, especially a rook.

[Nomad]

As far as looking at the offensive line vs talented receivers we must acknowledge that Denver has looked at tackles in the first round several times in the past.
We did look at Kenyatta Walker who ended up with the Bucs and had an average career and was somewhat of a disappointment in the end.
Obviously we took the bust Foster who was one of many busts in that same draft.
In fact that draft was loaded with busts and except of Gross who couldnt play LT all the other OTs in that draft were either busts or replacable players.
To me, Foster was had a strange career where his play was really promising until he injured that player and just lost it mentally. His last year in Denver was just ugly.
Still, we almost made the perfect choice by trading down that year until the Ravens just decided to f... us up.
We have also looked closely at Levi Jones amonst others. I personally suspected that we were looking at both of Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas when there were rumors of Denver trading up to pick #2 to get Johnson.
With that in mind I think the belief that we never really looked closely at OL until the second day of the draft is a truth with heavy modifications.

That brings me to the next point. While we have looked at OTs in the past, the rules have changed dramatically the last few years. The rules favors passing offenses so dearly that every team has to take advantage of it. And as proven by the Giants, the best way to stop a passing offense nowadays isn't playing dime and quarters but attack the offense at the point of its origin.
That and the fact that we have a new QB who IMHO appears to be a true stud makes it even more common sensical that we will be looking at OTs in order to spread the offense.
Remember, we do play a lot of singleback formations anyway.
Thus I really suspect that this year, the rumors that we are looking at OTs in the first round aren't just misinformation spread out by the team like they did so much of in the past.

And on a personal not that is ok with me. The more I learn about this game, the more I have come to believe the games are won in the trenches.
Take any of the superbowl winners or runners up in the last ten years and all of them were good at either one of the lines and at least decent on the other.


Ask most coaches or a person who has played the game and they'll tell you the same thing!

[r8rh8r]

But running backs are a dime a dozen, right? Don't tell that to this guy...

Drafting RB's (http://www.bbnflstats.com/)

[Nature Boy]

But running backs are a dime a dozen, right? Don't tell that to this guy...

Drafting RB's (http://www.bbnflstats.com/)


"I wouldn't read too much into the spike at the 5th RB taken. It's likely just a statistical quirk, but it might be one reason why many experts believe that later round RBs are as good as early round picks." -from that link.


According to author of that link, the 5th running back is most likely to "pan out" by making the pro-bowl, but the author attributes that to a "statistical quirk". I say why take the time to research the data then discount it and call it "just a statistical quirk" ?

It's no secret most of the best RBs current and in the past were not the 1st or 2nd back taken, most were not even selected in the 1st round.

With that said, it's wiser to have a great Oline and an OK RB, then to have a great RB and a lousy Oline. Remember, football is played at the point of attack, closest to the football, not 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

[OB]

Someone answer me this please, why was denver considered one of the best running teams in the last say 10+ years - have we not been famous for drafting unknown Rb's who turn into studs or at least good RB's? Why was that was it the RB or the line that made their running look kick ass

[atwater27]

Korey Stringer is a bust too then right

Can you tell me a little bit about these 1st round offensive linemen then since you are so quick to list a few 1st round bust RB's......

George Foster?
Robert Gallery?
Kwame Harris?
Kenyatta Walker?
Stockar McDougle?
Chris McIntosh?
Matt Stinchcomb?
L.J. Shelton?
Aaron Gibson?
Mo Collins?
Victor Riley?
Jermane Mayberry?
John Michels?
Jamain Stephens?
Andre Johnson?
Billy Milner?
Trezelle Jenkins?

There is bust in the 1st round at every position. Don't give me this crap about runningbacks being bust in the 1st round.
Then why are we even debating? Why talk about the draft at all?
Clady could be a bust. Mendenhall could be a bust Stewart could be a "oft injured but great talent" player. Albert or Williams could be busts. Whoopdidoo!

[Den21vsBal19]

Someone answer me this please, why was denver considered one of the best running teams in the last say 10+ years - have we not been famous for drafting unknown Rb's who turn into studs or at least good RB's? Why was that was it the RB or the line that made their running look kick ass
Evidence would suggest that the line and/or the scheme have been responsible, how many yards did Gary, Anderson, Griffith, Bell et al gain after leaving Denver?

The line is a little bit of a double edged sword though, what makes for our ideal running line isn't neccessarily the best for pass protection. Since we got lit up by the Steelers in the AFCCG, we've had to play way too much with the TE & RBs in for pass protection. And even so, Cutler's seeing way too much pressure, which ultimately will cost us when he starts missing time through injury.

[Joel]

Take a look at the first 2 picks of the 1995 draft and tell me who did better? Cincy, or Jax... Cincy took KiJana Carter at #1, who ATOMICALLY bombed in his career. Boselli (Jax) may be up there with the best of the tackles who ever played in the NFL. You could do this kind of stuff all day (Mandarich (sp?))... But it's easier for a great line to make a star out of a decent back, than for a stud RB to make for an all-pro line. Plus, you get your QB better protection, which, heaven knows, we could definitely use. I would first put the money on the line. More time to throw makes your receivers better also.
And that's the thing; the overall importance and contributions to the team are far greater from the lineman than from the back. That's especially true given that most rookies from "pro style" college lines will have to adjust mainly to new techniques and more speed; rookie backs have to learn whole new disciplines, because they can't rely on an 8 yard rushing average to keep them starting even though they have Flippers hands and Caspers pass blocking. Even if that works in the short term, sooner or later Ds will just start stacking eight or nine guys in the box, and then you better be able to pass 'cos your back can't help much. Conversely, if we can find another guy of Lepsis' calibre we get someone who can keep Cutler intact and scanning the field AND open holes on the left side for Henry, Young or whomever.

The line just impacts more areas of the ball, both positively and negatively; the only reason NOT to go that route, all else being equal, is you need a lot more guys to make a big difference, but that only underscores the importance of getting the best you can find whenever you can; you're very rarely going to have "spare" linemen (remember when that's what some folks thought Pears and the Chrisses were...?) Unless there's a BIG difference in quality in between your backfield vs. the line, go for the line every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Beyond that general rule it's just a matter of looking at where you pick and what's likely to remain available that long; you can't pick a top five player at a position that isn't there, but the preference should always be for linemen. I usually think guards are overlooked in favor of tackles, but I actually think we're in fairly good shape at guard (except we need a long term solution at center) while we're now permanently missing a LT whose absence was painfully apparent in 2006.

[Joel]

For the one billion time.... We are not getting the #1 OT at 12....nice try... from the looks of things and with the rumors of teams trying to trade up... we will be lucky to get the #3 or #4 OT. That guy doesn't translate into your Boselli. Also... KiJana Carter had injury problems and was stuck on a horrific team. I find it very, very hard to believe that top or "elite" back will crash and burn in the Broncos scheme. As for the injury aspect.... you can't predict that so don't tell me the injury factor was there and the Bengals should of known, because there is no way they could of.
And why, pray tell, did Carter have "injury problems" and get "stuck on a horrific team? Might it have had something to do with his blocking...? I believe if you'll look back you'll find Carson Palmer and Rudi Johnson weren't the only new faces in Cincy about the time they started making playoff runs again. If Mendenhall, Stewart or whoever is still there at #12, would you trade that pick to Cincy for their starting LT...?

[Joel]

Since youre introducing Barry Sanders into it, youre basically pointing to a guy who excelled without a great offensive line. And btw, those Dallas teams did better when they had Emmitt and not Troy than they did when they had Troy but no Emmitt. I seem to remember Dallas winning with Testaverde, whereas when Smith held out at the beginning of 1993, Dallas went 0-2. And like I said, if there offensive line was so good, according to the theory that most seem to have, Emmitts backups would have done better than they did.
Yes, he did excel without an offensive line; the Lions even got a wild card or two before his HoF career ended, though I can't recall them ever WINNING a playoff game. I DO recall him gaining a total of -52 yards in two regular season games against the '96 Packers; one wonders if a decent line would've changed that (but this one doesn't wonder much; that was pretty much the same Pack Dallas beat in the previous NFC Championship. ) But Barry was VERY good, probably as good as Emmit or as close as makes no difference. Except there is a difference: Three Super Bowl Rings.

Yeah, I remember Dallas winning with Testaverde; Vinny wasn't a bad QB in his prime, but it was hard to complete passes in Tampa because refs have this annoying habit of blowing the whistle after you're sacked. The main thing that hurt them when Emmit held out was they were trying to compensate for Alvin Harpers departure by doing things like letting Deion be their #2 WR; double cover Irvin and Novacek and they don't have Emmit: Now what, Dallas...? Emmits backups didn't do too badly at all, but all of his linemen save Larry Allen had left town by the time they were starting regularly. Most of them did just fine behind the Super Bowl lines, but Emmit wasn't hurt much, and who's gonna bench him...?

But I did bring up Barry for the same reason I brought up Emmit: I don't see much difference between them (Barry was a little more elusive, but I think Emmit had a little more raw power. ) There's a BIG difference in their post season performances though, mainly in that Barry, as great as he was, didn't have many.

[Joel]

Someone answer me this please, why was denver considered one of the best running teams in the last say 10+ years - have we not been famous for drafting unknown Rb's who turn into studs or at least good RB's? Why was that was it the RB or the line that made their running look kick ass
In the case of TD and, to a lesser extent, Portis, it was a perfect storm, but guys like Orlandis Gary are impossible to explain without the line. Over the last decade we've had the best running game, bar none (and considering that includes two guys who broke the single season TD record, that's a statement). HOWEVER, there's no denying it's slipped in recent years, that even after TD we still had a great running game behind guys like Zimm and Neil along with Nalen and Lepsis but that it's not what it used to be since the arrival of guys like Foster and Carlisle. We've seen our running game decline whether it was Mike Anderson or Mike Bell toting the rock, and it's hard not to suspect the line, particularly the right side, which has been awful for a while, IMHO, and which I actually think improved significantly last season. Logically the best way to change that is to change that, right...?

[Stargazer]

Give our franchise QB a young stud RB. (See avy)

[Stargazer]

In the case of TD and, to a lesser extent, Portis, it was a perfect storm, but guys like Orlandis Gary are impossible to explain without the line. Over the last decade we've had the best running game, bar none (and considering that includes two guys who broke the single season TD record, that's a statement). HOWEVER, there's no denying it's slipped in recent years, that even after TD we still had a great running game behind guys like Zimm and Neil along with Nalen and Lepsis but that it's not what it used to be since the arrival of guys like Foster and Carlisle. We've seen our running game decline whether it was Mike Anderson or Mike Bell toting the rock, and it's hard not to suspect the line, particularly the right side, which has been awful for a while, IMHO, and which I actually think improved significantly last season. Logically the best way to change that is to change that, right...?

Change the RB. There has only been two RB's since Shanny has been in town worth talking about. TD & Portis. I think some forget Portis racked up 1508 & 1591 yards with 14 & 15 TD's in his only two seasons here. There hasn't been anything great at RB since Portis was traded in 2004. It's time to finally give Jay a young horse in the backfield. You pair your young franchise QB with a young stud RB.

[r8rh8r]

Someone answer me this please, why was denver considered one of the best running teams in the last say 10+ years - have we not been famous for drafting unknown Rb's who turn into studs or at least good RB's? Why was that was it the RB or the line that made their running look kick ass

Clinton Portis
Terrell Davis
Great O-Line

[r8rh8r]

"I wouldn't read too much into the spike at the 5th RB taken. It's likely just a statistical quirk, but it might be one reason why many experts believe that later round RBs are as good as early round picks." -from that link.


According to author of that link, the 5th running back is most likely to "pan out" by making the pro-bowl, but the author attributes that to a "statistical quirk". I say why take the time to research the data then discount it and call it "just a statistical quirk" ?

It's no secret most of the best RBs current and in the past were not the 1st or 2nd back taken, most were not even selected in the 1st round.

With that said, it's wiser to have a great Oline and an OK RB, then to have a great RB and a lousy Oline. Remember, football is played at the point of attack, closest to the football, not 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

That's not what the author says at all. Here is the data:
http://rockymountainfever.net/graph2.png

The "spike" he's talking about shows that 5th runningbacks taken have a 10% chance of attending 1 pro bowl. They have a 0% chance of playing in 3. The first runningback taken has a 40% chance of playing in 1 pro bowl, a 25% chance of playing in 2 pro bowls, and a 20% chance of playing in 3.

It pays to look at the data rather than fishing for one out-of-context quote to try and defeat a well-supported argument.

[r8rh8r]

Yes, he did excel without an offensive line; the Lions even got a wild card or two before his HoF career ended, though I can't recall them ever WINNING a playoff game. I DO recall him gaining a total of -52 yards in two regular season games against the '96 Packers; one wonders if a decent line would've changed that (but this one doesn't wonder much; that was pretty much the same Pack Dallas beat in the previous NFC Championship. ) But Barry was VERY good, probably as good as Emmit or as close as makes no difference. Except there is a difference: Three Super Bowl Rings.

Yeah, I remember Dallas winning with Testaverde; Vinny wasn't a bad QB in his prime, but it was hard to complete passes in Tampa because refs have this annoying habit of blowing the whistle after you're sacked. The main thing that hurt them when Emmit held out was they were trying to compensate for Alvin Harpers departure by doing things like letting Deion be their #2 WR; double cover Irvin and Novacek and they don't have Emmit: Now what, Dallas...? Emmits backups didn't do too badly at all, but all of his linemen save Larry Allen had left town by the time they were starting regularly. Most of them did just fine behind the Super Bowl lines, but Emmit wasn't hurt much, and who's gonna bench him...?

But I did bring up Barry for the same reason I brought up Emmit: I don't see much difference between them (Barry was a little more elusive, but I think Emmit had a little more raw power. ) There's a BIG difference in their post season performances though, mainly in that Barry, as great as he was, didn't have many.

Barry was far, far better than Emmitt. Emmitt played behind arguably the greatest offensive line in NFL history, had a hall of fame QB, had a hall of fame WR, and does anyone remember Moose Johnson??????? Emmitt was a durable, talented player who's hall of fame career was produced by being in the right place at the right time.

Barry created. He came into the league a year earlier than Emmitt and retired 6 years before Emmitt did. Total TD's and Total Rushing Yards don't tell the story. Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, and Erik Dickerson are the only guys I think belong in the same conversation with Barry. And yes, I intentionally left out Walter Payton. He was great, but he's not on the same plane as these guys.

[Nomad]

Barry was far, far better than Emmitt. Emmitt played behind arguably the greatest offensive line in NFL history, had a hall of fame QB, had a hall of fame WR, and does anyone remember Moose Johnson??????? Emmitt was a durable, talented player who's hall of fame career was produced by being in the right place at the right time.

Barry created. He came into the league a year earlier than Emmitt and retired 6 years before Emmitt did. Total TD's and Total Rushing Yards don't tell the story. Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, and Erik Dickerson are the only guys I think belong in the same conversation with Barry. And yes, I intentionally left out Walter Payton. He was great, but he's not on the same plane as these guys.


I believe a stud FB could make a big difference as well as a solid oline to the BRONCOS!

[BOSSHOGG30]

Denver needs a running back that pushes the pile and keeps the chains moving. Give me Stewart or Mendenhall and I guarantee you that Denver's red zone offense improves. At the very least we need a guy like Forte or Ellis in the later rounds or a true blocking full back.

[lex]

Yes, he did excel without an offensive line; the Lions even got a wild card or two before his HoF career ended, though I can't recall them ever WINNING a playoff game. I DO recall him gaining a total of -52 yards in two regular season games against the '96 Packers; one wonders if a decent line would've changed that (but this one doesn't wonder much; that was pretty much the same Pack Dallas beat in the previous NFC Championship. ) But Barry was VERY good, probably as good as Emmit or as close as makes no difference. Except there is a difference: Three Super Bowl Rings.

Yeah, I remember Dallas winning with Testaverde; Vinny wasn't a bad QB in his prime, but it was hard to complete passes in Tampa because refs have this annoying habit of blowing the whistle after you're sacked. The main thing that hurt them when Emmit held out was they were trying to compensate for Alvin Harpers departure by doing things like letting Deion be their #2 WR; double cover Irvin and Novacek and they don't have Emmit: Now what, Dallas...? Emmits backups didn't do too badly at all, but all of his linemen save Larry Allen had left town by the time they were starting regularly. Most of them did just fine behind the Super Bowl lines, but Emmit wasn't hurt much, and who's gonna bench him...?

But I did bring up Barry for the same reason I brought up Emmit: I don't see much difference between them (Barry was a little more elusive, but I think Emmit had a little more raw power. ) There's a BIG difference in their post season performances though, mainly in that Barry, as great as he was, didn't have many.

I actually meant to say Bernie Kosar and not Vinnie. But what youre missing is that Barry Sanders still gained as many yards as Emmitt, yet you are suggesting they didnt win SBs because they had an inferior OLine. Detroits Oline may not have been as good as Dallas' but they didnt not win SBs for lack of a running game. Dallas also had the better QB and the better defense. Yeah, the OLine probably makes a greater difference in the post season but Ill also point out something more relevant to this discussion which was Denvers OLines in the 97 and 98 seasons, none of which had first round picks.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Please tell me if I'm mistaken; but we never start rookies, and the majority here believes we are in the need or looking for a LEFT TACKLE. Not a guard, center, or RT. LEFT.

I don't think Shanny drafts a LT in the 1st round. You might be able to convince me if it was a guard, center, or RT, but LEFT? I don't think so.

[r8rh8r]

I actually meant to say Bernie Kosar and not Vinnie. But what youre missing is that Barry Sanders still gained as many yards as Emmitt, yet you are suggesting they didnt win SBs because they had an inferior OLine. Detroits Oline may not have been as good as Dallas' but they didnt not win SBs for lack of a running game. Dallas also had the better QB and the better defense. Yeah, the OLine probably makes a greater difference in the post season but Ill also point out something more relevant to this discussion which was Denvers OLines in the 97 and 98 seasons, none of which had first round picks.

That Cowboy's team, top to bottom, is perhaps the greatest ever. They were absolutely stacked at every position. Nasty, nasty team. I hate the Cowboys!

Detroit didn't win Super Bowls because, yes, they didn't have an O-Line. They also didn't have a QB or a defense. Sanders made a sub-500 team into a playoff contender many times.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that any player available this year or perhaps ever again is capable of making that kind of an impact. Barry Sanders was an inhuman, once-in-a-generation kind of talent. Comparing any RB today to Sanders is like trying to compare Kobe Bryant to Michael Jordan. Kobe is a great player--hall of fame even--but he dwarfs in comparison to MJ. Its not that Kobes bad, its just that MJ was that good.

[Nomad]

Please tell me if I'm mistaken; but we never start rookies, and the majority here believes we are in the need or looking for a LEFT TACKLE. Not a guard, center, or RT. LEFT.

I don't think Shanny drafts a LT in the 1st round. You might be able to convince me if it was a guard, center, or RT, but LEFT? I don't think so.

He doesn't draft RBs either! Though all this talk of the offense, like a previous poster said in this thread I will not be surprised if Shanny doesn't draft defense, besides that's his MO!

[BOSSHOGG30]

He doesn't draft RBs either! Though all this talk of the offense, like a previous poster said in this thread I will not be surprised if Shanny doesn't draft defense, besides that's his MO!

You are right, he hasn't, but there has been a couple years he has clearly stated that he would of drafted a running back in the 1st round had that player been available when they picked.

Bobby Turner has to be craving a true talent at running back.

[lex]

That Cowboy's team, top to bottom, is perhaps the greatest ever. They were absolutely stacked at every position. Nasty, nasty team. I hate the Cowboys!

Detroit didn't win Super Bowls because, yes, they didn't have an O-Line. They also didn't have a QB or a defense. Sanders made a sub-500 team into a playoff contender many times.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that any player available this year or perhaps ever again is capable of making that kind of an impact. Barry Sanders was an inhuman, once-in-a-generation kind of talent. Comparing any RB today to Sanders is like trying to compare Kobe Bryant to Michael Jordan. Kobe is a great player--hall of fame even--but he dwarfs in comparison to MJ. Its not that Kobes bad, its just that MJ was that good.

OK, but this is actually an argument for the kind of an impact a great back can make. The guy is torpedoing his own argument by referring to Sanders. Youre right about Sanders but it becomes a matter of degree. A quality running back doesnt need to be Barry Sanders to make a difference.

[BOSSHOGG30]

JMO, but you need solid QB play, a good defense, and a solid running game to win the big one.

QB- looking promising with Jay Cutler
Defense - ? working it, DT, S, and some more experience for our young guys should do it
Running game - ? need a back to compliment Young's outside run ability and can take over Henry as Henry starts his fade out of the league do to his age and inability to stay healthy. Also, much like our young defensive line, we need our young offensive line to gain more experience and it wouldn't hurt to add some depth.

[Nature Boy]

That's not what the author says at all. Here is the data:
http://rockymountainfever.net/graph2.png

The "spike" he's talking about shows that 5th runningbacks taken have a 10% chance of attending 1 pro bowl. They have a 0% chance of playing in 3. The first runningback taken has a 40% chance of playing in 1 pro bowl, a 25% chance of playing in 2 pro bowls, and a 20% chance of playing in 3.

It pays to look at the data rather than fishing for one out-of-context quote to try and defeat a well-supported argument.


Dude, you chose to look at the wrong chart. I was not talking about likely hood of PB selected by round but likely hood of PB selected by order and there is a huge spike up for the 5th RB taken. The 5th RB taken in any draft any year is most likely to be way out of the 1st round.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_ksxjg7CFQxA/SAtyUXQElXI/AAAAAAAACuM/FcjU00KF6Rk/s1600/graph.png



exact quote from the author:

"I wouldn't read too much into the spike at the 5th RB taken. It's likely just a statistical quirk, but it might be one reason why many experts believe that later round RBs are as good as early round picks." -from the author


The author just very recently added this edit within the last 24 hrs:

"[Edit: Some have asked why I brushed off the spike of Pro Bowls at the 5th RB taken as a quirk. If we analyze enough draft picks for various positions, as I'm in the process of doing, we're bound to see a significant bunching like this by chance once or twice. The graph is relatively continuous except in one place, where there is a depressed result at the 4th and 6th pick and the spike at the 5th. What is likely at work is that positive results in the 5th pick "bin" have randomly "stolen" positive results from the 4th and 6th bin. There were 20 RBs taken as the 5th RB in the data set, so it would only take 2 or 3 RBs who would otherwise have been the 4th or 6th pick to be bunched into the 5th pick to give us this result. Unless we had a reason to believe there is some special quality about the 5th RB taken before seeing the results, we should not interpret the data to say there is something magical about being the 5th RB taken.]" -quoted straight from the page


I don't buy into his explanation of the spike up for the 5th RB selected as he simply puts it, "stolen from the 4th or 6th". If the data is shady or flawed data for that position only, the 5th RB. I would have to question the data for his whole chart and article in general.

I don't know about you R8rh8r, but what got from his data is every year, there is a gem or 2 of a running back sitting somewhere in the middle rounds. The same can be said about any and all position but it holds especially true for RBs. And I attribute that to the circumstances, system or the situation that RB played under in college. You'll more likely get a "bust" from a high profile RB than you would a high profile OT coming out of college, IMHO.

[BOSSHOGG30]

You'll more likely get a "bust" from a high profile RB than you would a high profile OT coming out of college, IMHO.

Might have something to do with the fact there is only 32 NFL teams.

Every team needs at least one running back. 32 jobs open for business... if you can't win one of these 32 jobs and you are a 1st round back you are a bust.

Again, 32 NFL teams

Every team needs at least 5 offensive linemen. At least 160 starting jobs available. If you are a 1st round OL and can't win one of these jobs you are considered a bust.

[DenBronx]

its funny how neil, lepsis and now nalen next year are all gone or going to be gone and our running game has lost its touch. not only is it the scheme but its getting the right kind of tackles or guards to fit the scheme. i think we can take an average back like olandis gary or one of the bells and it make them look good if our o-line is fixed. right now im not sold on the guys we have...plain and simple.

[lex]

Its amazing how some can complain about the bust rate of RBs and then turn around and completely torpedo their own argument by pointing out Denver makes average backs look good. If youre going with the argument that average running backs look good in Denver, what are the chances of a 11st round talent being a bust in Denver. If any scrub can look good in Denver, a RB in the first is the safest because it is most assured to have an impact.

[Nature Boy]

Might have something to do with the fact there is only 32 NFL teams.

Every team needs at least one running back. 32 jobs open for business... if you can't win one of these 32 jobs and you are a 1st round back you are a bust.

Again, 32 NFL teams

Every team needs at least 5 offensive linemen. At least 160 starting jobs available. If you are a 1st round OL and can't win one of these jobs you are considered a bust.

That is true in that the OT can easily switch to G if he can't cut it. But there are also 5 times as many O-linemen drafted as well. So there is 800 guys trying to land those 160 positions.

None the less, it does not disprove my theory that you'll get a "bust" at RB before you'll get a "bust" at OT. Hence, back to the point of this thread and the topic of concern lately on this board, that is why we should address the OT position before we think about the RB position with the #12.

[BOSSHOGG30]

That is true in that the OT can easily switch to G if he can't cut it. But there are also 5 times as many O-linemen drafted as well. So there is 800 guys trying to land those 160 positions.

None the less, it does not disprove my theory that you'll get a "bust" at RB before you'll get a "bust" at OT. Hence, back to the point of this thread and the topic of concern lately on this board, that is why we should address the OT position before we think about the RB position with the #12.

We are talking about 1st round RB and OL

This is typically why you can afford to draft OL in the 3rd -7th rounds because they are a lot more OL with experience and athletic ability. You have a bigger crop to pick from.... However you don't have that luxury with RB's because there are less of them to evaluate and pick from.

[Nature Boy]

We are talking about 1st round RB and OL

This is typically why you can afford to draft OL in the 3rd -7th rounds because they are a lot more OL with experience and athletic ability. You have a bigger crop to pick from.... However you don't have that luxury with RB's because there are less of them to evaluate and pick from.

Is that why good RBs are a dime a dozen while good OTs are not?

[Nature Boy]

We are talking about 1st round RB and OL

This is typically why you can afford to draft OL in the 3rd -7th rounds because they are a lot more OL with experience and athletic ability. You have a bigger crop to pick from.... However you don't have that luxury with RB's because there are less of them to evaluate and pick from.


I'm telling you the chicken is red and you're telling me the chicken has feathers. So what?

None the less, it does not disprove my theory that you'll get a "bust" at RB before you'll get a "bust" at OT. - quoting myself from post above.

We need more help at the O-line more than we need at RB. RBs are a dime a dozen while OTs are not.

[Nature Boy]

its funny how neil, lepsis and now nalen next year are all gone or going to be gone and our running game has lost its touch. not only is it the scheme but its getting the right kind of tackles or guards to fit the scheme. i think we can take an average back like olandis gary or one of the bells and it make them look good if our o-line is fixed. right now im not sold on the guys we have...plain and simple.


I totally agree. Don't you BossHogg30?

[BOSSHOGG30]

I totally agree. Don't you BossHogg30?

lol, Lex and his typo's:D:beer:

There are plenty of quality offensive linemen in the later rounds... you don't have too many chances, especially in Denver to select a top of the line RB. We are normally working the draft from 20 on back and they just won't be there. OL can be worked all draft long... and I hope we take that approach come draft day.

[r8rh8r]

Dude, you chose to look at the wrong chart. I was not talking about likely hood of PB selected by round but likely hood of PB selected by order and there is a huge spike up for the 5th RB taken. The 5th RB taken in any draft any year is most likely to be way out of the 1st round.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_ksxjg7CFQxA/SAtyUXQElXI/AAAAAAAACuM/FcjU00KF6Rk/s1600/graph.png



exact quote from the author:

"I wouldn't read too much into the spike at the 5th RB taken. It's likely just a statistical quirk, but it might be one reason why many experts believe that later round RBs are as good as early round picks." -from the author


The author just very recently added this edit within the last 24 hrs:

"[Edit: Some have asked why I brushed off the spike of Pro Bowls at the 5th RB taken as a quirk. If we analyze enough draft picks for various positions, as I'm in the process of doing, we're bound to see a significant bunching like this by chance once or twice. The graph is relatively continuous except in one place, where there is a depressed result at the 4th and 6th pick and the spike at the 5th. What is likely at work is that positive results in the 5th pick "bin" have randomly "stolen" positive results from the 4th and 6th bin. There were 20 RBs taken as the 5th RB in the data set, so it would only take 2 or 3 RBs who would otherwise have been the 4th or 6th pick to be bunched into the 5th pick to give us this result. Unless we had a reason to believe there is some special quality about the 5th RB taken before seeing the results, we should not interpret the data to say there is something magical about being the 5th RB taken.]" -quoted straight from the page


I don't buy into his explanation of the spike up for the 5th RB selected as he simply puts it, "stolen from the 4th or 6th". If the data is shady or flawed data for that position only, the 5th RB. I would have to question the data for his whole chart and article in general.

I don't know about you R8rh8r, but what got from his data is every year, there is a gem or 2 of a running back sitting somewhere in the middle rounds. The same can be said about any and all position but it holds especially true for RBs. And I attribute that to the circumstances, system or the situation that RB played under in college. You'll more likely get a "bust" from a high profile RB than you would a high profile OT coming out of college, IMHO.

So you're saying that because there is a spike at RB in data that is otherwise continuously downward sloping that, therefore, its best to try and take the 5th running back in the draft? I'm not sure there are many econometricians out there who would agree with that methodology. This type of bundling of data isn't atypical and isn't necessarily revealing. What is revealing is the pronounced, downward-sloping nature of the data.

How can you say definitively that an OT has less of a chance of busting than a running back? Is that just a "gut" feeling?

Here's the facts: 90% of offensive lineman drafted in the first round (41 total) in the last 10 years have become starters for an NFL team; however, only 15% of these have gone on to become elite NFL talents. Of these, all but Walter Jones (was was taken after Orlando Pace) was the top tackle taken in their respective draft.

Just shy of 60% of Running backs drafted over the same span have become solid starters; however, we've already seen the pro bowl numbers associated with these picks.

If you are looking for elite talent, running back is much, much safer than tackle in the first round. If you are looking for a guy who can fill out 1 of 5 offensive line positions, you can't go wrong drafting offensive line. But really, this is because of the phenomenon BossHog already pointed out: there are 160 jobs vs. 32 jobs available for these players. Its clear that a player like Lawrence Phillips from Nebraska is a "bust." But what about Robert Gallery? At right tackle, he's hardly playing up to his draft stock, but he is a "starter."

The fact that offensive lineman are so much harder to miss with isn't endemic of the first round. Its endemic of the whole draft. You have a much higher probability of drafting a starter at tackle in round 5 than at running back. In the case of running back, their success probability is highest in round one by the biggest margin.

Saying that its hard to miss with a tackle is an argument against taking the 3rd or 4th tackle at #12 not for it!

[lex]

I totally agree. Don't you BossHogg30?

Why dont you try reconciling your contradictory argument.

[r8rh8r]

Its amazing how some can complain about the bust rate of RBs and then turn around and completely torpedo their own argument by pointing out Denver makes average backs look good. If youre going with the argument that average running backs look good in Denver, what are the chances of a 11st round talent being a bust in Denver. If any scrub can look good in Denver, a RB in the first is the safest because it is most assured to have an impact.

Saying that Shanahan has a knack for doing more with less isn't a gleaming flaw in the "take a running back at #12" argument. I happen to agree that Shanahan has been able to do more with less. Nevertheless, I think there are some distinctive talents who are a good fit for our system available at the top of the draft, and that Shanahan should take a hard look at them.

The person who argues that Shanahan made something out of nothing with Olandis Gary isn't going to sit here and tell you San Diego did the same thing with Ladanian Tomlinson. Talent matters regardless of who the coach is.

[lex]

Saying that Shanahan has a knack for doing more with less isn't a gleaming flaw in the "take a running back at #12" argument. I happen to agree that Shanahan has been able to do more with less. Nevertheless, I think there are some distinctive talents who are a good fit for our system available at the top of the draft, and that Shanahan should take a hard look at them.

The person who argues that Shanahan made something out of nothing with Olandis Gary isn't going to sit here and tell you San Diego did the same thing with Ladanian Tomlinson. Talent matters regardless of who the coach is.

I agree. Just so Im clear on what I was saying in what youre quoting, pointing to the more with less is actually an argument for why Shanahan should go for an elite talent at RB...it maximizes what we do best...its the safest for the precise reason that if Mike Anderson can do well, what are the chances a first round talent will fail. Agreed, more with less shouldnt preclude him from taking a RB, especially when thats where the value is.

[turftoad]

Battles are won and lost in the trench's.

Thats all.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Battles are won and lost in the trench's.

Thats all.

Yeah, we all know that.... I haven't seen one post that says we don't need or shouldn't draft OL or DL. This argument is all about the 12th overall pick. You can build the trenches from the 2nd round on and do just fine. A statement like the one you posted would be a great one if someone actually said we don't need OL, but I have yet to see that.

The people arguing OL in the first and the getting pissy saying they will throw their remotes through their TV and all that kind of nonsense are pretty much saying that if we don't go OL with the 12th overall pick we are not only stupid but doomed as well as Cutler and the rest of the offense........That is just absurd and crazy talk. The OL talent in this draft is great and there is so many guys to pick from that your team will be just fine taking some of these guys in the 2nd round and later. We probably need more than one guy on the OL anyways. Why not fix the RB position now that we have such a high pick and stack up on OL and DL throughout the rest of the draft?

[Nature Boy]

Why dont you try reconciling your contradictory argument.

I misread your post. It was misleading as I thought you were pro-O-Lineman til the very end where I over looked. Hi-5 removed and quote edited. :welcome:
You're in the same short bus as the guys who wanna draft a RB w/ the #12 with a broken down line.

Drafting a RB before fixing the O-Line is like buying a new Porche before while your 40 year old roof has a gaping hole.

[BOSSHOGG30]

I misread your post. It was misleading as I thought you were pro-O-Lineman til the very end where I over looked. Hi-5 removed and quote edited. :welcome:
You're in the same short bus as the guys who wanna draft a RB w/ the #12 with a broken down line.

Drafting a RB before fixing the O-Line is like buying a new Porche before while your 40 year old roof has a gaping hole.

Drafting the 3rd/4th/5th best OT with the 12th overall pick is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

[Nature Boy]

Battles are won and lost in the trench's.

Thats all.

Yea, what he said.:coffee:

[r8rh8r]

I misread your post. It was misleading as I thought you were pro-O-Lineman til the very end where I over looked. Hi-5 removed and quote edited. :welcome:
You're in the same short bus as the guys who wanna draft a RB w/ the #12 with a broken down line.

Drafting a RB before fixing the O-Line is like buying a new Porche before while your 40 year old roof has a gaping hole.

More like choosing whether you want a new roof with a 5-year guarantee and a new Porsche, a new roof with a 10-year guarantee and Taurus, or a new 15-year roof that will continue to protect your heavily-used Jaguar that is constantly in the shop.

[lex]

I misread your post. It was misleading as I thought you were pro-O-Lineman til the very end where I over looked. Hi-5 removed and quote edited. :welcome:
You're in the same short bus as the guys who wanna draft a RB w/ the #12 with a broken down line.

Drafting a RB before fixing the O-Line is like buying a new Porche before while your 40 year old roof has a gaping hole.

Your posts are full of ironies and contradictions. In the very same post where
you admit that your reading comprehension sucks, you actually accuse someone else of being on the short bus. LOLlerskates. :lol:

[Nature Boy]

So you're saying that because there is a spike at RB in data that is otherwise continuously downward sloping that, therefore, its best to try and take the 5th running back in the draft? I'm not sure there are many econometricians out there who would agree with that methodology. This type of bundling of data isn't atypical and isn't necessarily revealing. What is revealing is the pronounced, downward-sloping nature of the data.

It's your data. I'm just reading it as it is. Of course the 1st round RBs will produce (they better), but roughly say, the 5th RB tends to do just as well, according to your data. This tells me great RBs can be had in the later rounds, not just the 1st; same can be said about O-lineman or any position, but we all know that, don't want you point that out on your next irrelevant rebuttal. And let's not just discount your own data and call it a fluke.



How can you say definitively that an OT has less of a chance of busting than a running back? Is that just a "gut" feeling?

It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. There are a lot more high profile RBs that don't make an impact or "bust" straight out, where as an OT as we're agreeing to, is versatile and can play one position or another. This only adds to the value of drafting a OT 1st before drafting a RB.


Here's the facts: 90% of offensive lineman drafted in the first round (41 total) in the last 10 years have become starters for an NFL team; however, only 15% of these have gone on to become elite NFL talents. Of these, all but Walter Jones (was was taken after Orlando Pace) was the top tackle taken in their respective draft.

Just shy of 60% of Running backs drafted over the same span have become solid starters; however, we've already seen the pro bowl numbers associated with these picks.

90% of O-lineman became starters. How many are solid starters? Why are all 90% not solid starters? how were you able to distinguish solid starting RBs but not "solid starting" O-lineman? That is a very vague and shady point there.

Then 60% of 1st rd RBs became "solid starters" but what percentage of the "solid starting" RBs became pro-bowlers? better than 15%? I bet you not and your chart does not say that and don't tell me there are more O-line positions because there are 5x more O-lineman as well. So, once again, another very vague self serving point.


If you are looking for elite talent, running back is much, much safer than tackle in the first round. If you are looking for a guy who can fill out 1 of 5 offensive line positions, you can't go wrong drafting offensive line. But really, this is because of the phenomenon BossHog already pointed out: there are 160 jobs vs. 32 jobs available for these players. Its clear that a player like Lawrence Phillips from Nebraska is a "bust." But what about Robert Gallery? At right tackle, he's hardly playing up to his draft stock, but he is a "starter."

This point already covered above, but here's the nitty gritty. The Broncos missed the playoffs 2 years in a row, not cause of a lack of a good RB but a lack of a good Offensive line. After Tom Nalen leaves, Ben Hamilton will be the only lineman left from the 2005, 13-3 team and even Hamilton is questionable since he didn't play all last season.



The fact that offensive lineman are so much harder to miss with isn't endemic of the first round. Its endemic of the whole draft. You have a much higher probability of drafting a starter at tackle in round 5 than at running back. In the case of running back, their success probability is highest in round one by the biggest margin.

Saying that its hard to miss with a tackle is an argument against taking the 3rd or 4th tackle at #12 not for it!

More repeating, You are more likely to get a "bust" with a RB then you are with a OT in the 1st round. And it only helps my argument that the OT is most versatile, able to play multiple positions, making it the safer pick.

[r8rh8r]

You are more than twice as likely to get an elite, pro bowl caliber player drafting a running back in round 1 than an offensive lineman. An offensive lineman taken in round 5 has a far, far better chance of being a starter than a running back taken 2 round earlier.

True, running backs are more boom or bust, but the "boom" probability is a lot bigger. Serviceable talent at O-Line is available on day 2 (e.g. Matt Lepsis and Tom Nalen), particularly in Denver's zone blocking scheme which places a premium on athletic traits that most of the rest of the league scoffs at. If spending a 1st rounder on a tackle is a panacea for our woes on the offensive line, what the hell happened with George Foster?

Just because you pay a guy 12th-pick money doesn't mean he's an instant upgrade. In fact, given that most rookies sign a 3-year deal and that it takes at least a year to get an O-Lineman up to speed in the ZBS, you might only get a year or two of production out of a guy before he splits town even if he is great.

A great running back steps in and produces right away. Of all positions, running back is the most NFL ready. These guys window of opportunity to produce at a high level starts early and ends in 3-7 years. Did Portis and TD watch from the sideline for a year or two?

[Nature Boy]

More like choosing whether you want a new roof with a 5-year guarantee and a new Porsche, a new roof with a 10-year guarantee and Taurus, or a new 15-year roof that will continue to protect your heavily-used Jaguar that is constantly in the shop.

Here's the irony, no roof has a warranty of less than 20 years that I know of. And if there is, why would you want to buy it? Labor on a roof cost more than the roofing material.

And should you choose to get the 5yr roof, you can kiss your new Porche bye bye as it'll likely collapse on your Porche. Or kiss your 1st round RB bye bye as he'll likely get his wheels broken 1st season out.

And don't forget that Travis Henry is that Porche we speaking of, just that he's been around the track more than once, he's knows every corner, bump and turn and he'll be tuned up anew again and ready to roll.

[BOSSHOGG30]

You are more than twice as likely to get an elite, pro bowl caliber player drafting a running back in round 1 than an offensive lineman. An offensive lineman taken in round 5 has a far, far better chance of being a starter than a running back taken 2 round earlier.

True, running backs are more boom or bust, but the "boom" probability is a lot bigger. Serviceable talent at O-Line is available on day 2 (e.g. Matt Lepsis and Tom Nalen), particularly in Denver's zone blocking scheme which places a premium on athletic traits that most of the rest of the league scoffs at. If spending a 1st rounder on a tackle is a panacea for our woes on the offensive line, what the hell happened with George Foster?

Just because you pay a guy 12th-pick money doesn't mean he's an instant upgrade. In fact, given that most rookies sign a 3-year deal and that it takes at least a year to get an O-Lineman up to speed in the ZBS, you might only get a year or two of production out of a guy before he splits town even if he is great.

A great running back steps in and produces right away. Of all positions, running back is the most NFL ready. These guys window of opportunity to produce at a high level starts early and ends in 3-7 years. Did Portis and TD watch from the sideline for a year or two?

Foster sucked at Georgia.....As a Georgia fan I tried to tell a few guys that Foster sucked, but no one listened. It happened again last year when I tried to tell everyone that Charles Johnson was over-rated, yet there were a lot of people who wanted to take him in the 1st round...not that Moss has proven to be better (I didn't want Moss either)

[underrated29]

The whole issue is this:

1. We dont need a LT we have 3 potential LT's (kupes,harris, pears.)
2. We need a RT with only pears and...someone else to fill in.
3. Whether we draft a LT or a RT, he most likely will not start at all this year. (well maybe the RT cuz pears isnt that great.)

4. RT is not a position in thsi draft you take at #12.

We want to win now, we want to turn this franchise around, Using a #1 pick, 12 overall on a player who most likely wont crack the starting lineup right away is IMO foolish. Especially when a player just slightly less talented than him can be had almost 30 picks later.

Get an impact player who can start from day 1 now, and watch how much better he makes the line and the offense look.

If rb can score on even 7/10 trips to the redzone our whole team and offense changes and suddenly teams wont be running on us, and they wont be gunning after jay....and we will probably be running down the clock and abusing the defense with our tank! (stew/mend <--More like a HUM V than a tank.)

[BOSSHOGG30]

Here's the irony, no roof has a warranty of less than 20 years that I know of. And if there is, why would you want to buy it? Labor on a roof cost more than the roofing material.

And should you choose to get the 5yr roof, you can kiss your new Porche bye bye as it'll likely collapse on your Porche. Or kiss your 1st round RB bye bye as he'll likely get his wheels broken 1st season out.

And don't forget that Travis Henry is that Porche just that he's been around the track more than once, he's knows every corner, bump and turn and he'll be tuned up anew again and ready to roll.


All of these teams, At least 10 went to the playoffs, and the Giants as we all know won the Super Bowl, are so screwed then because the roof will start caving in on their porche:

Starting NFL LT 2007 (non 1st rounders)

Patriots, Matt Light- 2nd round
Colts, Tony Ugoh- 2nd round
Jaguars, Khalif Barnes- 2nd round
Chargers, Marcus McNeill- 2nd round
Steelers, Marvel Smith- 2nd round
Titans, Michael Roos- 2nd round
Cowboys, Flozell Adams- 2nd round
Buccaneers, Luke Petitgout - 2nd round
Packers, Chad Clifton - 2nd round
Panthers, Travelle Wharton - 3rd round
Chiefs, Damion McIntosh - 3rd round
Cardinals, Mike Gandy - 3rd round
49ers, Adam Snyder - 3rd round
Giants, David Diehl- 5th round
Texans, Ephraim Salaam - 7th round
Broncos, Matt Lepsis - undrafted free agent
Raiders, Barry Sims - undrafted free agent
Bills, Jason Peters - undrafted free agent

[turftoad]

The whole issue is this:

1. We dont need a LT we have 3 potential LT's (kupes,harris, pears.)
2. We need a RT with only pears and...someone else to fill in.
3. Whether we draft a LT or a RT, he most likely will not start at all this year. (well maybe the RT cuz pears isnt that great.)

4. RT is not a position in thsi draft you take at #12.

We want to win now, we want to turn this franchise around, Using a #1 pick, 12 overall on a player who most likely wont crack the starting lineup right away is IMO foolish. Especially when a player just slightly less talented than him can be had almost 30 picks later.

Get an impact player who can start from day 1 now, and watch how much better he makes the line and the offense look.

If rb can score on even 7/10 trips to the redzone our whole team and offense changes and suddenly teams wont be running on us, and they wont be gunning after jay....and we will probably be running down the clock and abusing the defense with our tank! (stew/mend <--More like a HUM V than a tank.)

If we draft a OLT with the #12 overall, he'll start.

[r8rh8r]

If we draft a OLT with the #12 overall, he'll start.

We drafted the future at left tackle last year, his name is Ryan Harris.

[BOSSHOGG30]

If we draft a OLT with the #12 overall, he'll start.

That makes me feel really good!:tsk:

But I do agree... It would be pretty bad if we drafted a guy at #12 overall if he didn't get the nod

[Nature Boy]

Get an impact player who can start from day 1 now, and watch how much better he makes the line and the offense look.

If rb can score on even 7/10 trips to the redzone our whole team and offense changes and suddenly teams wont be running on us, and they wont be gunning after jay....and we will probably be running down the clock and abusing the defense with our tank! (stew/mend <--More like a HUM V than a tank.)


This is funny. That RB wont score 4/10 trips to the red zone with a broken line which was the case 2 years in a row now. The running game does not start from the RB but from the line. And when we can't move that ball thru the ground, the opposing DEs will have a field day as there are no OTs to protect Jay's front and rear. Jake Plummer was chased out of town cause he had no protection, let's not put Jay in the same situation.

Everyone knows it, Mike Shanahan will not be drafting a RB with the #12 so it's irrelevant to even talk about it. I am done with this discussion.

[Nature Boy]

If we draft a OLT with the #12 overall, he'll start.

I agree, as lousy as George Foster was, he started since day one, if my memory serves me correct.

[BOSSHOGG30]

This is funny. That RB wont score 3/10 trips to the red zone with a broken line which was the case 2 years in a row now. The running game does not start from the RB but from the line. And when we can't move that ball thru the ground, the opposing DEs will have a field day as there are no OTs to protect Jay's front and rear. Jake Plummer was chased out of town cause he had no protection, let's not put Jay in the same situation.

Everyone knows it, Mike Shanahan will not be drafting a RB with the #12 so it's irrelevant to even talk about it. I am done with this discussion.

If you are right... which you probably are because even though I want a running back I think all pre draft signs point in the direction of a OL taken with the #12 overall pick..... after all we only have two natural position tackles on our current roster.....but if you are right I hope we stay away form Ryan Clady, I've seen too much of him to like him. The potential is there, just like George Foster, but the kid is dumb as bricks and struggles against better players when he wasn't smacking the little boys in his conference.

God please don't allow the Broncos to draft another George Foster... it just isn't right. :tsk:

[underrated29]

I believe, mike bell had no problem two years ago, nor did cecil sapp. Mike anderson as i recall didnt have that problem either...3 years ago?

If i am not mistake the only difference on the line is that foster is not here anymore as we replaced him with holland, and pears moved to rt.

Last year mbell who isnt a tank, did well with a HEALTHY nalen,hammy,lepsis,..who am i forgetting?

Point is almost the exact same line was together then and we did ok. Same line- maybe an improvement with our young guys and definitley an improvement over lepsis this year with kupes or harris and then you throw in a tank. A guy who is stronger than bell, and weighs almost 20 lbs more wont get in 3/10 times....no, i dont agree.

A big pounder will get those stupid 3-5 yards we couldnt before.

I am no physics major, but something about the law of enertia and bodies of mass in motion when colliding makes me think that the 235 lb tank at full speed can plow a 265?lb Linebacker back for a few yards at half or no speed.

[BOSSHOGG30]

This is funny. That RB wont score 4/10 trips to the red zone with a broken line which was the case 2 years in a row now. The running game does not start from the RB but from the line. And when we can't move that ball thru the ground, the opposing DEs will have a field day as there are no OTs to protect Jay's front and rear. Jake Plummer was chased out of town cause he had no protection, let's not put Jay in the same situation.

Everyone knows it, Mike Shanahan will not be drafting a RB with the #12 so it's irrelevant to even talk about it. I am done with this discussion.

So red zone is the only stat you want to look at... funny how you just throw away info like 11th overall offense, and 9th overall in rushing offense, yet we didn't have a 1,000 rusher.

If I was looking at that I would normally say, well the running backs didn't score touchdown, they didn't get 1,000 yards, yet the offense as a whole had the 9th overall rushing attack in the NFL without a scrambling QB, so that offensive line must of been doing something right.............BUT NO...glad you point out the red zone offense because, here I am thinking turnovers, play calling, and the lack of a power running attack when the big dogs get called in to stack the line of scrimmage was the main reason we had low rushing TD numbers. :tsk:

[lex]

This is funny. That RB wont score 4/10 trips to the red zone with a broken line which was the case 2 years in a row now. The running game does not start from the RB but from the line. And when we can't move that ball thru the ground, the opposing DEs will have a field day as there are no OTs to protect Jay's front and rear. Jake Plummer was chased out of town cause he had no protection, let's not put Jay in the same situation.

Everyone knows it, Mike Shanahan will not be drafting a RB with the #12 so it's irrelevant to even talk about it. I am done with this discussion.

Half-baked and done are not the same thing.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Seems like the Broncos are going through this same thought process. McShay is saying if Williams isn't at #12; there's a good chance the Broncos take Stewart. Either would make me happy.

[lex]

Seems like the Broncos are going through this same thought process. McShay is saying if Williams isn't at #12; there's a good chance the Broncos take Stewart. Either would make me happy.


Like I pointed out over at the Mane, since when does Denver reveal their priority list? E!SPN is the same outfit that reported us trading up to 10 so we could take Willis last year on the Friday before the draft.

[Nature Boy]

I believe, mike bell had no problem two years ago, nor did cecil sapp. Mike anderson as i recall didnt have that problem either...3 years ago?

Last year mbell who isnt a tank, did well with a HEALTHY nalen,hammy,lepsis,..who am i forgetting?

Point is almost the exact same line was together then and we did ok. Same line- maybe an improvement with our young guys and definitley an improvement over lepsis this year with kupes or harris and then you throw in a tank. A guy who is stronger than bell, and weighs almost 20 lbs more wont get in 3/10 times....no, i dont agree.

A big pounder will get those stupid 3-5 yards we couldnt before.

I am no physics major, but something about the law of enertia and bodies of mass in motion when colliding makes me think that the 235 lb tank at full speed can plow a 265?lb Linebacker back for a few yards at half or no speed.

No one is talking about 3 years ago when we went 13-3. We were average in 2006 but was horrible in 2007.

http://rockymountainfever.net/RunMetrics.jpg

R8rh8r posted this in the thread he started. I don't know how accurate it is but I'll take it as is.


So red zone is the only stat you want to look at...

Is red zone the only thing I look at? No, but it's the most important. Underrated29 brought up red zone offense. and I quoted it below...



If rb can score on even 7/10 trips to the redzone our whole team ...

It's funny how he thinks a #12 RB will improve our red zone efficiency by almost 100% without improving the O-line 1st. If the Broncos or any team for that matter can score a TD on 70% of their visits to the red zone, they are guaranteed a Super Bowl ring. The Broncos are definitely the best team when playing from in mid field between the 20's.

[Nature Boy]

Like I pointed out over at the Mane, since when does Denver reveal their priority list? E!SPN is the same outfit that reported us trading up to 10 so we could take Willis last year on the Friday before the draft.

That is unfortunate we did not get Patrick Willis. The linebacker corps would be scary with Boss, Willis and DJ. Why? Jarvis? why?

[lex]

That is unfortunate we did not get Patrick Willis. The linebacker corps would be scary with Boss, Willis and DJ. Why? Jarvis? why?


Be that as it may, the correct I spoke of was incorrect and its not the first time the worldwide leader has erroneously reported something. Theyre just not reliable. I just cant imagine Denver leaking this.

[Nature Boy]

That is unfortunate we did not get Patrick Willis. The linebacker corps would be scary with Boss, Willis and DJ. Why? Jarvis? why?

O well, we got NIKO Kooties!

[underrated29]

http://rockymountainfever.net/RunMetrics.jpg

It's funny how he thinks a #12 RB will improve our red zone efficiency by almost 100% without improving the O-line 1st. If the Broncos or any team for that matter can score a TD on 70% of their visits to the red zone, they are guaranteed a Super Bowl ring. The Broncos are definitely the best team when playing from in mid field between the 20's.


WHY IS that funny? We dropped from .54 to .49 this last year with 3 of our starters hurt. So .5. The year before we dropped .6- Its still the same line minus lepsis, who was not doing his part. I do see any comedy at all in the fact that the #12 rb who is arguably the #2 back in the draft would not come in and instantly bring in .4% more td to match what we had the year before with the same line.

That would put us back to 12. That is feasable my friend. Getting all the way back to 7 at .6 might be tougher. But remember what TD did for us? or reuben droughns, or mike anderson. Granted those were different teams, but they were good RBs for us and they got the short yard tds.

Maybe i am crazy but i see only on very few occasions, very few would we be inside the 10 or 5 and stewart/mend would not be able to punch it in. And I mean FEW!!!

Thats where most of our problems were, yes inside the 20, but moreso inside the 10 and 5. A man that big will create a whole, he wont need a big one to go through, especially with a healthy line.

[underrated29]

Espn might suck, but i think they are pretty accurate here.

Most of the people here have been saying this for a while if we dont get a shot at wiliams (which look like we will) that stewie is our man.

Honestly, there is almost no way possible for us to mess up our first pick. I like everyone else would be thrilled with either, thats what makes this draft so exciting.

Of course i prefer stewart as if it was not evident, but come on lex, give espn a little break this was an easy call.....or so we think :wink:

[r8rh8r]

I agree, as lousy as George Foster was, he started since day one, if my memory serves me correct.

No, he didn't. Foster saw minutes in the final game of the 2003 season before being handed the starting job in 2004. He lost his job week 14 of 2006 and was traded to Detroit in the offseason. In Detroit, he played 9 games before being benched.

[r8rh8r]

I believe, mike bell had no problem two years ago, nor did cecil sapp. Mike anderson as i recall didnt have that problem either...3 years ago?

If i am not mistake the only difference on the line is that foster is not here anymore as we replaced him with holland, and pears moved to rt.

Last year mbell who isnt a tank, did well with a HEALTHY nalen,hammy,lepsis,..who am i forgetting?

Point is almost the exact same line was together then and we did ok. Same line- maybe an improvement with our young guys and definitley an improvement over lepsis this year with kupes or harris and then you throw in a tank. A guy who is stronger than bell, and weighs almost 20 lbs more wont get in 3/10 times....no, i dont agree.

A big pounder will get those stupid 3-5 yards we couldnt before.

I am no physics major, but something about the law of enertia and bodies of mass in motion when colliding makes me think that the 235 lb tank at full speed can plow a 265?lb Linebacker back for a few yards at half or no speed.

Mike Bell had 156 carries for 677 yards. He was serviceable in the role, but you still need to add a 300-carry back to his production to have an elite running attack.

Mike Anderson's rookie year was a monster year. He had close to 1500 yards and 15 TD's on 300 carries. Four years later he carried the ball 240 times for 1014 yards and 12 TD's. He was a 6th rounder because of his durability problems and some drug concerns. He overcame these twice and put up huge numbers. Anderson was a great find. He also weights 230 lbs, so he could move the pile, unlike anyone on our roster at the moment. Gee, kinda sounds like Travis Henry, doesn't it?

I emphatically agree that a durable halfback who eclipses 225 lbs and plays with a mean streak is a great resource for a team that can't move the chains inside the twenty. Mendenhall is that guy. Stewart is not that guy. There are some other bruisers available in this year's draft class but none are as complete as Mendenhall or a better fit for Denver's scheme than Mendenhall.

[r8rh8r]

That is unfortunate we did not get Patrick Willis. The linebacker corps would be scary with Boss, Willis and DJ. Why? Jarvis? why?

For once I agree with you. Personally, I wanted Reggie Nelson. In hindsight, Willis looks like the best player in the entire draft last year. And that's saying a low given that players like Adrian Peterson also came out of last year's class.

[r8rh8r]

WHY IS that funny? We dropped from .54 to .49 this last year with 3 of our starters hurt. So .5. The year before we dropped .6- Its still the same line minus lepsis, who was not doing his part. I do see any comedy at all in the fact that the #12 rb who is arguably the #2 back in the draft would not come in and instantly bring in .4% more td to match what we had the year before with the same line.

That would put us back to 12. That is feasable my friend. Getting all the way back to 7 at .6 might be tougher. But remember what TD did for us? or reuben droughns, or mike anderson. Granted those were different teams, but they were good RBs for us and they got the short yard tds.

Maybe i am crazy but i see only on very few occasions, very few would we be inside the 10 or 5 and stewart/mend would not be able to punch it in. And I mean FEW!!!

Thats where most of our problems were, yes inside the 20, but moreso inside the 10 and 5. A man that big will create a whole, he wont need a big one to go through, especially with a healthy line.

It helps to have a 35"+ vertical too.

[r8rh8r]

I'm guessing Ted Sundquist is ESPN's source. I don't think that this is necessarily reflective of their present thinking, although it certainly seems plausible. We'll know soon enough.

[DenBronx]

Battles are won and lost in the trench's.

Thats all.

i agree with turf on this one. this is something that has been overlooked and devalued for a long time now. it's time we over look the sexy positions like qb, wr, rb, cb and pay attention to a.) protection /blocking for the qb/rb and b.) run stuffers. as much as you guys whined about warren and myers, they did provide an instant upgrade and was a part of us getting to the afc championship. not the best in the world but our dts flat out suck and im not high on our ot's either. kuper is our savior at lt??? :coffee:

if we land stewart or mendenhall i wont be upset but hope we at least trade for robertson and address lt on the 1st day. we'll see i guess.

[Nature Boy]

WHY IS that funny? We dropped from .54 to .49 this last year with 3 of our starters hurt. So .5. The year before we dropped .6- Its still the same line minus lepsis, who was not doing his part. I do see any comedy at all in the fact that the #12 rb who is arguably the #2 back in the draft would not come in and instantly bring in .4% more td to match what we had the year before with the same line.

That would put us back to 12. That is feasable my friend. Getting all the way back to 7 at .6 might be tougher. But remember what TD did for us? or reuben droughns, or mike anderson. Granted those were different teams, but they were good RBs for us and they got the short yard tds.

Maybe i am crazy but i see only on very few occasions, very few would we be inside the 10 or 5 and stewart/mend would not be able to punch it in. And I mean FEW!!!

Thats where most of our problems were, yes inside the 20, but moreso inside the 10 and 5. A man that big will create a whole, he wont need a big one to go through, especially with a healthy line.

We dropped from .6 to .49 from the 2005 season. I'm lumping the 06 and 07 into 1 as we missed the playoffs for the same reason. Lousy O-line, even lousier defense in 07 and Cutler's 1st 2 seasons.

What I find funny is that Underrated thinks the Broncos red zone offense will jump to .70 efficiency by drafting Stewart or Mendenhall alone with the current lineman in the roster.

[r8rh8r]

We dropped from .6 to .49 from the 2005 season. I'm lumping the 06 and 07 into 1 as we missed the playoffs for the same reason. Lousy O-line, even lousier defense in 07 and Cutler's 1st 2 seasons.

What I find funny is that Underrated thinks the Broncos red zone offense will jump to .70 efficiency by drafting Stewart or Mendenhall alone with the current lineman in the roster.

He may have misspoken event but it's equally foolish to assert that Mendenhall and a pair of 4th through 6th round right tackle/guard prospects can't get us back into the .550+ range. Or, for that matter, that one savior taken at #12 is somehow a panacea for an aging unit.

[Nature Boy]

Mike Anderson's rookie year was a monster year. He had close to 1500 yards and 15 TD's on 300 carries. Four years later he carried the ball 240 times for 1014 yards and 12 TD's. He was a 6th rounder because of his durability problems and some drug concerns. He overcame these twice and put up huge numbers. Anderson was a great find. He also weights 230 lbs, so he could move the pile, unlike anyone on our roster at the moment. Gee, kinda sounds like Travis Henry, doesn't it?



It helped that Mike Anderson ran behind a pretty darn good Offensive line. Dan Neil, Nalen, and Lepsis were in their prime and a few other vets left over from the Elway's crew.

[DenBronx]

It helped that Mike Anderson ran behind a pretty darn good Offensive line. Dan Neil, Nalen, and Lepsis were in their prime and a few other vets left over from the Elway's crew.

that line was beastly!

[Nature Boy]

He may have misspoken event but it's equally foolish to assert that Mendenhall and a pair of 4th through 6th round right tackle/guard prospects can't get us back into the .550+ range. Or, for that matter, that one savior taken at #12 is somehow a panacea for an aging unit.

That O-lineman drafted in the 4th-6th this year will not start. The Broncos will have to seriously address the O-Line before the season starts.

Which would you rather have?

The way it looks now:

Harris LT, Kuper LG, Nalen C, Hamilton RG, Pears LT, and #12 RB

or

Harris LT, Kuper LG, Nalen C, Hamilton RG, #12 Stud LT, and Travis Henry?

I'll take the later. Although LT still looks dreary with 1st year playing Harris, at least Pears is out the lineup.

[Nature Boy]

that line was beastly!

I agree. :salute:

[Ziggy]

That O-lineman drafted in the 4th-6th this year will not start. The Broncos will have to seriously address the O-Line before the season starts.

Which would you rather have?

The way it looks now:

Harris LT, Kuper LG, Nalen C, Hamilton RG, Pears LT, and #12 RB

or

Harris LT, Kuper LG, Nalen C, Hamilton RG, #12 Stud LT, and Travis Henry?

I'll take the later. Although LT still looks dreary with 1st year playing Harris, at least Pears is out the lineup.

I really don't see either of those lineups. I think Kuper starts at one of the tackles, LG is Hamilton and RG is Holland.

[Nature Boy]

I really don't see either of those lineups. I think Kuper starts at one of the tackles, LG is Hamilton and RG is Holland.


Kuper can have the LT spot if he wins it. May the better player play.

[r8rh8r]

I liked that line but I thought Dan Niel sucked. Every time we played the Colts, he made mental mistake after mental mistake after mental mistake....

Of course, he wasn't the one who failed to touch Marvin Harrison down resulting in the most embarrassing touchdown ever.

[Nature Boy]

I liked that line but I thought Dan Niel sucked. Every time we played the Colts, he made mental mistake after mental mistake after mental mistake....

Of course, he wasn't the one who failed to touch Marvin Harrison down resulting in the most embarrassing touchdown ever.

Dan Neil sucked? You are talking about just 1 game. And wasn't Hamilton who got flagged a bunch of times in that lost to Indy a few years back?

Dan Neil was the reason guys like Gary, Anderson, Portis and even Davis ran so well. He was apart of Terrell Davis' 2000 yard season.

[DenBronx]

I liked that line but I thought Dan Niel sucked. Every time we played the Colts, he made mental mistake after mental mistake after mental mistake....

Of course, he wasn't the one who failed to touch Marvin Harrison down resulting in the most embarrassing touchdown ever.


are you serious? he was the workhorse on that line in his prime. he was very very good. im sad his career was ended by knee injuries.

[lex]

It helped that Mike Anderson ran behind a pretty darn good Offensive line. Dan Neil, Nalen, and Lepsis were in their prime and a few other vets left over from the Elway's crew.

Again, this goes back to the fact that no one is saying OL shouldnt be drafted but its a matter of where and since you bring up that OLine, who on that OLine was a 1st round pick?

[r8rh8r]

Again, this goes back to the fact that no one is saying OL shouldnt be drafted but its a matter of where and since you bring up that OLine, who on that OLine was a 1st round pick?

The two best players on that line were a 7th rounder and an undrafted walk on.

[r8rh8r]

Dan Neil sucked? You are talking about just 1 game. And wasn't Hamilton who got flagged a bunch of times in that lost to Indy a few years back?

Dan Neil was the reason guys like Gary, Anderson, Portis and even Davis ran so well. He was apart of Terrell Davis' 2000 yard season.

It was Neil who got flagged a bunch, not Hamilton.

[Joel]

Barry was far, far better than Emmitt. Emmitt played behind arguably the greatest offensive line in NFL history, had a hall of fame QB, had a hall of fame WR, and does anyone remember Moose Johnson??????? Emmitt was a durable, talented player who's hall of fame career was produced by being in the right place at the right time.

Barry created. He came into the league a year earlier than Emmitt and retired 6 years before Emmitt did. Total TD's and Total Rushing Yards don't tell the story. Jim Brown, Gale Sayers, and Erik Dickerson are the only guys I think belong in the same conversation with Barry. And yes, I intentionally left out Walter Payton. He was great, but he's not on the same plane as these guys.
I'll try to pop back in when I have some time off work (headed to bed now... ) but wanted to at least make a brief response:

Payton had NOTHING for most of his career; while Jim Brown would be a FB today Sweetness did it ALL; run, catch, lay devastating blocks on LBs. He's still the prototypical Every Down Back to me, and a fine example of what I mean when I say no rookie is ready to do that right out of the gate. Jim Brown was in a VERY different boat, catching a lot of flat passes for big gains when he wasn't rushing for >100 yards per game (for his whole CAREER!) All Cleveland did right before he got there was go 7-3 in Championship games over the previous decade. It's entirely possible the Browns had, back to back, the best QB AND the best RB to ever play the game. On the other hand, have you ever taken a look at who was on the Browns offensive line in the '40s and '50s...?

Barry had more moves than Emmit (though Emmit had his share... ) but I bet if you polled linebackers from the '90s they'd rather get hit by Barry. Yes, Emmit had everything and Barry had NOTHING; switch teams and the result would be the same. That has ever and always been my point. I dunno; maybe Emmit could have rushed for positive yardage against the '96 Packers, but not many, not with Detroit.

[Joel]

That O-lineman drafted in the 4th-6th this year will not start. The Broncos will have to seriously address the O-Line before the season starts.

Which would you rather have?

The way it looks now:

Harris LT, Kuper LG, Nalen C, Hamilton RG, Pears LT, and #12 RB

or

Harris LT, Kuper LG, Nalen C, Hamilton RG, #12 Stud LT, and Travis Henry?

I'll take the later. Although LT still looks dreary with 1st year playing Harris, at least Pears is out the lineup.
I still think he's a fine RT, but LT is a far more demanding and riskier position, and not the one where's he's played the bulk of his career. Yes, he looked bad filling for Lepsis, but just about any rookie would look bad trying to replace Lepsis. He's WORLD'S better than George Foster was at RT; at least every other snap isn't a false start or a sack.

But he's not the answer at LT, and I kinda doubt either of the Chrisses is either, though I also like them both. Meanwhile, Travis Henry is PRECISELY the type of slightly above average, versatile one cut back who's always excelled behind solid Denver lines, so, yeah, that's a lot more attractive to me than getting a stud RB who still has no blockers (and four great offensive linemen plus one loser isn't a pretty good line, it's a line with a gaping hole.... ) He'll get his big money contract and either leave for a team with an OFFENSE instead of just him about the time he justifies his salary, or be so beat up two or three years from now everyone will be pointing to him as the latest example of "Shannys Daft-Day Duds. "

[r8rh8r]

The biggest thing that has been overlooked by all of the "Denver must reach for an OT no matter what" proponents is Ryan Harris.

Yes, Shanahan said that Kuper would be the starter headed into training camp at LT, but does that really tell us who he thinks will start in August? Is it possible that he's just trying to keep Harris motivated?

Denver didn't take Harris at #68 overall last year as an afterthought. Its possible if not probable that Harris will be the starter at LT and that Kuper will either play RT or will provide great depth at guard. There's no question that Denver needs another body or two, but a guy like Albert or Cherilius adds a lot more to our running game than adding a third candidate to play left tackle.

Jonathan Ogden in his prime couldn't protect a quarterback with 4 scrubs standing next to him. Particularly in the zone blocking scheme, you need chemistry and cohesiveness along the entire line. That includes TE and RB. Having a pass blocking RB matters, having a RB who can find the seam matters, having a RB who can push the pile or leap 40" into the air matters.

Travis Henry might give us that 200 times next season, if he stays healthy and trouble free; however, we still need to find another 250 carries minimum from our RB corps. At present, Selvin Young has the ability to break off long runs but in every other way he's a terrible running back.

I'll tell you what I'd rather have:

LT: Harris, Kuper, 4th-7th rounder
LG: Hamilton, Kuper?, Snell
C: Nalen, Weigman, Fenton
RG: Holland, Cherilius?, 4th-7th rounder, Katnik?
RT: Pears, Cherilius?, 4th-7th rounder
TE/OT: Chad Mustard
TE: Daniel Graham, Tony Scheffler
RB: Rashard Mendenhall, Travis Henry, Selvin Young
FB: Cecil Sapp, Mike Bell

That looks like a strategy that can dominate in 2009. Rebuild, rebuild, rebuild.

Is anyone going to argue that we need a RT less than we need a LT? Don't think for a minute that they are the same thing and that its all a matter of moving Harris to the other side.

[r8rh8r]

Does anyone have a beat on how Chad Mustard did in the Dwayne Carswell role last year? Did that contribute to our poor performance at the goalline? Are there any hybrid TE types that are intriguing in this years draft?

[BOSSHOGG30]

Does anyone have a beat on how Chad Mustard did in the Dwayne Carswell role last year? Did that contribute to our poor performance at the goalline? Are there any hybrid TE types that are intriguing in this years draft?

Some of the better blocking tight ends IMO are:

Brad Cottam
Craig Stevens
Chris Hopkins

but I'm not sure they are worth Denver drafting unless they plan on doing something with Graham or Scheffler in the near future.

[BOSSHOGG30]

I love how it looks like Anthony Collins, Carl Nicks, and Sam Baker are all dropping down the draft board... we are assured a decent tackle at #42!

[Ziggy]

I love how it looks like Anthony Collins, Carl Nicks, and Sam Baker are all dropping down the draft board... we are assured a decent tackle at #42!

Yeah but I just don't see us taking a tackle in both rounds 1 and 2.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Yeah but I just don't see us taking a tackle in both rounds 1 and 2.

You are right, guess we will have to go with Stewart or Mendenhall in the 1st round and get the better value with that pick. :D

[turftoad]

I love how it looks like Anthony Collins, Carl Nicks, and Sam Baker are all dropping down the draft board... we are assured a decent tackle at #42!

Problem is............ not one of those guys is probably better than Ryan Harris or Kuper.

Williams, Albert, Clady and Otah are a class above.

So, if we don't pick one a #12, I'd rather wait til the 4th, 5th or 6th round to select depth.

[BOSSHOGG30]

Problem is............ not one of those guys is probably better than Ryan Harris or Kuper.

Williams, Albert, Clady and Otah are a class above.

So, if we don't pick one a #12, I'd rather wait til the 4th, 5th or 6th round to select depth.

I don't know about that, I agree with the Otah and Williams being a class above these guys.... there are some really good offensive linemen that the media hasn't made popular favorties yet. But Albert is a stud guard... once you start projecting him as a tackle he loses some stud points. I think Clady is the most overated guy in the top 10 talks. I'm shocked that guys like Zuttah, Baker, Collins, Brown, and many more aren't getting the love as Clady and Williams. Too many people are buying into the hype that the media and mock experts are laying out there.

[r8rh8r]

Problem is............ not one of those guys is probably better than Ryan Harris or Kuper.

Williams, Albert, Clady and Otah are a class above.

So, if we don't pick one a #12, I'd rather wait til the 4th, 5th or 6th round to select depth.

I think you missed the boat on Cherilius as a RT or LG prospect. He's just as enviable as the 4 guys above IMO. Certainly, he's worth 2nd round consideration.

[r8rh8r]

I don't know about that, I agree with the Otah and Williams being a class above these guys.... there are some really good offensive linemen that the media hasn't made popular favorties yet. But Albert is a stud guard... once you start projecting him as a tackle he loses some stud points. I think Clady is the most overated guy in the top 10 talks. I'm shocked that guys like Zuttah, Baker, Collins, Brown, and many more aren't getting the love as Clady and Williams. Too many people are buying into the hype that the media and mock experts are laying out there.

If you glance at the "team needs" this year, there are tons of teams who "need" to add at least one offensive tackle. This is the reason I think as many as 6 lineman are projected to go in the first 27 picks.

This inductive logic is not the same thing the personnel professionals are doing. They are asking the question, who's the best talent and who fits our system. I'm not saying "overall need" doesn't matter; instead, I argue that its tertiary in order of significance (unless your name is Matt Millen).

Realistically, I don't think that 20% of the top 30 players available in this year's draft are offensive lineman. I bet 4 are taken in round 1 and 1-2 more are gone by pick 50.

[Ziggy]

Problem is............ not one of those guys is probably better than Ryan Harris or Kuper.

Williams, Albert, Clady and Otah are a class above.

So, if we don't pick one a #12, I'd rather wait til the 4th, 5th or 6th round to select depth.

I agree completely. I don't rate the 2nd round prospects nearly as high as some of the people around here do. I think this draft is as deep in 1st round tackles as we have seen in a long, long time. After the 1st rounders, I think there's a large drop-off.