Ryan Torain [Archive] - Broncos Forums

WARHORSE

04-27-2008, 10:33 PM

From ESPN:

File it away

Denver scored big with Arizona State running back Ryan Torain (http://insider.espn.go.com/nfldraft/draft/tracker/player?draftyear=2008&id=11550). This is a great fit.

The Broncos know what they are doing when it comes to running backs. They make it work with just about anybody. That was abundantly evident the past two years when Mike Bell (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=8008) and Selvin Young (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=8523), both undrafted, stood out as rookies. Now, it's Torain's turn.

Unlike Bell and Young, who came into the league as average players who benefited by fitting Denver's scheme, Torain has a ton of natural ability. At 6-feet, 220 pounds, he is rugged and his running style fits Denver's vaunted zone-blocking scheme.

The Broncos drafted him in the fifth round because he was injured much of last season. But he is healthy now, so expect him to immediately get a chance to run the ball in Mike Shanahan's offense.

Young and veteran Travis Henry (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5505) are also in the mix, but watch for Torain to emerge as a legitimate running back in this system soon.

lex

04-27-2008, 10:35 PM

This looks like the piece I read earlier from the all-knowing Burger Bill.

Has Woody Paige offered his opinion on Torain yet? What about Woody Woodpecker?

Scarface

04-27-2008, 10:36 PM

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=221080&postcount=47

r8rh8r

04-27-2008, 10:38 PM

Williamson homer article. It's nice to have a homer at the ESPN empire for once rather than notorious Broncos flamaholics like Mike Sando and Len Pasquerreli.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 10:49 PM

Why dont you go find a team where all the fans acquiesce at the nonsense like sheep. GFYIA

Seriously. YOU ARE ACTING LIKE A KID! GET OVER IT!

I know there were players I wanted to see drafted, but for crying out loud I am not sitting down whining like a 5 year old who can't get a nerf gun at a store. SHEESH! You have no clue how these players will do so just wait and see. If he is a bust then you can say "I told you so", but quit acting like you know everything.

lex

04-27-2008, 10:50 PM

Seriously. YOU ARE ACTING LIKE A KID! GET OVER IT!

I know there were players I wanted to see drafted, but for crying out loud I am not sitting down whining like a 5 year old who can't get a nerf gun at a store. SHEESH!

Its not about who I wanted to see drafted anymore as much as its about who we did draft...its the same rinse and repeat crap all over again. Bargain basement running backs that feed Shanahans ego.

lex

04-27-2008, 10:52 PM

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Why is that? Because you say so? Let me guess, youre going to call me a stupid head again? Whatever you say. Go check some sources.

BeefStew25

04-27-2008, 10:52 PM

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 10:53 PM

Its not about who I wanted to see drafted anymore as much as its about who we did draft...its the same rinse and repeat crap all over again. Bargain basement running backs that feed Shanahans ego.

I've said this a million times. We were 9th in the league in rushing last season. RB was NOT a key need. It's more important that we fix the o-line so that the RBs we have will have holes to run through. We have plenty of talent at the RB position. We had no need to spend an early pick on it.

MOtorboat

04-27-2008, 10:54 PM

lex

04-27-2008, 10:56 PM

I've said this a million times. We were 9th in the league in rushing last season. RB was NOT a key need. It's more important that we fix the o-line so that the RBs we have will have holes to run through. We have plenty of talent at the RB position. We had no need to spend an early pick on it.

And Ive replied to this a million times. I guess Ill do it again. We had good stats because we ran it up on KC twice and Oakland once. But against the tougher teams we sucked. Also, we had a lot of long runs that we werent able to finish, that could have protected us from our red zone being exposed.

Yeah, youve said that a million times but its been beaten down a million times.

MOtorboat

04-27-2008, 10:57 PM

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 10:58 PM

And Ive replied to this a million times. I guess Ill do it again. We had good stats because we ran it up on KC twice and Oakland once. But against the tougher teams we sucked. Also, we had a lot of long runs that we werent able to finish, that could have protected us from our red zone being exposed.

Yeah, youve said that a million times but its been beaten down a million times.

No it hasn't been beaten down at all. You can argue it till you're blue in the face but 9th in the league in rushing is 9th in the league in rushing. Yeah, we got shut down a few times, but the guys on defense get paid too. It happens. We didn't have a top 10 rushing attack by accident. We had one because we have talented running backs.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 10:58 PM

Its not about who I wanted to see drafted anymore as much as its about who we did draft...its the same rinse and repeat crap all over again. Bargain basement running backs that feed Shanahans ego.

So why don't we look at the last few superbowl winners shall we? Who did they have at running back?

2007: Bradshaw and Jacobs. (7th and 4th rounds respecively)
2006: Joe Addi and Rhodes. (1st and undrafted)
2005: Wille Parker and Bettis (undrafted and 1st)

On each and every team there is a low round pick who helped them. In fact a couple of those guys weren't even drafted! How many superbowls did the Pats win before they had a workhorse back? The thing of the matter is running backs are overrated! What isn't is a good offensive line.

broncohead

04-27-2008, 10:59 PM

And Ive replied to this a million times. I guess Ill do it again. We had good stats because we ran it up on KC twice and Oakland once. But against the tougher teams we sucked. Also, we had a lot of long runs that we werent able to finish, that could have protected us from our red zone being exposed.

Yeah, youve said that a million times but its been beaten down a million times.

Looks like we are attempting to fix the red zone problem that we had last year. Clady, Cory, Hillis, and Torrain all will eventuall help in that area.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:06 PM

And Ive replied to this a million times. I guess Ill do it again. We had good stats because we ran it up on KC twice and Oakland once. But against the tougher teams we sucked. Also, we had a lot of long runs that we werent able to finish, that could have protected us from our red zone being exposed.

Yeah, youve said that a million times but its been beaten down a million times.

Top Rusher stats

@Buf: 139
Oak: 128
Jax: 35
Ind: 131
SD: 65
Pit: 51
GB: 71
Det: 31
KC: 109
Ten: 89
Chi: 98
Oak: 49
KC: 156
Hou: 34
SD: 42
Min: 87

Sorry those two games don't make up the majority of our statistics. Our offense actually did a nice job with yards, but it kept dying in the red zone. Again due to our offensive line.

lex

04-27-2008, 11:08 PM

No it hasn't been beaten down at all. You can argue it till you're blue in the face but 9th in the league in rushing is 9th in the league in rushing. Yeah, we got shut down a few times, but the guys on defense get paid too. It happens. We didn't have a top 10 rushing attack by accident. We had one because we have talented running backs.

OK, let me explain something to you. When we won SBs, we did it by running the ball in the post season (ie money games) against teams that were good or great at stopping the run. Not one OL on those teams was a first round pick. Neither was the RB but we can all agree he was an elite RB. So you can recite your meaningless stats all you want but the fact is that there were too many circumstances where we couldnt get it done on the ground. Even in 1995, we struggled on the ground in the post season. So, again, you can recite all the stats you want, unless it translates to being reliable against good teams, it means nothing. Do you understand?

lex

04-27-2008, 11:11 PM

Top Rusher stats

@Buf: 139
Oak: 128
Jax: 35
Ind: 131
SD: 65
Pit: 51
GB: 71
Det: 31
KC: 109
Ten: 89
Chi: 98
Oak: 49
KC: 156
Hou: 34
SD: 42
Min: 87

Sorry those two games don't make up the majority of our statistics. Our offense actually did a nice job with yards, but it kept dying in the red zone. Again due to our offensive line.

By my math, thats 60.5 vs playoff teams. 60.5 is horrible. And that even is because of one outlier in the Indy game. If you throw that out its 44.13.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:12 PM

By my math, thats 60.5 vs playoff teams.

By my math that told me that those playoff teams manhandled our line because they had quality defensive linemen.

The line makes the running back more than the running back makes the line.

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 11:14 PM

OK, let me explain something to you. When we won SBs, we did it by running the ball in the post season (ie money games) against teams that were good or great at stopping the run. Not one OL on those teams was a first round pick. Neither was the RB but we can all agree he was an elite RB. So you can recite your meaningless stats all you want but the fact is that there were too many circumstances where we couldnt get it done on the ground. Even in 1995, we struggled on the ground in the post season. So, again, you can recite all the stats you want, unless it translates to being reliable against good teams, it means nothing. Do you understand?

We had an amazing offensive line during our 2 super bowl years. Great o-line=great running game. As the last few champs have proved, you can win a super bowl without a top-flite RB. Just look at the Pats 3 championships.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:15 PM

Just look at the teams we had horrible performances against.

San Diego
Pitts
Jax

All of which have a very good front 7.

lex

04-27-2008, 11:15 PM

So why don't we look at the last few superbowl winners shall we? Who did they have at running back?

2007: Bradshaw and Jacobs. (7th and 4th rounds respecively)
2006: Joe Addi and Rhodes. (1st and undrafted)
2005: Wille Parker and Bettis (undrafted and 1st)

On each and every team there is a low round pick who helped them. In fact a couple of those guys weren't even drafted! How many superbowls did the Pats win before they had a workhorse back? The thing of the matter is running backs are overrated! What isn't is a good offensive line.

We're a unique team. Being able to run the ball means more to us since we dont typically have the defense Pitt or NYG has. Different teams have different formulas for winning. Theres not one template but our coach's acumen is running we're not maximizing that. We're getting by on bargain basement runners and one disappointing free agent. Our running situation is vitally important and it sucks.

lex

04-27-2008, 11:17 PM

We had an amazing offensive line during our 2 super bowl years. Great o-line=great running game. As the last few champs have proved, you can win a super bowl without a top-flite RB. Just look at the Pats 3 championships.
OK, were not the Patriots, were not the Giants, and we're not the Colts. Come up with something thats actually relevant.

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 11:18 PM

OK, were not the Patriots, were not the Giants, and we're not the Colts. Come up with something thats actually relevant.

My point is that you seem to be stuck on the idea that you need a dominant running game to win the super bowl. It's just not the case.

lex

04-27-2008, 11:19 PM

My point is that you seem to be stuck on the idea that you need a dominant running game to win the super bowl. It's just not the case.
But what youre oblivious to is that we're not other teams. Each team has its own formula based on its scheme or coaching acumen and in some cases, talent.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:20 PM

We're a unique team. Being able to run the ball means more to us since we dont typically have the defense Pitt or NYG has. Different teams have different formulas for winning. Theres not one template but our coach's acumen is running we're not maximizing that. We're getting by on bargain basement runners and one disappointing free agent. Our running situation is vitally important and it sucks.

No there isn't one template, but at the same time each template must have some of the same parts. Many cars are unique. but I bet if you take the engine out of any car and it won't run.

Tell me, when we had Portis why weren't we just destroying teams in the playoffs? We had an elite back, but guess what? Elite backs don't win superbowls alone. If that was the case then the Lions should have won the superbowl a couple of times.

Even when we had TD he wasn't the only thing we had on offense.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:21 PM

OK, were not the Patriots, were not the Giants, and we're not the Colts. Come up with something thats actually relevant.

Ok something that is relevant is they have actually won the superbowl. How's that?

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 11:23 PM

But what youre oblivious to is that we're not other teams. Each team has its own formula based on its scheme or coaching acumen and in some cases, talent.

And we are starting to shift to more of a pass heavy attack with Cutler at the helm. Yes, each team has it's formulas but formulas change. With the direction our offense is going we won't need a dominant running game to win the super bowl. We need vast improvements on defense and the offensive line. If we get that, we will be a contender, regardless of who the running back is.

lex

04-27-2008, 11:24 PM

Ok something that is relevant is they have actually won the superbowl. How's that?

So have we? How did we do it?

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 11:25 PM

No there isn't one template, but at the same time each template must have some of the same parts. Many cars are unique. but I bet if you take the engine out of any car and it won't run.

Tell me, when we had Portis why weren't we just destroying teams in the playoffs? We had an elite back, but guess what? Elite backs don't win superbowls alone. If that was the case then the Lions should have won the superbowl a couple of times.

Even when we had TD he wasn't the only thing we had on offense.

Yeah we did kinda have a HOF QB and a HOF OT and a HOF TE and a potential HOF WR.

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 11:25 PM

So have we? How did we do it?

10 years ago. Strategies change.

broncohead

04-27-2008, 11:26 PM

Well with all the WRs we signed this off season looks like we are going to throw more. And we are making an attempt to fix the OL with the two picks and we picked a back that can help us in the red zone.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:27 PM

So have we? How did we do it?

We had a complete team with a HOF QB, a set of great linemen (a few HOF worthy), two great WRs, a HOF TE, a HOF RB, a great FB, a set of great LBs, a defensive line that could get pressure, a HOF safety, and a solid secondary. Don't forget in 98 not only did Davis have a great season, but Elway also had his best season as a pro.

Davis was not the only thing we had going for us. Don't forget how great our line was playing back then too. There is a reason you don't see too many 2000 yard backs. It is because you not only need a great back, but also a great line.

BroncoWave

04-27-2008, 11:29 PM

We had a complete team with a HOF QB, a set of great linemen, two great WRs, a HOF TE, a HOF RB, a great FB, a set of great LBs, a defensive line that could get pressure, a HOF safety, and a solid secondary. Don't forget in 98 not only did Davis have a great season, but Elway also had his best season as a pro.

Davis was not the only thing we had going for us.

I have a shirt that says what's in your sig. One of my favorite shirts! :beer:

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:30 PM

I have a shirt that says what's in your sig. One of my favorite shirts! :beer:

It is one of my favorite lines. ;)

lex

04-27-2008, 11:31 PM

We had a complete team with a HOF QB, a set of great linemen (a few HOF worthy), two great WRs, a HOF TE, a HOF RB, a great FB, a set of great LBs, a defensive line that could get pressure, a HOF safety, and a solid secondary. Don't forget in 98 not only did Davis have a great season, but Elway also had his best season as a pro.

Davis was not the only thing we had going for us. Don't forget how great our line was playing back then too. There is a reason you don't see too many 2000 yard backs. It is because you not only need a great back, but also a great line.

When you can run the ball like that you may not win all the time but it gives you a chance ...60 yards per game in 8 games vs playoff teams bears that out. Againl, know what youre good at. We turn our back on that truism by going with bargain basement personnel.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:33 PM

When you can run the ball like that you may not win all the time but it gives you a chance ...60 yards per game in 8 games vs playoff teams bears that out.

When all you can do is run the ball you lose more often than not. The Vikings had one of the most dominate running games last season, but how many games did they still end up losing? 8.

A running game alone is nothing. I ask you to show me a team that did well in the playoffs with only a great running game.

Againl, know what youre good at. We turn our back on that truism by going with bargain basement personnel.

Since you seem to have edited this in. You are writing Torain off before he even plays? That is just sad.

broncohead

04-27-2008, 11:37 PM

When you can run the ball like that you may not win all the time but it gives you a chance ...60 yards per game in 8 games vs playoff teams bears that out. Againl, know what youre good at. We turn our back on that truism by going with bargain basement personnel.

When you can throw the ball really good you still have a chance. No point

lex

04-27-2008, 11:42 PM

10 years ago. Strategies change.

When all you can do is run the ball you lose more often than not. The Vikings had one of the most dominate running games last season, but how many games did they still end up losing? 8.

A running game alone is nothing. I ask you to show me a team that did well in the playoffs with only a great running game.

Since you seem to have edited this in. You are writing Torain off before he even plays? That is just sad.

When you can throw the ball really good you still have a chance. No point

You guys are right. Being able to run the ball means nothing. How silly of me. LOL.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:50 PM

You guys are right. Being able to run the ball means nothing. How silly of me. LOL.

Reading into my post aren't you? I said (and I quote myself)

When all you can do is run the ball you lose more often than not.

Or in other words running the ball can not be the only thing you need to do. A dominate running game is nothing without the other tools to go along with it. Also a good running game starts with the offensive linemen. You can have an average back if your line is great.

You are only doing more to hurt your argument.

lex

04-27-2008, 11:53 PM

Reading into my post aren't you? I said (and I quote myself)

Or in other words running the ball can not be the only thing you need to do. A dominate running game is nothing without the other tools to go along with it. Also a good running game starts with the offensive linemen. You can have an average back if your line is great.

You are only doing more to hurt your argument.
And Minnesota applies to us how? Different coach, different QB, different scheme. In 98 Elway was injured and we still kept clicking because our running game made it easy on Brister.

LoyalSoldier

04-27-2008, 11:57 PM

And Minnesota applies to us how? Different coach, different QB, different scheme.

Quit just brushing things off because I look at a different team. That is the same thing as going "How do pluto effect us? Different planet" Different planet, but it is the same laws of physics.

There are certain things which no team in the NFL can escape from.

In 98 Elway was injured and we still kept clicking because our running game made it easy on Brister.

Yes and to use your previous argument, how many playoff teams did we play with Brister?

Maybe it was the mightly Eagles at a record of 3-13 or the magnificent Redskins at 6-10. The fact of the matter is we didn't play a single playoff team while Elway was out. The teams had an average win count of 5. Be consistent in your argument.

lex

04-28-2008, 12:02 AM

Quit just brushing things off because I look at a different team. That is the same thing as going "How do pluto effect us? Different planet" Different planet, but it is the same laws of physics.

There are certain things which no team in the NFL can escape from.
Actually, if you want to go by truisms, you can call on: "When a good running team plays a good passing team, the good running team generally wins." Also theres, "when you pass the ball, three things can happen and two are bad."

Yes and to use your previous argument, how many playoff teams did we play with Brister?

Maybe it was the mightly Eagles at a record of 3-13 or the magnificent Redskins at 6-10.

How many games did Minnesota lose with Jackson?

LoyalSoldier

04-28-2008, 12:05 AM

Actually, if you want to go by truisms, you can call on: "When a good running team plays a good passing team, the good running team generally wins." Also theres, "when you pass the ball, three things can happen and two are bad."

Quit with the nonsense would you? Here are some truths about football

If you can't block your running back can't do anything
If your defense can't stop anyone you will lose games no matter how good your offense is.
If your QB can't throw then you have trouble when you fall behind

A complete team is more important than a lop sided attack.

How many games did Minnesota lose with Jackson?

Considering he hasn't really started till this year. Not many. Although if you want to be serious they had a good back last year in Chester Taylor. They still were 6-10.

But I though they were a different team and a different scheme. So why are you asking me about them?

lex

04-28-2008, 12:15 AM

Quit with the nonsense would you? Here are some truths about football

If you can't block your running back can't do anything
If your defense can't stop anyone you will lose games no matter how good your offense is.
If your QB can't throw then you have trouble when you fall behind

A complete team is more important than a lop sided attack.

Considering he hasn't really started till this year. Not many. Although if you want to be serious they had a good back last year in Chester Taylor. They still were 6-10.

But I though they were a different team and a different scheme. So why are you asking me about them?

Yeah, youre taking this too far to the extreme. Minnesota's not comparable. Were much better off in the QB department than Minnesota. We have a good QB, so our situation is more akin to 98 than Minnesota last year. And the truisms I mentioned have some ceteris paribus assumptions.

LoyalSoldier

04-28-2008, 12:21 AM

Yeah, youre taking this too far to the extreme.

No in fact I haven't. I have just shown you exactly what has worked in the NFL and has been time tested. Which has been complete teams. It doesn't matter if they have an elite running back because that hasn't been a common thread. An elite back will help, but it doesn't hurt if you have a solid one instead. A solid player at every position is far better than a great one at a single position.

Minnesota's not comparable. Were much better off in the QB department than Minnesota. We have a good QB, so our situation is more akin to 98 than Minnesota last year. And the truisms I mentioned have some ceteris paribus assumptions.

We also have a horrible O-Line which accounts more for our running problems than any other factor. Even if you want to look at our own history, why have we made so many "lower class" backs into 1000 yard rushers? The answer is because our O-Line has been decent to great the last 10 years. A great line can make a decent back look good.

If you want to have a more relevant case just look at Seattle. Shaun Alexander was an MVP RB a few years ago, but all of a sudden he fell off the face of the earth. Why? His line deteriorated compared to the superbowl year so the flaws in his game showed up. The line makes the back more than the back makes the line.

You can go on and on, but the fact of the matter the last team with an elite back in his prime to win the superbowl was the Rams in 1999 and you know that they weren't know only for their running game.

r8rh8r

04-28-2008, 06:15 AM

No in fact I haven't. I have just shown you exactly what has worked in the NFL and has been time tested. Which has been complete teams. It doesn't matter if they have an elite running back because that hasn't been a common thread. An elite back will help, but it doesn't hurt if you have a solid one instead. A solid player at every position is far better than a great one at a single position.

We also have a horrible O-Line which accounts more for our running problems than any other factor. Even if you want to look at our own history, why have we made so many "lower class" backs into 1000 yard rushers? The answer is because our O-Line has been decent to great the last 10 years. A great line can make a decent back look good.

If you want to have a more relevant case just look at Seattle. Shaun Alexander was an MVP RB a few years ago, but all of a sudden he fell off the face of the earth. Why? His line deteriorated compared to the superbowl year so the flaws in his game showed up. The line makes the back more than the back makes the line.

You can go on and on, but the fact of the matter the last team with an elite back in his prime to win the superbowl was the Rams in 1999 and you know that they weren't know only for their running game.

Over the last month, I've read a 100 posts that say "it's 100% the O-Line and the runningback doesn't matter" and I've read 100 more that say "what Denver really needs is a great runningback."

You need a combination of both to be a great team. Football is a team sport. It's really easy to debate whether Kevin Garnett is better than Amare Stoudamire or whether Alfonso Soriano is better than Alex Rodriguez or whether Tiger Woods is better than Ernie Els; it's not that simple with football. You need a great team to win in the NFL. Having the 11 best athletes helps but its not enough to be great (if it was the Chargers would be going for a 3-peat this year).

Classic stupid statement: "Joe Montana would have been nothing without Jerry Rice." Or maybe, Jerry Rice would have been nothing without Montana? Would Elway have put up better numbers with a guy like Rice in town? Maybe. So who's better? God knows. Different teams.

My point is that these chicken-or-the-egg arguments about what really matters are pointless. Denver could have benefited from Mendenhall or Clady this year. Shanahan obviously thought Clady could make the biggest impact on our team.

Also, that Shaun Alexander argument is ridiculous. Alexander had a spectacular career. When runningbacks turn 30 their wheels fall off. Even the great ones (except Barry). When Alexander was in his prime physically, which was several years before his record-breaking season, he was possessed on the field. Great burst, very physical player, elusive, as good as it gets. Sure he had a great line, but its outrageous to say that Alexander wasn't a great back.

LoyalSoldier

04-28-2008, 09:26 AM

Over the last month, I've read a 100 posts that say "it's 100% the O-Line and the runningback doesn't matter" and I've read 100 more that say "what Denver really needs is a great runningback."

You need a combination of both to be a great team. Football is a team sport. It's really easy to debate whether Kevin Garnett is better than Amare Stoudamire or whether Alfonso Soriano is better than Alex Rodriguez or whether Tiger Woods is better than Ernie Els; it's not that simple with football. You need a great team to win in the NFL. Having the 11 best athletes helps but its not enough to be great (if it was the Chargers would be going for a 3-peat this year).

Strange I could have sworn I said that. My point was an all-star running back alone isn't going to do anything. We have to have a complete team or it isn't going to mean anything. Or as an old saying goes "I want to draft superbowl players not probowl players"

Right now with the way our line is no back will have success.

Also, that Shaun Alexander argument is ridiculous. Alexander had a spectacular career. When runningbacks turn 30 their wheels fall off. Even the great ones (except Barry). When Alexander was in his prime physically, which was several years before his record-breaking season, he was possessed on the field. Great burst, very physical player, elusive, as good as it gets. Sure he had a great line, but its outrageous to say that Alexander wasn't a great back.

Considering I am in Seahawk country and generally I am forced to watch just about all of their games. I can tell you the when the offensive line was great so was he. His production went from top of the league to lucky to get 3 yards in the course of one offseason. You don't have that kind of drop off around his age unless without injury or change in the team. I don't know a single Seahawks fan who says that the loss of Steve Huchesen didn't hurt Alexander. I also find it quite funny how the team who got him is doing really well in the running game.

atwater27

04-28-2008, 06:04 PM

xzn

04-28-2008, 08:47 PM

http://susanwisebauer.com/blog/wp-content/BABY_CRYING.gif

rinse, repeat

LMAO :salute:

joshxhannah

04-28-2008, 09:44 PM

Lex... are you zam?

JONtheBRONCO

04-28-2008, 10:49 PM

TXBRONC

04-28-2008, 10:56 PM

The Broncos think of fifth-round RB Ryan Torain the same way they once thought of Terrell Davis, according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter.

Davis began his career as a special teamer and grew into an All Pro. Torain, who's coming off a Lisfranc injury, declared himself 100% in post-draft interviews. If he stays healthy, Torain has serious potential in Denver's scheme.

He looks like he could potentially be a good power back.

mopatt24

04-29-2008, 05:17 PM

Found some clips of our 5th round boy, while over at broncomania. Personally, I like the pick. Big, strong runner with tons of potential.

http://www.fandome.com/watch/84792/Ride_the_Torain_Train/

What do ya'll think?

Sorry, if its been posted already.

G_Money

04-29-2008, 05:42 PM

Nice clip mopatt.

Torain:

+ has good center-field vision, especially in traffic
+ isn't afraid of employing a stiff-arm (something I think they should really work on as part of his arsenal) and LIKES to hit defenders hard - a bruiser when he wants to be
+ has decent balance and is slippery in the hole (that sounds bad...)
+ has pretty good hands and makes a good outlet option

Things I don't like about him:

- Injury history and runs with a style that might well promote injury (a la Henry) unless he employs more of that slipperiness.
- lack of experience (as a Juco transfer, he didn't exactly rack up the games in the Pac-10) - this also hurts him on reading the hole correctly
- doesn't always gets his cletes into the turf, so he can be arm-tackled (he's inconsistent here)
- falls down for yardage instead of running for yardage sometimes

I'm REALLY interested to see Torain in camp. If his foot's okay, it could be eye-opening. He's in the mold of my boy Forte as far as being a good mix of size and elusiveness and an all-around back who can do everything but outrun corners. If he works out he'll make a great pairing with a back like Young. He runs high and is gonna get cracked for that sometime, and he needs to be a better blocker for the Broncos to feel okay about leaving him out there for a lot of plays, but he certainly has starter potential.

I just hatehateHATE foot injuries for RBs.

~G

topscribe

04-30-2008, 12:19 PM

Here is a You Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfU-U3VmTX4) of Torain. Look at the footwork. You should find this encouraging.

(Sorry if this has already been posted.)

BTW, as I posted in another thread, his 40 time at the Combine is not
indicative of what he can do. He had an injured foot at the time, and some
thought it was ill-advised that he even run it. As I understand, three weeks
later at his pro day, he ran a 4.5.

-----

lex

04-30-2008, 01:07 PM

The Broncos think of fifth-round RB Ryan Torain the same way they once thought of Terrell Davis, according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter.

Davis began his career as a special teamer and grew into an All Pro. Torain, who's coming off a Lisfranc injury, declared himself 100% in post-draft interviews. If he stays healthy, Torain has serious potential in Denver's scheme.

Bleh, everytime they want to justify a pick like this they trot Terrell Davis' name out there just to get people to back off. They run the same play over and over again and whats sad is people buy it. Whatever.

Tned

04-30-2008, 01:09 PM

Bleh, everytime they want to justify a pick like this they trot Terrell Davis' name out there just to get people to back off. They run the same play over and over again and whats sad is people buy it. Whatever.

Who's they? I have seen some reporters and bloggers do it, I wasn't aware the organization (Broncos) have done it.

lex

04-30-2008, 01:16 PM

Who's they? I have seen some reporters and bloggers do it, I wasn't aware the organization (Broncos) have done it.

Whoever likes the pick up to and including the front office. Two summers ago Shanahan compared Mike Bell to Terrell Davis. Technically Bell wasnt a draft pick, but still, they have no problems throwing Davis' name out there.

Tned

04-30-2008, 01:27 PM

Whoever likes the pick up to and including the front office. Two summers ago Shanahan compared Mike Bell to Terrell Davis. Technically Bell wasnt a draft pick, but still, they have no problems throwing Davis' name out there.

Football is all about comparisons. The scouts (and I think his former team mates) called Marshall baby TO. Eddie Royal was referred to in one draft report card as a poor man's Steve Smith.

There have always been comparisons and there always will be. Just like every QB that has followed Elway was in some way compared to him, because he was Denver's greatest QB, every back that follows TD will likely draw some comparison to him, because he was Denver's greatest RB.

What's the harm.

Why must it be considered offensive, no matter who 'they' are, to make comparisons to TD, just like comparisons are made to LT (both the RB and former LB), to Randy Moss, To TO, to virtually every football player current or past that has become an above average player.

Comparisons are part of football discussion. Deal with it.