PDA

View Full Version : Henry a no-show at Monday's QB Camp.



Pages : [1] 2

Requiem / The Dagda
05-19-2008, 12:57 PM
Thanks to BOSS for putting this in the news thread, but I figured it's a head-scratcher worthy of discussion in a thread of its own. Any thoughts to as why he's gone?

Article: RMN (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/19/henry-missing-broncos-camp/)

BroncoJoe
05-19-2008, 01:00 PM
Mama #10 is giving birth to baby #10.

Ziggy
05-19-2008, 01:02 PM
A good shipment of Hawaiian gold came in and he got a new bong to go with it?

MOtorboat
05-19-2008, 01:02 PM
Mama #10 is giving birth to baby #10.

No way he'd be there. If that was happening, he'd probably be at camp.

LRtagger
05-19-2008, 01:14 PM
No way he'd be there. If that was happening, he'd probably be at camp.

ROFL

On an unrelated note I heard Cedric Benson and Ricky Williams were in Denver this week.

Northman
05-19-2008, 01:38 PM
Are they required to go to QB CAMP? I dont know the stipulations with that.

topscribe
05-19-2008, 01:40 PM
Are they required to go to QB CAMP? I dont know the stipulations with that.

Technically, no. It's an OTA.

De facto? Well, there is this unspoken . . .

-----

GEM
05-19-2008, 01:43 PM
Probably not the best start to shutting us all up by mid season. :rolleyes:

BOSSHOGG30
05-19-2008, 01:47 PM
Henry did participate in the offseason strength program, so I'm not too concerned yet. It's probably better he doesn't run around and risk getting hurt...he is fragile you know.

Buff
05-19-2008, 02:16 PM
Hopefully it's not a situation where he figures "they cut my pay, I'll cut my effort."

As Boss said, he's been in the conditioning program, so I'm not panicked-- But if anyone needs to have a stellar offseason it's him.

topscribe
05-19-2008, 02:20 PM
Hopefully it's not a situation where he figures "they cut my pay, I'll cut my effort."

As Boss said, he's been in the conditioning program, so I'm not panicked-- But if anyone needs to have a stellar offseason it's him.

Well, that would be particularly stupid (not to say Henry is not). His pay was
cut because they want him to prove himself. He's not going to do that by
cutting his effort.

But he said he was going to go above and beyond this year to prove to the
Broncos they did the right thing by getting him.

Come to think of it, didn't ol' Mo Clarett say something to that effect? . . . :confused:

-----

LRtagger
05-19-2008, 02:27 PM
yea ol Mo sure proved us wrong

BroncoFanatic
05-19-2008, 02:39 PM
Hopefully it's not a situation where he figures "they cut my pay, I'll cut my effort."

If that's the case, the FO will get the last cut in on TH...

tubby
05-19-2008, 02:45 PM
Jokes are funny. But come on.......relax guys.

I am certain, Henry's absence (whatever the reason) was approved by Coach Shanahan.

MOtorboat
05-19-2008, 02:45 PM
Jokes are funny. But come on.......relax guys.

I am certain, Henry's absence (whatever the reason) was approved by Coach Shanahan.

Absolutely, his choir boy past tells us exactly this.

BroncoJoe
05-19-2008, 02:46 PM
Dude is hurt already.


ENGLEWOOD — A pulled hamstring will cause tailback Travis Henry to miss the Broncos' first minicamp in advance of the 2008 season.

Henry suffered the injury Friday on the last of several 100-yard dashes that were part of the team's strength and conditioning program.

Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said today he doesn't expect Henry to be available before Monday, which means he'll miss this week's passing camp.

Henry, who took a pay cut to stay with the Broncos, missed four games in 2007 because of injuries. He got off to a quick start after his arrival in Denver, rushing for 100 yards in three of his first four games. But he didn't reach that level again because of rib and knee injuries.

Off the field, it came to light last season that Henry had fathered nine children with nine different women, and then he went to battle with the NFL, which wanted to suspend Henry for one year for violating its substance-abuse policy. The NFL eventually agreed it would not suspend the tailback, but he remains in the league's substance-abuse program and is subject to testing.



http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/19/henry-missing-broncos-camp/?partner=yahoo_headlines

topscribe
05-19-2008, 02:49 PM
Dude is hurt already.



http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/19/henry-missing-broncos-camp/?partner=yahoo_headlines

I can't believe this . . . :tsk:

-----

BroncoFanatic
05-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Restructuring or no, if our other RBs look decent in camp, Henry may be gone :wave:

Ziggy
05-19-2008, 02:58 PM
Restructuring or no, if our other RBs look decent in camp, Henry may be gone :wave:

I agree. I think a lot depends on Torain and his health. Keep your eye on Alridge also. If he takes a couple of returns to the house during preseason, he'll stick.

Northman
05-19-2008, 03:07 PM
Restructuring or no, if our other RBs look decent in camp, Henry may be gone :wave:

I would be all for it anyway. He looked slow out there even when he was healthy.

cmhargrove
05-19-2008, 03:25 PM
Just like the Marshall situation (well, not really) but kinda.

This is actually a really good thing for the team in my opinion. The young guys get plenty of reps and get better. Selvin and Andre get more time, Torrain and Aldridge get time.

We know (in general) what Henry brings to the table when healthy. This helps us develop the other talent.

I don't care if Henry is banged up till TC, it could be a pretty good thing for us in the end.

MOtorboat
05-19-2008, 03:34 PM
Just like the Marshall situation (well, not really) but kinda.

This is actually a really good thing for the team in my opinion. The young guys get plenty of reps and get better. Selvin and Andre get more time, Torrain and Aldridge get time.

We know (in general) what Henry brings to the table when healthy. This helps us develop the other talent.

I don't care if Henry is banged up till TC, it could be a pretty good thing for us in the end.

They get more practice reps, but Henry will be ready to go for the season and real competition, same thing with Marshall...so they go from being the starter all summer to being a backup...it's good in theory, but you have to wonder how that player then feels when the older player is healthy again...

Medford Bronco
05-19-2008, 03:36 PM
Restructuring or no, if our other RBs look decent in camp, Henry may be gone :wave:

Now that would be awesome. :salute:

Dont let the door hit ya Travis

G_Money
05-19-2008, 03:47 PM
Peyton Hillis, your starting RB for 2008.

Splitting time with Selvin Young until his future injury, then platooning with Torain and a dash of Alridge/Hall a few times a game.

Sounds like a winner.

~G

BroncoJoe
05-19-2008, 03:51 PM
Peyton Hillis, your starting RB for 2008.

Splitting time with Selvin Young until his future injury, then platooning with Torain and a dash of Alridge/Hall a few times a game.

Sounds like a winner.

~G

Are you being sarcastic or do you really think that highly of Peyton? I don't know much at all about the guy.

G_Money
05-19-2008, 04:09 PM
Take it either way you like - then no matter what happens I was right about how I felt about it. ;)

But still, I like Hillis - and I think he's probably a better RB than FB.

They say he doesn't really get up a good head of steam...but he does. Anybody who can drag 4 guys downfield with him does fine on the Head Of Steam Scale.

He's called an average blocker...for a fullback, which makes him an excellent blocker for a RB.

I've watched his 240 pound self make acrobatic one-handed grabs, sprint past safeties and LBs to make catches and tiptoe down the sidelines with the best of em.

It was his bad luck to be stuck in the same backfield with DMC and Jones. The last back we had who was overshadowed by a Heisman candidate turned out to be a fine pro in his own right - Hillis could be the same. It's not like he went there as a FB. He went there as a RB with great potential who landed in the most loaded backfield in college ball a short time later, and then turned himself into a FB to better benefit the team. Another man would have transferred, but it's not his style. That's a good thing IMO.

I think it'd be funny to have Torain work out and have two huge, mean backs as a tandem instead of two wussy ones like the Bells who can't move a pile, or a pounder and a scatback. But at this point if Henry gets injured, I think you're gonna see a lot of Hillis and Young splitting the load. It'll be better for Hillis IMO to be a RB than a FB on our depth chart - all of his skills will be brought more to bear.

Unless Peyton can't hang on to the rock. Ball security is gonna be his #1 concern. He hasn't been a huge fumbler in college (he did fumble though, ignore the online stats) but he didn't have that many carries. When toting the rock 15-20 times a game, ball security becomes more critical.

Still, there might be a problem in the way you've set up your backfield when the list of backups to your projected starter goes "rookie 7th rounder/injured scat back/rookie 5th rounder with foot issue/other injured scat back or WR/KR/RB hybrid UDFA."

Though scarily, that looks better than we've had on the depth chart in some previous years...

~G

topscribe
05-19-2008, 04:13 PM
Now that would be awesome. :salute:

Dont let the door hit ya Travis

Or, as OB420 put it, "Don't let the door hit ya, where the good Lord split ya"? :D

I would feel the same way, were I confident in who is running behind him. But
we have several players with a lot of potential (otherwise know as the "P
word"), but all who have to prove themselves.

Plan for a future without Henry, yes, but it would not be good for him not to
be there right now.

IMHO.

-----

NightTrainLayne
05-19-2008, 04:17 PM
Take it either way you like - then no matter what happens I was right about how I felt about it. ;)

But still, I like Hillis - and I think he's probably a better RB than FB.

They say he doesn't really get up a good head of steam...but he does. Anybody who can drag 4 guys downfield with him does fine on the Head Of Steam Scale.

He's called an average blocker...for a fullback, which makes him an excellent blocker for a RB.

I've watched his 240 pound self make acrobatic one-handed grabs, sprint past safeties and LBs to make catches and tiptoe down the sidelines with the best of em.

It was his bad luck to be stuck in the same backfield with DMC and Jones. The last back we had who was overshadowed by a Heisman candidate turned out to be a fine pro in his own right - Hillis could be the same. It's not like he went there as a FB. He went there as a RB with great potential who landed in the most loaded backfield in college ball a short time later, and then turned himself into a FB to better benefit the team. Another man would have transferred, but it's not his style. That's a good thing IMO.

I think it'd be funny to have Torain work out and have two huge, mean backs as a tandem instead of two wussy ones like the Bells who can't move a pile, or a pounder and a scatback. But at this point if Henry gets injured, I think you're gonna see a lot of Hillis and Young splitting the load. It'll be better for Hillis IMO to be a RB than a FB on our depth chart - all of his skills will be brought more to bear.

Unless Peyton can't hang on to the rock. Ball security is gonna be his #1 concern. He hasn't been a huge fumbler in college (he did fumble though, ignore the online stats) but he didn't have that many carries. When toting the rock 15-20 times a game, ball security becomes more critical.

Still, there might be a problem in the way you've set up your backfield when the list of backups to your projected starter goes "rookie 7th rounder/injured scat back/rookie 5th rounder with foot issue/other injured scat back or WR/KR/RB hybrid UDFA."

Though scarily, that looks better than we've had on the depth chart in some previous years...

~G

I haven't posted this before, but I have an acquaintance here (older agent) who is a big-time Arkansas alum/contributor.

I brought up McFadden with him back in January long before the draft.

He mentioned that he knew the RB coach, and that Hillis was probably the best value in that back-field. He was told that Hillis would start anywhere else, and that he would no-doubt contribute in the NFL.

I know this is 3rd-hand, but it came well before the draft, and before I had any idea he would become a Bronco. I still want to see it with my own eyes on the field, but that's the hearsay here.

frauschieze
05-19-2008, 04:46 PM
Dude is hurt already.



http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/19/henry-missing-broncos-camp/?partner=yahoo_headlines

Injured or not, if I was that much in the doghouse and wanted (and needed) to prove myself, I'd be at camp, sitting on the sidelines taking notes, paying attention, offering guidance where I could. It's the little things that prove where your heart is, Travis.

MOtorboat
05-19-2008, 04:54 PM
Injured or not, if I was that much in the doghouse and wanted (and needed) to prove myself, I'd be at camp, sitting on the sidelines taking notes, paying attention, offering guidance where I could. It's the little things that prove where your heart is, Travis.

"...ok, look, Brandon, just remember, real men don't wear condoms."

OK...on second thought, maybe he shouldn't be there.

Retired_Member_001
05-19-2008, 04:57 PM
Dude is hurt already.



http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/19/henry-missing-broncos-camp/?partner=yahoo_headlines

Well, don't say I didn't warn you.

Timmy!
05-19-2008, 06:09 PM
Big deal. Baby's Daddy is fragile. What else is new. I'd be willing to put an avatar bet on he's the starting RB for game 1 of the regular season.

Inkana7
05-19-2008, 06:12 PM
Big deal. Baby's Daddy is fragile. What else is new. I'd be willing to put an avatar bet on he's the starting RB for game 1 of the regular season.

Never bet anything on a Mike Shanahan RB.

WARHORSE
05-19-2008, 06:12 PM
Take it either way you like - then no matter what happens I was right about how I felt about it. ;)

But still, I like Hillis - and I think he's probably a better RB than FB.

They say he doesn't really get up a good head of steam...but he does. Anybody who can drag 4 guys downfield with him does fine on the Head Of Steam Scale.

He's called an average blocker...for a fullback, which makes him an excellent blocker for a RB.

I've watched his 240 pound self make acrobatic one-handed grabs, sprint past safeties and LBs to make catches and tiptoe down the sidelines with the best of em.

It was his bad luck to be stuck in the same backfield with DMC and Jones. The last back we had who was overshadowed by a Heisman candidate turned out to be a fine pro in his own right - Hillis could be the same. It's not like he went there as a FB. He went there as a RB with great potential who landed in the most loaded backfield in college ball a short time later, and then turned himself into a FB to better benefit the team. Another man would have transferred, but it's not his style. That's a good thing IMO.

I think it'd be funny to have Torain work out and have two huge, mean backs as a tandem instead of two wussy ones like the Bells who can't move a pile, or a pounder and a scatback. But at this point if Henry gets injured, I think you're gonna see a lot of Hillis and Young splitting the load. It'll be better for Hillis IMO to be a RB than a FB on our depth chart - all of his skills will be brought more to bear.

Unless Peyton can't hang on to the rock. Ball security is gonna be his #1 concern. He hasn't been a huge fumbler in college (he did fumble though, ignore the online stats) but he didn't have that many carries. When toting the rock 15-20 times a game, ball security becomes more critical.

Still, there might be a problem in the way you've set up your backfield when the list of backups to your projected starter goes "rookie 7th rounder/injured scat back/rookie 5th rounder with foot issue/other injured scat back or WR/KR/RB hybrid UDFA."

Though scarily, that looks better than we've had on the depth chart in some previous years...

~G

I stated the same thing in one of our post draft threads. Hillis will get a look at RB.

Nature Boy
05-19-2008, 06:21 PM
I would be all for it anyway. He looked slow out there even when he was healthy.

Slow? Did you watch the games 1, 2 and 4? I've never seem that kind of size, speed and quickness from a 5'9'' frame. Game 3 was against a tough Jag's defense but he did get a 6 yard rushing TD on only 11 carries as the Broncos were playing from behind the whole game.

Pulled hamstring on the 1st real workout in months. it happens. He'll be ready in a few days.

Hobe
05-19-2008, 06:31 PM
A pulled hamstring will cause tailback Travis Henry to miss the Broncos' first minicamp in advance of the 2008 season.

Henry suffered the injury Friday on the last of several 100-yard dashes that were part of the team's strength and conditioning program.

Broncos coach Mike Shanahan said today he doesn't expect Henry to be available before Monday, which means he'll miss this week's passing camp.
Perhaps he should participate in the off-season stretching program! :elefant:


Like him or not, he did get hurt working.

Bronco9798
05-19-2008, 06:37 PM
Another Travis episode. This dude can't stay healthy. Apparently his off-seasoning conditioning isn't very good. I'm so tired of him already. Too bad he won his drug case. I just wish he would go away sometimes.

ApaOps5
05-19-2008, 07:02 PM
I got a text message from cbs4 about Travis Henry and the pulled Hammy. But in the same text message it also said and I quote, "Brandon Marshall healing quickly."

Wonder what that means.

SBboundBRONCOS
05-19-2008, 07:45 PM
I got a text message from cbs4 about Travis Henry and the pulled Hammy. But in the same text message it also said and I quote, "Brandon Marshall healing quickly."

Wonder what that means.

marshall was out running routes, just not catching any passes :beer:

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 07:58 PM
Dude is hurt already.



http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/19/henry-missing-broncos-camp/?partner=yahoo_headlines



I know of one fan that is reassessing his "love" for him..

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 08:01 PM
They get more practice reps, but Henry will be ready to go for the season and real competition, same thing with Marshall...so they go from being the starter all summer to being a backup...it's good in theory, but you have to wonder how that player then feels when the older player is healthy again...


They think it is just a matter of time before the old fart is gone..Then mikey does not have to justify putting the the big money guy.. Then I'll be getting the big contract cause he is over the hill..

Dreadnought
05-19-2008, 08:12 PM
Another Travis episode. This dude can't stay healthy. Apparently his off-seasoning conditioning isn't very good. I'm so tired of him already. Too bad he won his drug case. I just wish he would go away sometimes.

I thought he was very expendable last season, and as time goes by I'm more and more convinced. I'm with you Niner; I was pissed when he chiseled his way out of the drug rap.

This team isn't quite ready for a SB run anyway next year, though we could be a nasty-tough team, and Henry will be totally washed up by the time we are. He's not the future, and we have a lot of much more interesting options already on the roster.

Sassy
05-19-2008, 08:17 PM
For some reason...I really like Henry's style on the field. I think if he stays healthy he'll be a force like he was the beginning of last season...that being said I dont like what he does off the field...but I do like him as a Bronco.

Nature Boy
05-19-2008, 08:19 PM
Tweaked hammies are as common and as serious as a broken finger nail, especially in the 1st mini camp. What is everybody quivering about? Travis Henry will have a monstrous season. Wait and see.

MOtorboat
05-19-2008, 08:23 PM
Tweaked hammies are as common and as serious as a broken finger nail, especially in the 1st mini camp. What is everybody quivering about? Travis Henry will have a monstrous season. Wait and see.

:laugh::laugh:

Nothing like staying in shape in the offseason is there...

You are the biggest Henry shill I've ever seen...worse then Tubby even...

Northman
05-19-2008, 08:32 PM
Slow? Did you watch the games 1, 2 and 4? I've never seem that kind of size, speed and quickness from a 5'9'' frame. Game 3 was against a tough Jag's defense but he did get a 6 yard rushing TD on only 11 carries as the Broncos were playing from behind the whole game.

Pulled hamstring on the 1st real workout in months. it happens. He'll be ready in a few days.


Yes slow. Lethargic. Whatever you want to call it. He has no breakaway speed.

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 08:34 PM
Yes slow. Lethargic. Whatever you want to call it. He has no breakaway speed.


before the hamsting, what a waste of human..........

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 08:36 PM
since he has not impregnated anyone this week all the sperm buildup must have tweaked his hammy..

Bronco9798
05-19-2008, 08:36 PM
Hopefully someone shines in camp and pre-season and Henry is gone this year. I hate to see us play revolving RB week in and week out cause He is "dinged" up or "may" play. We need some durability back there.

Northman
05-19-2008, 08:38 PM
Hopefully someone shines in camp and pre-season and Henry is gone this year. I hate to see us play revolving RB week in and week out cause He is "dinged" up or "may" play. We need some durability back there.

Amen.

Sassy
05-19-2008, 08:54 PM
Hmmm....maybe Shanahan could turn Eddie Royal into an RB :D

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 08:56 PM
Hmmm....maybe Shanahan could turn Eddie Royal into an RB :D


do not even think it out loud or mikey will have to try it.. You know how he loves to show everyone what a mastermind he is..

omac
05-19-2008, 10:56 PM
Hey everyone, enough of this Shanny and Henry bashing; it gets pretty old. Some of us around here have been walking on eggshells avoiding saying anything negative about Jake, in deference to some posters who are big fans of him, so out of respect for fans of Travis, let's keep things football related.

And despite the night-and-day shift of fans here from last pre-season to this pre-season regarding Travis Henry's potential, I think he can definitely have a very good rushing season as a Bronco.

Lonestar
05-19-2008, 10:59 PM
Hey everyone, enough of this Shanny and Henry bashing; it gets pretty old. Some of us around here have been walking on eggshells avoiding saying anything negative about Jake, in deference to some posters who are big fans of him, so out of respect for fans of Travis, let's keep things football related.

And despite the night-and-day shift of fans here from last pre-season to this pre-season regarding Travis Henry's potential, I think he can definitely have a very good rushing season as a Bronco.

If he can remain healthy and off the suspended list, he can have a good season....

So far that has eluded him the past several years.. Maybe his luck has changed.. maybe not..

TXBRONC
05-19-2008, 11:06 PM
Probably not the best start to shutting us all up by mid season. :rolleyes:

I can't say I disgree with you there GEM.

Nature Boy
05-19-2008, 11:08 PM
I stated the same thing in one of our post draft threads. Hillis will get a look at RB.

No he wont. :lol:

Northman
05-19-2008, 11:12 PM
Hey everyone, enough of this Shanny and Henry bashing; it gets pretty old. Some of us around here have been walking on eggshells avoiding saying anything negative about Jake, in deference to some posters who are big fans of him, so out of respect for fans of Travis, let's keep things football related.



The fact that Henry is slow and injury prone is football related. And its a major concern of mine as a fan of the BRONCOS. If a particular fan of Travis cant handle those viewpoints from other fans then thats their problem. I shouldnt have to cater to someone who cant look beyond the rose colored glasses or because they cant see certain issues with their said favorite players. Same goes for any Plummer fans.

omac
05-19-2008, 11:21 PM
The fact that Henry is slow and injury prone is football related. And its a major concern of mine as a fan of the BRONCOS. If a particular fan of Travis cant handle those viewpoints from other fans then thats their problem. I shouldnt have to cater to someone who cant look beyond the rose colored glasses or because they cant see certain issues with their said favorite players. Same goes for any Plummer fans.

I agree with you, man; I just wanna make sure it goes both ways, either way. I do agree Travis hasn't proven he can be injury free ... he just recently injured his hamstring :D, but I do think he's got some real skills. A player doesn't have to be a speedster ... Marcus Allen sure wasn't, and he did pretty okay.

Northman
05-19-2008, 11:24 PM
I agree with you, man; I just wanna make sure it goes both ways, either way. I do agree Travis hasn't proven he can be injury free ... he just recently injured his hamstring :D, but I do think he's got some real skills. A player doesn't have to be a speedster ... Marcus Allen sure wasn't, and he did pretty okay.


True, same with Terrell. I mean look, i hope he works out. For once i would love to see a starting tailback finish the season without being injured no matter who it is. As a team we need to get the chemistry back and injuries have plagued us the last few years. But based on his history im skeptical but i hope to god he can prove me wrong. At the end of the day i want another Super Bowl title or 20 more but thats just being greedy. :D

Northman
05-19-2008, 11:24 PM
I can say for sure Anibus is not the best talent scouter.

Im not sure who Anibus is. But Anubis is a GREAT talent scouter. :laugh:

omac
05-19-2008, 11:27 PM
True, same with Terrell. I mean look, i hope he works out. For once i would love to see a starting tailback finish the season without being injured no matter who it is. As a team we need to get the chemistry back and injuries have plagued us the last few years. But based on his history im skeptical but i hope to god he can prove me wrong. At the end of the day i want another Super Bowl title or 20 more but thats just being greedy. :D

I believe we're going to get at least 3 with Cutler, maybe 4, hehe. :beer:

TXBRONC
05-19-2008, 11:35 PM
Injured or not, if I was that much in the doghouse and wanted (and needed) to prove myself, I'd be at camp, sitting on the sidelines taking notes, paying attention, offering guidance where I could. It's the little things that prove where your heart is, Travis.

I'm not sure Henry should be offering advice to anyone about anything.

Nature Boy
05-19-2008, 11:37 PM
Hey everyone, enough of this Shanny and Henry bashing; it gets pretty old. Some of us around here have been walking on eggshells avoiding saying anything negative about Jake, in deference to some posters who are big fans of him, so out of respect for fans of Travis, let's keep things football related.

And despite the night-and-day shift of fans here from last pre-season to this pre-season regarding Travis Henry's potential, I think he can definitely have a very good rushing season as a Bronco.

Best and smartest post in this whole retarded overreacting, Travis Henry bashing thread.

It's a common minor tweaked hammy and the whole board is acting as though Henry was let lose in a Nunnery Convent.

Nature Boy
05-19-2008, 11:41 PM
Im not sure who Anibus is. But Anubis is a GREAT talent scouter. :laugh:

If this is true, you should have known that Henry was never a speed back. He was always a low to ground, shifty cutback runner with great tackle breaking abilities.

Northman
05-19-2008, 11:45 PM
If this is true, you should have known that Henry was never a speed back. He was always a low to ground, shifty cutback runner with great tackle breaking abilities.

I did know that, thats why i stated it. You were the one trying to convince me he was speedy.

Nature Boy
05-19-2008, 11:58 PM
Point was, nobody expected Travis Henry to be a speed back. We all knew he wasn't except for you. That's why no body else pointed out his lack up straight ahead speed except for you. Hence why I thought your analysis of Henry is not all that insightful or was made with a good scouter's talent.

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:07 AM
Point was, nobody expected Travis Henry to be a speed back. We all knew he wasn't except for you. That's why no body else pointed out his lack up straight ahead speed except for you. Hence why I thought your analysis of Henry is not all that insightful or was made with a good scouter's talent.


Who says i was scouting him to begin with? I simply made some comments about what i dislike about him as a player on this team. I simply stated that i dislike his continous injury problems and his lack of speed. Nothing more, nothing less. I never made any mention of analyzing him or scouting him. Where you came up with that out of my posts is beyond me.

dogfish
05-20-2008, 12:20 AM
Slow? Did you watch the games 1, 2 and 4? I've never seem that kind of size, speed and quickness from a 5'9'' frame.


Point was, nobody expected Travis Henry to be a speed back. We all knew he wasn't except for you.




don't break your ankle back-pedaling. . . . ;)

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 12:21 AM
That's just fine, Bud, Maybe I got ahead of myself trying to defend Henry's on field play from all these "Travis Henry is a deadbeat dad" sayers. But you couldn't be more wrong when you said you thought Henry looked slow even when eh was healthy. That was where I thought your critique was way way off.

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:28 AM
But you couldn't be more wrong when you said you thought Henry looked slow even when eh was healthy. That was where I thought your critique was way way off.


And thats your opinion which is fine. I just disagree. It wouldnt be the first time someone disagreed with me on a message board.

Stargazer
05-20-2008, 12:56 AM
It's a common minor tweaked hammy and the whole board is acting as though Henry was let lose in a Nunnery Convent.

It does suck though already because Travis Henry is injured from running 100 yard dashes and will miss time.

sneakers
05-20-2008, 04:16 AM
Is this really even that big a deal?

Or is it that people who don't like Henry have a chance to say "SEE!! I Told you he was no good"?

Tned
05-20-2008, 07:06 AM
I can say for sure Anubis is not the best talent scouter.

It appears that you aren't a good scout of scouts, not to mention clearly aren't unbiased in your opinion/man crush on Henry.


Best and smartest post in this whole retarded overreacting, Travis Henry bashing thread.


Speaking of overreacting, you might want to check out your posts.

Ya know, it is possible to discuss a topic without attacking the other posters. Who knows, if you actually try it, you might like it...

TXBRONC
05-20-2008, 07:12 AM
It does suck though already because Travis Henry is injured from running 100 yard dashes and will miss time.


All of quarterback camp, hopefully it be anything more than that.

Timmy!
05-20-2008, 07:31 AM
Ok. To sum this thread up:

Majority: Travis Henry is trash. We hate him. Babies daddy is a terrible human being and we hate to see him in a Bronco uni. God help us let somebody else start at RB!!!

Minority: Babies daddy is trash alright, but he's the best RB we have right now. His durability is questionable, but when healthy, he makes a good back in our system. For how long? Who knows. Some depth would sure help.

Nature Boy & Tubby: Henry is the man. BIG HOSS!

Jrwiz: I hate Shanny. It's his fault Henry is here and has all those kids. Hell, I heard he even wanted to DAFT him years ago.


Did I miss anything?

frauschieze
05-20-2008, 08:15 AM
I'm not sure Henry should be offering advice to anyone about anything.

Yeah, you're probably right about that part. As a biased message board poster, however, I like to think I should impart my wisdom upon the masses. And since I was saying what I would do in his shoes....well...let's just say I'm not good at keeping my mouth shut. :D

elsid13
05-20-2008, 08:35 AM
My problem with Henry on the field is his apparent lack of patience and understanding of were the lanes are in the cutback scheme that Denver runs.

Beantown Bronco
05-20-2008, 08:38 AM
My problem with Henry on the field is his apparent lack of patience and understanding of were the lanes are in the cutback scheme that Denver runs.

Pretty tough to be patient when he was hit in the backfield on over 50% of his runs last season. If you think I'm exaggerating, I think you should rewatch some of the games from early last season in particular.

Italianmobstr7
05-20-2008, 09:02 AM
My problem with Henry on the field is his apparent lack of patience and understanding of were the lanes are in the cutback scheme that Denver runs.

People keep saying that they have a problem with Henry on the field, yet after the first 4 weeks of the season (when he was healthy, and didn't have a distraction) he LED THE LEAGUE IN RUSHING YARDS. People who say that Henry doesn't understand our system, or doesn't have patience, don't know what they're talking about. His problems with us weren't on the field. They were off the field, and him being hurt. That has nothing to do with his understanding of our scheme. People need to get that through their head.

I could care less about what Henry has done off the field. He's irresponsible, and has done some dumb things, but he's STILL the best RB we have, and he's a good one at that.

GEM
05-20-2008, 09:13 AM
Hey everyone, enough of this Shanny and Henry bashing; it gets pretty old. Some of us around here have been walking on eggshells avoiding saying anything negative about Jake, in deference to some posters who are big fans of him, so out of respect for fans of Travis, let's keep things football related.

And despite the night-and-day shift of fans here from last pre-season to this pre-season regarding Travis Henry's potential, I think he can definitely have a very good rushing season as a Bronco.

Jake who? That guys been gone for a couple years now...

I think most of the posts here have been in regard to his injuries. He coulda, woulda and shoulda's don't mean squat if he goes down everytime he takes a hit. Hell every time he has the ball, I expect a 2 minute break to commercial due to him rolling around the ground.

I don't think I've seen much of a shift. People gave him a chance, he failed. How many chances do you give a guy before just being completely done? It's great you are backing him, doesn't mean everyone else has to be on the Travis bandwagon.

GEM
05-20-2008, 09:14 AM
I can say for sure Anubis is not the best talent scouter.

We could say the same for you. :coffee:

elsid13
05-20-2008, 09:23 AM
People keep saying that they have a problem with Henry on the field, yet after the first 4 weeks of the season (when he was healthy, and didn't have a distraction) he LED THE LEAGUE IN RUSHING YARDS. People who say that Henry doesn't understand our system, or doesn't have patience, don't know what they're talking about. His problems with us weren't on the field. They were off the field, and him being hurt. That has nothing to do with his understanding of our scheme. People need to get that through their head.

I could care less about what Henry has done off the field. He's irresponsible, and has done some dumb things, but he's STILL the best RB we have, and he's a good one at that.

I understand the run game and what Denver is attempting to. there a number of time in the first four games, when Henry decide to attempt to cut outside vs let the play develop and get those yards inside and make the big play. Most of Henry long runs came not out of base run plays but rather the special plays (options, etc) that Shanahan put in.

Italianmobstr7
05-20-2008, 09:35 AM
I understand the run game and what Denver is attempting to. there a number of time in the first four games, when Henry decide to attempt to cut outside vs let the play develop and get those yards inside and make the big play. Most of Henry long runs came not out of base run plays but rather the special plays (options, etc) that Shanahan put in.

1. 1 of his big runs came off an option play. Henry was getting hit in the backfield, breaking tackles, and making something out of nothing. Go watch the first 4 games again. The guy was a beast. He was using the cut back lanes when they were there, the problem was that they weren't there often. Yes, he cut outside, but because he had to. I think that Henry understands how to run in the offense. If he didn't he wouldn't have led the league in rushing...

jrelway
05-20-2008, 09:45 AM
People keep saying that they have a problem with Henry on the field, yet after the first 4 weeks of the season (when he was healthy, and didn't have a distraction) he LED THE LEAGUE IN RUSHING YARDS. People who say that Henry doesn't understand our system, or doesn't have patience, don't know what they're talking about. His problems with us weren't on the field. They were off the field, and him being hurt. That has nothing to do with his understanding of our scheme. People need to get that through their head.

I could care less about what Henry has done off the field. He's irresponsible, and has done some dumb things, but he's STILL the best RB we have, and he's a good one at that.

nicely put mobster.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 09:46 AM
All of you that are saying a tweaked hamstring isn't a big deal, you're dead wrong. Those types of injuries tend to linger for a while. We've all seen players miss weeks if not months with that type of injury.

GEM
05-20-2008, 09:49 AM
All of you that are saying a tweaked hamstring isn't a big deal, you're dead wrong. Those types of injuries tend to linger for a while. We've all seen players miss weeks if not months with that type of injury.

Champ Bailey's a couple seasons ago comes to mind...

LRtagger
05-20-2008, 09:50 AM
Not to mention the fact that he was supposedly working harder during this offseason than he has in his entire career in order to prevent injury...yet he gets injured running sprints before camp even starts.

I guess that rigorous workout didnt work out.

ZING

jrelway
05-20-2008, 10:01 AM
from rotoworld..

With Travis Henry (hamstring) sidelined, Selvin Young will run with the Broncos' first team at passing camp this week.

Andre Hall will be No. 2. Ryan Torain may not get many reps coming off his foot injury, although he'll eventually get a long look. Torain appears fourth on the current depth chart, a depth chart that is sure to change in August.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 10:03 AM
from rotoworld..

With Travis Henry (hamstring) sidelined, Selvin Young will run with the Broncos' first team at passing camp this week.

Andre Hall will be No. 2. Ryan Torain may not get many reps coming off his foot injury, although he'll eventually get a long look. Torain appears fourth on the current depth chart, a depth chart that is sure to change in August.

Go Selvin!

tubby
05-20-2008, 10:34 AM
:laugh::laugh:

Nothing like staying in shape in the offseason is there...

You are the biggest Henry shill I've ever seen...worse then Tubby even...

Shut up MO. Someone can be in the best shape of their life and still tweak a hamstring. Something you wouldn't understand. :coffee:

Nature Boy – just let it go man. You are creating an army of Henry haters. Something I am none to pleased about. :mad:

Northman
05-20-2008, 10:44 AM
Is this really even that big a deal?

Or is it that people who don't like Henry have a chance to say "SEE!! I Told you he was no good"?



Is it that big of a deal this point of the season? No. But considering his track record so far with the Broncos regarding injuries it does raise some concerns.

atwater27
05-20-2008, 11:05 AM
Take it either way you like - then no matter what happens I was right about how I felt about it. ;)

But still, I like Hillis - and I think he's probably a better RB than FB.

They say he doesn't really get up a good head of steam...but he does. Anybody who can drag 4 guys downfield with him does fine on the Head Of Steam Scale.

He's called an average blocker...for a fullback, which makes him an excellent blocker for a RB.

I've watched his 240 pound self make acrobatic one-handed grabs, sprint past safeties and LBs to make catches and tiptoe down the sidelines with the best of em.

It was his bad luck to be stuck in the same backfield with DMC and Jones. The last back we had who was overshadowed by a Heisman candidate turned out to be a fine pro in his own right - Hillis could be the same. It's not like he went there as a FB. He went there as a RB with great potential who landed in the most loaded backfield in college ball a short time later, and then turned himself into a FB to better benefit the team. Another man would have transferred, but it's not his style. That's a good thing IMO.

I think it'd be funny to have Torain work out and have two huge, mean backs as a tandem instead of two wussy ones like the Bells who can't move a pile, or a pounder and a scatback. But at this point if Henry gets injured, I think you're gonna see a lot of Hillis and Young splitting the load. It'll be better for Hillis IMO to be a RB than a FB on our depth chart - all of his skills will be brought more to bear.

Unless Peyton can't hang on to the rock. Ball security is gonna be his #1 concern. He hasn't been a huge fumbler in college (he did fumble though, ignore the online stats) but he didn't have that many carries. When toting the rock 15-20 times a game, ball security becomes more critical.

Still, there might be a problem in the way you've set up your backfield when the list of backups to your projected starter goes "rookie 7th rounder/injured scat back/rookie 5th rounder with foot issue/other injured scat back or WR/KR/RB hybrid UDFA."

Though scarily, that looks better than we've had on the depth chart in some previous years...

~G

I agree. He looks like a tailback to me. Brandon jacobs baybee.

omac
05-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Ok. To sum this thread up:

Majority: Travis Henry is trash. We hate him. Babies daddy is a terrible human being and we hate to see him in a Bronco uni. God help us let somebody else start at RB!!!

Minority: Babies daddy is trash alright, but he's the best RB we have right now. His durability is questionable, but when healthy, he makes a good back in our system. For how long? Who knows. Some depth would sure help.

Nature Boy & Tubby: Henry is the man. BIG HOSS!

Jrwiz: I hate Shanny. It's his fault Henry is here and has all those kids. Hell, I heard he even wanted to DAFT him years ago.


Did I miss anything?

:rofl: Hillarious, man! :rofl:

omac
05-20-2008, 12:05 PM
Jake who? That guys been gone for a couple years now...

I think most of the posts here have been in regard to his injuries. He coulda, woulda and shoulda's don't mean squat if he goes down everytime he takes a hit. Hell every time he has the ball, I expect a 2 minute break to commercial due to him rolling around the ground.

I don't think I've seen much of a shift. People gave him a chance, he failed. How many chances do you give a guy before just being completely done? It's great you are backing him, doesn't mean everyone else has to be on the Travis bandwagon.

I'm not on the bandwagon; I think he has skills, but I also know he hasn't proven he can stay injury free. My comment on sticking to football had to do with a few posts that I'd rather not zero in on, because I wouldn't want to make the matter a bigger issue. The threads coming along fine.

There was a huge shift from pre-season last year to approaching this season. Lots of people had high hopes for him, thinking 1500 yards was not unmanageable.

And I'm not against anyone else having their own opinions; based on my posts, I don't know where you got that from.

GEM
05-20-2008, 12:10 PM
I'm not on the bandwagon; I think he has skills, but I also know he hasn't proven he can stay injury free. My comment on sticking to football had to do with a few posts that I'd rather not zero in on, because I wouldn't want to make the matter a bigger issue. The threads coming along fine.

There was a huge shift from pre-season last year to approaching this season. Lots of people had high hopes for him, thinking 1500 yards was not unmanageable.

And I'm not against anyone else having their own opinions; based on my posts, I don't know where you got that from.

Sorry omac, that was at you directly. I understand your post earlier. I get that people have hopes for him, but it upsets me to look at a topic with just one side of the facts. I don't take woulda, coulda and shoulda's as fact. He may have skills, he may have had skills at one point. I didn't follow him prior to coming to Denver. I could care less what he did prior to coming to Denver. What I do care about is what he has done for Denver....so far, that isn't much. Then add in all the personal stuff, it just doesn't add up to the man love shown for the guy. He doesn't deserve it.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 12:11 PM
... add in all the personal stuff, it just doesn't add up to the man love shown for the guy. He doesn't deserve it.

Exactly.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 12:16 PM
From another thread:


Travis Henry was a no-show, and now we know why. Henry tweaked a
Hamstring on the last of several 100-yard dashes that were part of the
strength and conditioning program last week. It appears henry won't be
available until next week at the earliest. Henry's injury should open the door
for Selvin Young and rookie Ryan Torain. While Henry was slated to be the
#1 back heading into team workouts, Shanny has no problem starting a
rookie if he proves himself in practice --

"Terrell Davis wasn't taken until the sixth round. It doesn't matter. You think
Mike Anderson wasn't going to play for me because he was drafted in the
sixth round? You've got competition. We've got a fifth-rounder who has
some ability. What you've got to do is you've got to be ready."

Whether that was a shot at Henry or not is anyone's guess. What is known
is Shanny doesn't like guys who nurse injuries(see Brandon Marshall last
year) and Henry's absence combined with Torain's faster-than-expected
recovery from Lis-Franc surgery last year tells me Henry is on thin ice.

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:16 PM
Sorry omac, that was at you directly. I understand your post earlier. I get that people have hopes for him, but it upsets me to look at a topic with just one side of the facts. I don't take woulda, coulda and shoulda's as fact. He may have skills, he may have had skills at one point. I didn't follow him prior to coming to Denver. I could care less what he did prior to coming to Denver. What I do care about is what he has done for Denver....so far, that isn't much. Then add in all the personal stuff, it just doesn't add up to the man love shown for the guy. He doesn't deserve it.


Exactly. Call it bad luck, call it ill-advised on his part for the off the field issues. But at the end of the day all that i care about is him performing on the field and remaining healthy. So far he has played 4 games and now is already hurt. Whether its major or minor is irrelevant. The problem is he has a track record here now and it should be a concern. Does he have the intangables to be a good back? Of Course. But it does no good if he spends 85% of time on the sidelines. I have this problem with ANY player who is a supposed to be a instrumental part of this team which Henry is supposed to be. Thankfully, we arent paying him outrageous money because then it would really hurt this team.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 12:19 PM
People keep saying that they have a problem with Henry on the field, yet after the first 4 weeks of the season (when he was healthy, and didn't have a distraction) he LED THE LEAGUE IN RUSHING YARDS. People who say that Henry doesn't understand our system, or doesn't have patience, don't know what they're talking about. His problems with us weren't on the field. They were off the field, and him being hurt. That has nothing to do with his understanding of our scheme. People need to get that through their head.

I could care less about what Henry has done off the field. He's irresponsible, and has done some dumb things, but he's STILL the best RB we have, and he's a good one at that.

Yes...but facing the #25, 31 and 15 ranked rushing defenses 3 of the first 4 weeks doesn't hurt. The one real D he faced he got crushed by.

That said, I don't think Henry has a problem understanding how we run. He's very well suited to the style of running attack we prefer - if he can stay healthy. He's a back who can run a one-cut style and has a lot of leg drive for such a short dude.

But Henry's a back with a lot of mileage on him, from running for teams that liked him to take a ton of damage 4 yards at a time.

I'm happier with him being on the team for a much cheaper price. That alone makes him more bearable, now that he's no longer our 25 million dollar baby daddy.

And he is the best veteran back on the roster for the style we run.

But like it or not, he DOES get injured. Every year. And so we're gonna need to plan for what to do when he's out of the lineup.

We're gonna want a long look at Torain and Hillis in camp to see who can take on the "power back" role in the RBBC we'll be running again this year when Henry breaks his ribs, or sprains his ankle, or strains his hamstring, or dislocates his brain...wait, too late...

~G

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:21 PM
Yes...but facing the #25, 31 and 15 ranked rushing defenses 3 of the first 4 weeks doesn't hurt.

Funny how those kinds of things get overlooked. Throw in the fact he has only 1 TD in those 4 games it just doesnt add up to very much at this point.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 12:23 PM
"What you've got to do is you've got to be ready."


"You'll get your chance! Important thing is, when it comes, you've got to grab with both hands, and hold on tight!"

--Otis, The Last Starfighter

Words to live by. Hopefully some of the backs have their hands ready...

~G

GEM
05-20-2008, 12:26 PM
Funny how those kinds of things get overlooked. Throw in the fact he has only 1 TD in those 4 games it just doesnt add up to very much at this point.

Or the fumble in the red zone vs. the Raiders...

This list could go on awhile.

Mike
05-20-2008, 12:28 PM
"You'll get your chance! Important thing is, when it comes, you've got to grab with both hands, and hold on tight!"

--Otis, The Last Starfighter

Words to live by. Hopefully some of the backs have their hands ready...

~G

:laugh:

I haven't seen that movie in years.

pilfin
05-20-2008, 12:28 PM
I am trying to figure out why everyone just stops after the first 4 games and when analyzing Travis Henry. What about his body of work last year. Certainly, you can't stop after 4 games. I looked back at the archives and this is what I found:

Week 1: 139 yards against the Bills. The Bills would finish the season ranked 25th against the rush giving up an average of 125 yards per game.

Week 2: 128 yards against the Raiders. The Raiders would finish the season ranked 31st against the rush giving up an average of 146 yards per game.

Week 3: 35 yards against the Jaguars. The Jaguars would finish the season 11th against the rush giving up an average of 100 yards per game.

Week 4: 131 yards against the Colts. The Colts would finish the season ranked 15th against the rush giving up an average of 106 yards per game.

A snippet from cbssportsline about Henrys situation after that game:
Henry left the game but returned and finished with 131 yards on 26 carries. The news that Henry's MRI came back negative means his injury is not overly serious and he still has a shot of playing in Week 5's divisional game vs. San Diego. While the Broncos don't consider Henry's injury serious, his hobble indicated he will likely miss the week of practice and may be questionable for the game Sunday against San Diego at Invesco Field at Mile High. "I think I'll play," Henry said. "I know my body, and I think things will settle down in a couple days and I'll be able to get back in there."

OK, so there are the 4 games everyone thinks prove Henry is the next Jim Brown. He sucked against Jacksonville, but looked excellent against two lousy run defenses in Oakland and Buffalo. Now, you have to give him credit for the Indy game, but the Colts have an average run defense at best, and we owned them on the ground in the past.

So, he tweaks his ankle in the Indy game, and then they do an MRI and find nothing wrong. He says he will be fine, and although he sits out most of the practices that week, he starts on sunday:

Week 5: rushes for 65 yards against the Chargers. The Chargers would finish the season ranked 16th against the rush giving up an average of 107 yards per game.

So he said he would be fine, the Broncos thought he was fine, he started and recieved all but one of the carries. So the conclusion is that he was healthy for the San Diego game and he was pretty lousy.

Even if he wasn't, he now got a bye week in week 6, so he is definitely healthy for week 7 against the Steelers:

Week 7: rushes for 51 yards against the Steelers. The Steelers would finish the season ranked 3rd against the rush giving up an average of 90 yards per game.

So Henry gets his first test against a truly good rush defense and fails miserably. Now, he has been practicing and everything appears normal going into week 7, so no excuses. He recieved all but two of the carries in that game, so he was definitely the man in that game. However, toward the end of the game, he falls on the football wrong and bruises his ribs.

Ok. from there, he sits out a week. Practices the following week and says he feels great for the Lions game, only to injure his knee in that game and sit out the next three weeks. Now he is damaged goods through the rest of the season. So fine, I can buy the argument that we can ignore week 8 - week 17 as being indicative of Henry's ability as a HEALTHY running back.

However, I don't think you can throw out weeks 5 and 7. So, when you factor those weeks, we get the real picture of Travis Henry's HEALTHY 2007 season:

6 games
549 yards
91.5 yards per game
1 TDs
2 fumbles
4.6 yards per carry

If you extrapolate that to a 16 game season, that is 1464 yards for the season with 3 TDs. What does all that mean? Well quite frankly, it means that Travis Henry can eat up chunks of yards when healthy, even as a Denver Bronco. Apparantly he isn't a real threat in the red zone, but we do have other options now for that. However, we should also remember that he racked up most of those yards against lousy rush defenses and only played against one top 10 rush defense, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But here is the question: Can any of our other current backs put up 1400 yards in a season? Because the problem with Henry is that we had to extrapolate his numbers. The reason being that he never plays a 16 game season. (technically, he has finished one season out of seven, so I am exagerating). He will not finish this one either. If the past is indicative of the future, he has a 14% chance of playing all 16 games. Do we have someone on the roster who has a better chance of staying healthy that can also gain 1400 yards? If the answer is no, then you gotta go with Henry. If the answer is yes, you gotta go with that guy. Reliability is an important factor. Henry isn't reliable. And if he sucks this bad when he plays hurt, then DON'T PLAY HIM WHEN HE IS HURT.

Anyway, that is my take on Henry. I really wish we could have brought in Michael Turner though.

GEM
05-20-2008, 12:31 PM
I am trying to figure out why everyone just stops after the first 4 games and when analyzing Travis Henry. What about his body of work last year. Certainly, you can't stop after 4 games. I looked back at the archives and this is what I found:

Week 1: 139 yards against the Bills. The Bills would finish the season ranked 25th against the rush giving up an average of 125 yards per game.

Week 2: 128 yards against the Raiders. The Raiders would finish the season ranked 31st against the rush giving up an average of 146 yards per game.

Week 3: 35 yards against the Jaguars. The Jaguars would finish the season 11th against the rush giving up an average of 100 yards per game.

Week 4: 131 yards against the Colts. The Colts would finish the season ranked 15th against the rush giving up an average of 106 yards per game.

A snippet from cbssportsline about Henrys situation after that game:
Henry left the game but returned and finished with 131 yards on 26 carries. The news that Henry's MRI came back negative means his injury is not overly serious and he still has a shot of playing in Week 5's divisional game vs. San Diego. While the Broncos don't consider Henry's injury serious, his hobble indicated he will likely miss the week of practice and may be questionable for the game Sunday against San Diego at Invesco Field at Mile High. "I think I'll play," Henry said. "I know my body, and I think things will settle down in a couple days and I'll be able to get back in there."

OK, so there are the 4 games everyone thinks prove Henry is the next Jim Brown. He sucked against Jacksonville, but looked excellent against two lousy run defenses in Oakland and Buffalo. Now, you have to give him credit for the Indy game, but the Colts have an average run defense at best, and we owned them on the ground in the past.

So, he tweaks his ankle in the Indy game, and then they do an MRI and find nothing wrong. He says he will be fine, and although he sits out most of the practices that week, he starts on sunday:

Week 5: rushes for 65 yards against the Chargers. The Chargers would finish the season ranked 16th against the rush giving up an average of 107 yards per game.

So he said he would be fine, the Broncos thought he was fine, he started and recieved all but one of the carries. So the conclusion is that he was healthy for the San Diego game and he was pretty lousy.

Even if he wasn't, he now got a bye week in week 6, so he is definitely healthy for week 7 against the Steelers:

Week 7: rushes for 51 yards against the Steelers. The Steelers would finish the season ranked 3rd against the rush giving up an average of 90 yards per game.

So Henry gets his first test against a truly good rush defense and fails miserably. Now, he has been practicing and everything appears normal going into week 7, so no excuses. He recieved all but two of the carries in that game, so he was definitely the man in that game. However, toward the end of the game, he falls on the football wrong and bruises his ribs.

Ok. from there, he sits out a week. Practices the following week and says he feels great for the Lions game, only to injure his knee in that game and sit out the next three weeks. Now he is damaged goods through the rest of the season. So fine, I can buy the argument that we can ignore week 8 - week 17 as being indicative of Henry's ability as a HEALTHY running back.

However, I don't think you can throw out weeks 5 and 7. So, when you factor those weeks, we get the real picture of Travis Henry's HEALTHY 2007 season:

6 games
549 yards
91.5 yards per game
1 TDs
2 fumbles
4.6 yards per carry

If you extrapolate that to a 16 game season, that is 1464 yards for the season with 3 TDs. What does all that mean? Well quite frankly, it means that Travis Henry can eat up chunks of yards when healthy, even as a Denver Bronco. Apparantly he isn't a real threat in the red zone, but we do have other options now for that. However, we should also remember that he racked up most of those yards against lousy rush defenses and only played against one top 10 rush defense, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But here is the question: Can any of our other current backs put up 1400 yards in a season? Because the problem with Henry is that we had to extrapolate his numbers. The reason being that he never plays a 16 game season. (technically, he has finished one season out of seven, so I am exagerating). He will not finish this one either. If the past is indicative of the future, he has a 14% chance of playing all 16 games. Do we have someone on the roster who has a better chance of staying healthy that can also gain 1400 yards? If the answer is no, then you gotta go with Henry. If the answer is yes, you gotta go with that guy. Reliability is an important factor. Henry isn't reliable. And if he sucks this bad when he plays hurt, then DON'T PLAY HIM WHEN HE IS HURT.

Anyway, that is my take on Henry. I really wish we could have brought in Michael Turner though.


Those are the facts jack!

Excellent post!

NightTrainLayne
05-20-2008, 12:33 PM
"You'll get your chance! Important thing is, when it comes, you've got to grab with both hands, and hold on tight!"

--Otis, The Last Starfighter

Words to live by. Hopefully some of the backs have their hands ready...

~G

G$ you never cease to amaze me. .. Quoting "The Last Starfighter".

Good one.

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:38 PM
I am trying to figure out why everyone just stops after the first 4 games and when analyzing Travis Henry. What about his body of work last year. Certainly, you can't stop after 4 games. I looked back at the archives and this is what I found:

Week 1: 139 yards against the Bills. The Bills would finish the season ranked 25th against the rush giving up an average of 125 yards per game.

Week 2: 128 yards against the Raiders. The Raiders would finish the season ranked 31st against the rush giving up an average of 146 yards per game.

Week 3: 35 yards against the Jaguars. The Jaguars would finish the season 11th against the rush giving up an average of 100 yards per game.

Week 4: 131 yards against the Colts. The Colts would finish the season ranked 15th against the rush giving up an average of 106 yards per game.

A snippet from cbssportsline about Henrys situation after that game:
Henry left the game but returned and finished with 131 yards on 26 carries. The news that Henry's MRI came back negative means his injury is not overly serious and he still has a shot of playing in Week 5's divisional game vs. San Diego. While the Broncos don't consider Henry's injury serious, his hobble indicated he will likely miss the week of practice and may be questionable for the game Sunday against San Diego at Invesco Field at Mile High. "I think I'll play," Henry said. "I know my body, and I think things will settle down in a couple days and I'll be able to get back in there."

OK, so there are the 4 games everyone thinks prove Henry is the next Jim Brown. He sucked against Jacksonville, but looked excellent against two lousy run defenses in Oakland and Buffalo. Now, you have to give him credit for the Indy game, but the Colts have an average run defense at best, and we owned them on the ground in the past.

So, he tweaks his ankle in the Indy game, and then they do an MRI and find nothing wrong. He says he will be fine, and although he sits out most of the practices that week, he starts on sunday:

Week 5: rushes for 65 yards against the Chargers. The Chargers would finish the season ranked 16th against the rush giving up an average of 107 yards per game.

So he said he would be fine, the Broncos thought he was fine, he started and recieved all but one of the carries. So the conclusion is that he was healthy for the San Diego game and he was pretty lousy.

Even if he wasn't, he now got a bye week in week 6, so he is definitely healthy for week 7 against the Steelers:

Week 7: rushes for 51 yards against the Steelers. The Steelers would finish the season ranked 3rd against the rush giving up an average of 90 yards per game.

So Henry gets his first test against a truly good rush defense and fails miserably. Now, he has been practicing and everything appears normal going into week 7, so no excuses. He recieved all but two of the carries in that game, so he was definitely the man in that game. However, toward the end of the game, he falls on the football wrong and bruises his ribs.

Ok. from there, he sits out a week. Practices the following week and says he feels great for the Lions game, only to injure his knee in that game and sit out the next three weeks. Now he is damaged goods through the rest of the season. So fine, I can buy the argument that we can ignore week 8 - week 17 as being indicative of Henry's ability as a HEALTHY running back.

However, I don't think you can throw out weeks 5 and 7. So, when you factor those weeks, we get the real picture of Travis Henry's HEALTHY 2007 season:

6 games
549 yards
91.5 yards per game
1 TDs
2 fumbles
4.6 yards per carry

If you extrapolate that to a 16 game season, that is 1464 yards for the season with 3 TDs. What does all that mean? Well quite frankly, it means that Travis Henry can eat up chunks of yards when healthy, even as a Denver Bronco. Apparantly he isn't a real threat in the red zone, but we do have other options now for that. However, we should also remember that he racked up most of those yards against lousy rush defenses and only played against one top 10 rush defense, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But here is the question: Can any of our other current backs put up 1400 yards in a season? Because the problem with Henry is that we had to extrapolate his numbers. The reason being that he never plays a 16 game season. (technically, he has finished one season out of seven, so I am exagerating). He will not finish this one either. If the past is indicative of the future, he has a 14% chance of playing all 16 games. Do we have someone on the roster who has a better chance of staying healthy that can also gain 1400 yards? If the answer is no, then you gotta go with Henry. If the answer is yes, you gotta go with that guy. Reliability is an important factor. Henry isn't reliable. And if he sucks this bad when he plays hurt, then DON'T PLAY HIM WHEN HE IS HURT.

Anyway, that is my take on Henry. I really wish we could have brought in Michael Turner though.


We said and well thought out. Sometimes people get so enamored with yardage instead of red zone efficiency and TD's scored. Now, some people will argue that the Oline had some problems there and i would agree to a certain point. But going by some people's logic about Henry being more of a power back rather than speed wouldnt one assume that in the red zone is when Henry should take over and be at his best? When all is said and done its up to Henry to prove his doubters wrong, not the otherway around. And for the sake of the team i hope he does prove me wrong. I just dont see it right now.

Beantown Bronco
05-20-2008, 12:44 PM
Last year's offensive line was by far the most inconsistent and least talented of any Bronco OLine in over 15 years......and we're somehow blaming Henry for struggling against top run defenses and not punching it in in the redzone.

I suppose the lack of rushing TDs had nothing at all to do with the fact that the DLine was in the backfield on every short yardage run.

Mike
05-20-2008, 12:46 PM
We said and well thought out. Sometimes people get so enamored with yardage instead of red zone efficiency and TD's scored. Now, some people will argue that the Oline had some problems there and i would agree to a certain point. But going by some people's logic about Henry being more of a power back rather than speed wouldnt one assume that in the red zone is when Henry should take over and be at his best? When all is said and done its up to Henry to prove his doubters wrong, not the otherway around. And for the sake of the team i hope he does prove me wrong. I just dont see it right now.

I am not really a fan of Henry (it is what it is), but I think a lot of the red-zone problems have also been magnified by the less-than-stellar playcalling. Coaches need to put their players in position to thrive and succeed...and I don't think Denver did that much last year.

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:49 PM
Last year's offensive line was by far the most inconsistent and least talented of any Bronco OLine in over 15 years......and we're somehow blaming Henry for struggling against top run defenses and not punching it in in the redzone.

I suppose the lack of rushing TDs had nothing at all to do with the fact that the DLine was in the backfield on every short yardage run.


Yet we have no problem giving him credit for leading the league in rushing after 4 games. :rolleyes:

Beantown Bronco
05-20-2008, 12:56 PM
Yet we have no problem giving him credit for leading the league in rushing after 4 games. :rolleyes:

When he does that despite getting hit in the backfield consistently, I see no problem giving credit where credit is due.

pilfin
05-20-2008, 12:58 PM
I think the argument that the line was the problem is not entirely valid. Yes, our line went bad as the season went on due to injuries. However, Nalen doesn't get hurt until mid season, and Hamilton was hurt before the season started. So I don't think the argument holds for the 1st six games that Henry played and was healthy for. If the Hamilton injury was the problem, then Henry wouldn't have had success against his first couple of opponents. If the Nalen injury was the problem, you wouldn't have seen such lousy games by Henry in weeks 3, 5, and 7.

GEM
05-20-2008, 12:59 PM
So it's the Oline's fault when he does poorly and his great performance when he does well? :laugh: Sorry, but if you don't see the hypocrisy in that, you're blind.

Northman
05-20-2008, 12:59 PM
I am not really a fan of Henry (it is what it is), but I think a lot of the red-zone problems have also been magnified by the less-than-stellar playcalling. Coaches need to put their players in position to thrive and succeed...and I don't think Denver did that much last year.

In my opinion the play calling is a direct result of the lack of ability to punch it into the endzone from 3yds or less. Cant say i blame him for trying to pass it more down there as we cant even blast it in from 3 or less yds out. When Shanahan has tried that people say "MIX IT UP MORE!". So the fans arent happy when he does play it straight or when he mixes up the playcalling. Either way, we need the running game to be effective not just between the 20's but in the redzone as well. Hopefully with some of the additions this offseason we can correct those issues.

Northman
05-20-2008, 01:00 PM
When he does that despite getting hit in the backfield consistently, I see no problem giving credit where credit is due.


Gimme a break. He wasnt hit in the backfield that often. :lol:

GEM
05-20-2008, 01:01 PM
In my opinion the play calling is a direct result of the lack of ability to punch it into the endzone from 3yds or less. Cant say i blame him for trying to pass it more down there as we cant even blast it in from 3 or less yds out. When Shanahan has tried that people say "MIX IT UP MORE!". So the fans arent happy when he does play it straight or when he mixes up the playcalling. Either way, we need the running game to be effective not just between the 20's but in the redzone as well. Hopefully with some of the additions this offseason we can correct those issues.

Exactly....when you try something continually and it doesn't work, you try something different. It sucks, but that's usually how it works.

omac
05-20-2008, 01:03 PM
Sorry omac, that was at you directly. I understand your post earlier. I get that people have hopes for him, but it upsets me to look at a topic with just one side of the facts. I don't take woulda, coulda and shoulda's as fact. He may have skills, he may have had skills at one point. I didn't follow him prior to coming to Denver. I could care less what he did prior to coming to Denver. What I do care about is what he has done for Denver....so far, that isn't much. Then add in all the personal stuff, it just doesn't add up to the man love shown for the guy. He doesn't deserve it.

Man love? Definitely not from me, yikes! :D

As I've been saying again and again, Henry has skills, but hasn't proven that he could stay healthy. That's my opinion; others have their own. The stuff outside of football, I don't pay much attention to, unless it's connected to a serious crime. I try not to focus too much on a pro athlete's private life. Everyone has flaws and weaknesses, but for those athletes, it's in a magnifying glass for the whole world to criticize. Those are tough conditions, no matter how much money you make, and it's always easy to point out someone else's flaws or mistakes.

But back on topic. I've watched some of the earlier games a few times, and I liked Henry's cutback ability, his subtle jukes, and the way he would initiate contact on the oncoming tackler. The defenders did not like getting hit by Henry. Selvin Young, mentally, is equally tough, but physically, they're not in the same league. Selvin is more of a speed threat than Travis, but no way can he continually pound the defense throughout a game. He gets most of his yardage through clear running lanes. With similar builds, Justin Fargas is more of a pounding back than Selvin is.

I like Selvin's attitude and his skill sets, but he's more of a change of pace back than a starter. Torrain may have potential, but just because he'll run for Denver, doesn't mean he'll be a beast.

I'm hoping Henry can stay healthy the whole season, because I don't think anyone else in our current roster is the bruising cut-back runner he is. And that's not showing love; I don't think Henry is on the elite level of RBs, but none of our current backs are better at that kind of running style.

elsid13
05-20-2008, 01:04 PM
In my opinion the play calling is a direct result of the lack of ability to punch it into the endzone from 3yds or less. Cant say i blame him for trying to pass it more down there as we cant even blast it in from 3 or less yds out. When Shanahan has tried that people say "MIX IT UP MORE!". So the fans arent happy when he does play it straight or when he mixes up the playcalling. Either way, we need the running game to be effective not just between the 20's but in the redzone as well. Hopefully with some of the additions this offseason we can correct those issues.

It time for the 6 WR spread.

Mike
05-20-2008, 01:06 PM
In my opinion the play calling is a direct result of the lack of ability to punch it into the endzone from 3yds or less. Cant say i blame him for trying to pass it more down there as we cant even blast it in from 3 or less yds out. When Shanahan has tried that people say "MIX IT UP MORE!". So the fans arent happy when he does play it straight or when he mixes up the playcalling. Either way, we need the running game to be effective not just between the 20's but in the redzone as well. Hopefully with some of the additions this offseason we can correct those issues.

Lack of creativity and predictability. That is what it has boiled down to in the last couple of years, IMO. Granted, you have to have good players...but you also have to know your players strengths/weaknesses and tailor your plays around that. The Denver Broncos offense hasn't done that and have just been too predictable over the last two years, especially in the redzone.

Note: When I say creativity, I am not meaning gimmick plays. I mean being creative and unpredictable in plays designed to keep the defense guessing and back on their heels.

Northman
05-20-2008, 01:06 PM
It time for the 6 WR spread.


If we had any WR that would be a great idea. I have a better one. Send the Punter in. Look out Faiders! The ICEBOX is coming through!! :D

elsid13
05-20-2008, 01:10 PM
If we had any WR that would be a great idea. I have a better one. Send the Punter in. Look out Faiders! The ICEBOX is coming through!! :D

Remind me to put a clauses in the contract 1)pays us for any brilliant offense plays that we develop on the fly during the game 2) a step increase that allows us to get more dollars every time you attempt to run for TD.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 01:10 PM
But back on topic. I've watched some of the earlier games a few times, and I liked Henry's cutback ability, his subtle jukes, and the way he would initiate contact on the oncoming tackler. The defenders did not like getting hit by Henry. Selvin Young, mentally, is equally tough, but physically, they're not in the same league. Selvin is more of a speed threat than Travis, but no way can he continually pound the defense throughout a game. He gets most of his yardage through clear running lanes. With similar builds, Justin Fargas is more of a pounding back than Selvin is.

I guess I'd rather have a back that can out-juke and out-run the defense as opposed to initiating contact. TD was not a bruiser, but he knew how to pick the right hole and explode through it. IIRC, TD really didn't get hit all that much, nor was he required to "move the pile" on a consistant basis. Selvin is much more like TD, IMO, than Henry.

pilfin
05-20-2008, 01:12 PM
Henry is a very odd runner. He likes it inside his own 20 and on the opponents side outside the 20. Here are the stats:

Inside opponents 20: 29 rushes for 67 yards (2.3) 4 TDS

Opponents 49-20 yard line: 51 rushes for 270 yards (5.3)

Inside own 20: 24 rushes for 140 yards (5.8)

Own 21-50: 63 rushes for 214 yards (3.4)

Northman
05-20-2008, 01:13 PM
Lack of creativity and predictability. That is what it has boiled down to in the last couple of years, IMO. Granted, you have to have good players...but you also have to know your players strengths/weaknesses and tailor your plays around that. The Denver Broncos offense hasn't done that and have just been too predictable over the last two years, especially in the redzone.

Note: When I say creativity, I am not meaning gimmick plays. I mean being creative and unpredictable in plays designed to keep the defense guessing and back on their heels.


You think Indy or New England gets that creative when they score in the redzone? I think not. But you are correct when you say we need the right players down there but its also about execution from the players. Like i said, the odd playcalling has been a direct result of lack of effectiveness running the ball down on the goalline. Shanahan is only NOW understanding some of the issues with talented players on the lines to help improve this. Shanahan right now is trying to do everything he can to fix those woes down there. Its easy to pile on a coach when the chips are down and when the team is in a rebuilding mode which has been going on the last two years.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 01:14 PM
I am not really a fan of Henry (it is what it is), but I think a lot of the red-zone problems have also been magnified by the less-than-stellar playcalling. Coaches need to put their players in position to thrive and succeed...and I don't think Denver did that much last year.

QFT.

Saying Henry is a decent back who was overpaid originally and injury-prone can be the truth...and yet there can still be a problem with play-calling.

Our red-zone and 3rd down issues were atrocious and unforgivable. Some of them were related to having a 3rd string center and new LG trying to crack holes in the opposing front, and failing. Some of them had to do with RBs who couldn't break the first tackle, Henry included, when it counted - and who couldn't move the pile or make their own hole.

And some of it was DEFINITELY playcalling. We had some truly horrible high-school plays we were running to try to get in the end zone or to move the chains.

Having a better OL this year should help with one of the issues. Hamilton and Nalen being back, and a healthy and larger Clady over the smaller and busted-up Lepsis should make a difference. We don't know how well they'll all mesh, but we do know they are larger and more talented this coming year than they were near the end of last year.

Drafting bigger backs like Torain and Hillis to try to move the pile and get those tough yards could help with the small-back issue. We'll find out.

But Shanahan needs to do a better job of putting his players in position to succeed. Running it up the gut 3 times from the 10 and kicking a field goal is not maximizing your scoring potential.

It's on Shanahan now to maximize the strengths of his roster with his playcalling, while minimizing their weaknesses. We'll see if his plan this year is better than the half-assed one he's thrown out there the last couple of years, with repetitive play-calls and obvious "misdirection" that fools no one.

Here's hoping.

~G

G_Money
05-20-2008, 01:21 PM
I guess I'd rather have a back that can out-juke and out-run the defense as opposed to initiating contact. TD was not a bruiser, but he knew how to pick the right hole and explode through it. IIRC, TD really didn't get hit all that much, nor was he required to "move the pile" on a consistant basis. Selvin is much more like TD, IMO, than Henry.

TD had more leg drive than any two other runners. He didn't just run up the back of the pile, he found a niche and slipped into it a la Marcus Allen, and then exploded forward with those giant thighs like Jim Brown or Earl Campbell.

Young is elusive, and runs in the open field with a TD-like stride, but I haven't seen him be able to move anybody with his drive. Sometimes he breaks tackles with good lift to his legs, but if there's a LB or DT in his way, he's not gonna make it through them. It has to be around. TD could go either way.

He's always trying to go forward, though, so IMO he's a better version of Tatum. I like him fine, and am a supporter of his - I just don't want him to get a lot of carries because I think they'll break him...again.

He's not a horse, and he's not a short-yardage back, which makes it tough to leave him in the game on 3rd and 3.

~G

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 01:24 PM
TD had more leg drive than any two other runners. He didn't just run up the back of the pile, he found a niche and slipped into it a la Marcus Allen, and then exploded forward with those giant thighs like Jim Brown or Earl Campbell.

Young is elusive, and runs in the open field with a TD-like stride, but I haven't seen him be able to move anybody with his drive. Sometimes he breaks tackles with good lift to his legs, but if there's a LB or DT in his way, he's not gonna make it through them. It has to be around. TD could go either way.

He's always trying to go forward, though, so IMO he's a better version of Tatum. I like him fine, and am a supporter of his - I just don't want him to get a lot of carries because I think they'll break him...again.

He's not a horse, and he's not a short-yardage back, which makes it tough to leave him in the game on 3rd and 3.

~G

I was hoping you'd take the bait and give me an analysis. Thanks.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 01:38 PM
You're a sneaky SOB, Joe.

Laconic and sneaky.

~G

omac
05-20-2008, 01:42 PM
I guess I'd rather have a back that can out-juke and out-run the defense as opposed to initiating contact. TD was not a bruiser, but he knew how to pick the right hole and explode through it. IIRC, TD really didn't get hit all that much, nor was he required to "move the pile" on a consistant basis. Selvin is much more like TD, IMO, than Henry.

Selvin is not like TD at all. It's true that TD knew how to hit the hole, but he wasn't a finesse player; he did not shy away from contact. It wasn't uncommon for him to lay a hit on a tackler, nor carry the guy a few yards. TD had great skills, but he was definitely not just a finesse back, and he had the body to give and take a pounding. He was an every down back in every sense of the word. Selvin has the mentality, but not the body to withstand that pounding. At least he hasn't shown it last season, nor in college. So far, he's a good change of pace back.

Though Henry is a far cry from TD, he's much better at reading the openings his OL gives him (or not give him) than Selvin. The OL hasn't been very good at that this season, whether for Henry or Selvin, and it got worse when Nalen went down. What they have in common is against good defensive teams (the ones that penetrate our OL), neither could do much. We were lucky that Haynesworth was out (or was that recovering) from an injury when we faced that Titans. Henry's natural moves are also a much better fit for our zone blocking offense.

If Selvin will be our featured back, I think we'll be in a lot of trouble this season.

Northman
05-20-2008, 01:50 PM
Selvin is not like TD at all. It's true that TD knew how to hit the hole, but he wasn't a finesse player; he did not shy away from contact. It wasn't uncommon for him to lay a hit on a tackler, nor carry the guy a few yards. TD had great skills, but he was definitely not just a finesse back, and he had the body to give and take a pounding. He was an every down back in every sense of the word. Selvin has the mentality, but not the body to withstand that pounding. At least he hasn't shown it last season, nor in college. So far, he's a good change of pace back.

Though Henry is a far cry from TD, he's much better at reading the openings his OL gives him (or not give him) than Selvin. The OL hasn't been very good at that this season, whether for Henry or Selvin, and it got worse when Nalen went down. What they have in common is against good defensive teams (the ones that penetrate our OL), neither could do much. We were lucky that Haynesworth was out (or was that recovering) from an injury when we faced that Titans. Henry's natural moves are also a much better fit for our zone blocking offense.

If Selvin will be our featured back, I think we'll be in a lot of trouble this season.

I dont think we would be in trouble with Selvin as our starter. But like Henry, i do worry about his durability to remain healthy.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 01:58 PM
I agree with that - Selvin should not be the main guy. The problem is that it leaves Henry carrying the bulk of the load til he gets broken. Hopefully splitting more time with Selvin from the start will help keep him healthier longer, but eventually we'll need another up-the-gut runner to balance Selvin's outside speed and shifty nature.

We just have backs that are not 300-carry backs, that's all (not since Henry was 25, anyway). That's okay, as long as we're mixing and matching based on who's healthy that week.

Shanahan doesn't see Selvin as more than a 10-15 carry-a-game guy either, so Selvin might wind up getting the majority of the carries with a Henry injury, but not 25 carries a game. If/when Henry goes down, I expect a solid mix of Hillis/Torain to step in for the other 15ish carries.

Assuming Hillis and/or Torain are capable of doing that at a high level, of course. I'm more sold on Peyton's ability to fill the breach effectively, but we'll see.

I expect to use several runners again this coming year, and hope to have either Hillis or Torain show they can do Great Things for the '09 season with more carries. If neither of them can step up, then it's up to Henry and Young to shoulder the load and we'll still be looking for a future replacement for our 30+ year old RB in '09.

~G

omac
05-20-2008, 02:17 PM
I agree with that - Selvin should not be the main guy. The problem is that it leaves Henry carrying the bulk of the load til he gets broken. Hopefully splitting more time with Selvin from the start will help keep him healthier longer, but eventually we'll need another up-the-gut runner to balance Selvin's outside speed and shifty nature.

We just have backs that are not 300-carry backs, that's all (not since Henry was 25, anyway). That's okay, as long as we're mixing and matching based on who's healthy that week.

Shanahan doesn't see Selvin as more than a 10-15 carry-a-game guy either, so Selvin might wind up getting the majority of the carries with a Henry injury, but not 25 carries a game. If/when Henry goes down, I expect a solid mix of Hillis/Torain to step in for the other 15ish carries.

Assuming Hillis and/or Torain are capable of doing that at a high level, of course. I'm more sold on Peyton's ability to fill the breach effectively, but we'll see.

I expect to use several runners again this coming year, and hope to have either Hillis or Torain show they can do Great Things for the '09 season with more carries. If neither of them can step up, then it's up to Henry and Young to shoulder the load and we'll still be looking for a future replacement for our 30+ year old RB in '09.

~G

Too bad we didn't trade back into the 1st round to get Mendenhall. :D

I agree with your scenario, but I hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want to have to rely on those rookie backs for the success of our team, like we've had to last season at times.

omac
05-20-2008, 02:26 PM
I dont think we would be in trouble with Selvin as our starter. But like Henry, i do worry about his durability to remain healthy.

I think Selvin is more effective as a change of pace back, and using him as a the starter may lessen his overall effectiveness. Just like NO was struggling when they were trying to make Reggie Bush do a lot of the inside stuff when he was more effective going to the outside.

I hope Selvin gets better at catching passes, as he sometimes goes to the outside and runs a WR type of route on the outside.

Beantown Bronco
05-20-2008, 02:33 PM
Too bad we didn't trade back into the 1st round to get Mendenhall. :D

I don't want to have to rely on those rookie backs for the success of our team, like we've had to last season at times.

You don't want to rely on rookie backs, yet you were in favor of bringing in Mendenhall? Odd.

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 03:34 PM
All of you that are saying a tweaked hamstring isn't a big deal, you're dead wrong. Those types of injuries tend to linger for a while. We've all seen players miss weeks if not months with that type of injury.

A tweaked hamstring and a pulled hamstring is 2 different things. It's May right now and it was the 1st camp. He's been in the weight room; not like Travis has done nothing at all, then got hurt sprinting for the 1st time this spring. Henry will be back and running in a few days.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 03:36 PM
A tweaked hamstring and a pulled hamstring is 2 different things. It's May right now and it was the 1st camp. He's been in the weight room; not like Travis has done nothing at all, then got hurt sprinting for the 1st time this spring. Henry will be back and running in a few days.

They're saying he's going to miss this entire week.

LRtagger
05-20-2008, 03:38 PM
If not more

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 03:42 PM
Funny how those kinds of things get overlooked. Throw in the fact he has only 1 TD in those 4 games it just doesnt add up to very much at this point.

Funny how the horrendous O-line gets overlooked when accessing the Broncos running game from start to finish. Funny how everyone forget Travis Henry was playing with Rib, Knee and ankle injuries after the 2nd half of game 4.

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 03:52 PM
People keep saying that they have a problem with Henry on the field, yet after the first 4 weeks of the season (when he was healthy, and didn't have a distraction) he LED THE LEAGUE IN RUSHING YARDS. People who say that Henry doesn't understand our system, or doesn't have patience, don't know what they're talking about. His problems with us weren't on the field. They were off the field, and him being hurt. That has nothing to do with his understanding of our scheme. People need to get that through their head.

I could care less about what Henry has done off the field. He's irresponsible, and has done some dumb things, but he's STILL the best RB we have, and he's a good one at that.

Amen. One of the very few in this whole board that knows what they are talking about. :salute:

GEM
05-20-2008, 03:53 PM
Funny how the horrendous O-line gets overlooked when accessing the Broncos running game from start to finish. Funny how everyone forget Travis Henry was playing with Rib, Knee and ankle injuries after the 2nd half of game 4.

That's exactly what everyone is talking about....there is ALWAYS some kind of injury with travis...:coffee: No one gets a chance to forget it....they always pan to him on the sideline surrounded by trainers.

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 03:58 PM
Shut up MO. Someone can be in the best shape of their life and still tweak a hamstring. Something you wouldn't understand. :coffee:

Nature Boy – just let it go man. You are creating an army of Henry haters. Something I am none to pleased about. :mad:

Nope, I'm gonna build it up and shut them down. There's gonna be a lot of crow served on this board. I'm getting the Travis Henry band wagon ready as we speak.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 03:58 PM
Funny how the horrendous O-line gets overlooked when accessing the Broncos running game from start to finish. Funny how everyone forget Travis Henry was playing with Rib, Knee and ankle injuries after the 2nd half of game 4.

But Henry's always injured, not to mention the spectre of year-long suspension that still looms with one more mistake. Why expect 2009 to be an outlier?

Just clipped from his Wiki page and without any actual research whatsoever:


In 2004, Henry was injured for part of the year and lost his starting job to the Bills' 2003 first round pick, Willis McGahee.

Henry was suspended four games during the 2005 season for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.

On December 24, 2006, Travis Henry broke the 1,000 yard mark for the 2006 NFL season against his former team, the Buffalo Bills. Henry played a huge role in the Titans' win as he rushed for 135 yards total. This put Henry at 1,103 rushing yards for the season, with 1 game still remaining, despite being inactive for 2 games.

Henry led the NFL in rushing after the first four games of the 2007 season before injuries would keep him in and out of the lineup throughout the remainder of the season.

According to an article written by MyFOX Colorado, it was reported that Travis Henry faced the possibility of being suspended for the remainder of the 2007 season for a positive marijuana test.

How many years does he need to be injured and miss games before "being injured and missing games" is listed as part of the package you get with Henry?

It doesn't make him a worthless back, just an unreliable one. And if his performance flatlines after injury (as it did last year) then how can that be viewed in anything other than a poor light?

~G

LRtagger
05-20-2008, 04:00 PM
But Henry's always injured, not to mention the spectre of year-long suspension that still looms with one more mistake. Why expect 2009 to be an outlier?

Just clipped from his Wiki page and without any actual research whatsoever:



How many years does he need to be injured and miss games before "being injured and missing games" is listed as part of the package you get with Henry?

It doesn't make him a worthless back, just an unreliable one. And if his performance flatlines after injury (as it did last year) then how can that be viewed in anything other than a poor light?

~G

This is exactly what some of us have been getting at all along. :salute:

But all we get is "well he led the league last year after 4 games" or "well he had a great year back in 2002". Well those arguments are great, but unfortunately it is now 2008 and last I checked the league still ensists that each team play 16 games in a season (as opposed to 4). If we only played 4 or 5 games a season, then I wouldnt mind relying on Travis as much.

G_Money
05-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Amen. One of the very few in this whole board that knows what they are talking about. :salute:

That's quite a ballsy statement from somebody who has only proven that he knows how to get into pissing contests on internet boards.

If you'd take the time to listen, there are a lot of people here with something to say that's worth hearing.

You might even learn something - and we might be more interested in your POV if you didn't have to tell us we're stupid in order to make yourself feel smart.

~G

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 04:05 PM
Amen. One of the very few in this whole board that knows what they are talking about. :salute:

Guess you missed this fine piece of posting:


I am trying to figure out why everyone just stops after the first 4 games and when analyzing Travis Henry. What about his body of work last year. Certainly, you can't stop after 4 games. I looked back at the archives and this is what I found:

Week 1: 139 yards against the Bills. The Bills would finish the season ranked 25th against the rush giving up an average of 125 yards per game.

Week 2: 128 yards against the Raiders. The Raiders would finish the season ranked 31st against the rush giving up an average of 146 yards per game.

Week 3: 35 yards against the Jaguars. The Jaguars would finish the season 11th against the rush giving up an average of 100 yards per game.

Week 4: 131 yards against the Colts. The Colts would finish the season ranked 15th against the rush giving up an average of 106 yards per game.

A snippet from cbssportsline about Henrys situation after that game:
Henry left the game but returned and finished with 131 yards on 26 carries. The news that Henry's MRI came back negative means his injury is not overly serious and he still has a shot of playing in Week 5's divisional game vs. San Diego. While the Broncos don't consider Henry's injury serious, his hobble indicated he will likely miss the week of practice and may be questionable for the game Sunday against San Diego at Invesco Field at Mile High. "I think I'll play," Henry said. "I know my body, and I think things will settle down in a couple days and I'll be able to get back in there."

OK, so there are the 4 games everyone thinks prove Henry is the next Jim Brown. He sucked against Jacksonville, but looked excellent against two lousy run defenses in Oakland and Buffalo. Now, you have to give him credit for the Indy game, but the Colts have an average run defense at best, and we owned them on the ground in the past.

So, he tweaks his ankle in the Indy game, and then they do an MRI and find nothing wrong. He says he will be fine, and although he sits out most of the practices that week, he starts on sunday:

Week 5: rushes for 65 yards against the Chargers. The Chargers would finish the season ranked 16th against the rush giving up an average of 107 yards per game.

So he said he would be fine, the Broncos thought he was fine, he started and recieved all but one of the carries. So the conclusion is that he was healthy for the San Diego game and he was pretty lousy.

Even if he wasn't, he now got a bye week in week 6, so he is definitely healthy for week 7 against the Steelers:

Week 7: rushes for 51 yards against the Steelers. The Steelers would finish the season ranked 3rd against the rush giving up an average of 90 yards per game.

So Henry gets his first test against a truly good rush defense and fails miserably. Now, he has been practicing and everything appears normal going into week 7, so no excuses. He recieved all but two of the carries in that game, so he was definitely the man in that game. However, toward the end of the game, he falls on the football wrong and bruises his ribs.

Ok. from there, he sits out a week. Practices the following week and says he feels great for the Lions game, only to injure his knee in that game and sit out the next three weeks. Now he is damaged goods through the rest of the season. So fine, I can buy the argument that we can ignore week 8 - week 17 as being indicative of Henry's ability as a HEALTHY running back.

However, I don't think you can throw out weeks 5 and 7. So, when you factor those weeks, we get the real picture of Travis Henry's HEALTHY 2007 season:

6 games
549 yards
91.5 yards per game
1 TDs
2 fumbles
4.6 yards per carry

If you extrapolate that to a 16 game season, that is 1464 yards for the season with 3 TDs. What does all that mean? Well quite frankly, it means that Travis Henry can eat up chunks of yards when healthy, even as a Denver Bronco. Apparantly he isn't a real threat in the red zone, but we do have other options now for that. However, we should also remember that he racked up most of those yards against lousy rush defenses and only played against one top 10 rush defense, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But here is the question: Can any of our other current backs put up 1400 yards in a season? Because the problem with Henry is that we had to extrapolate his numbers. The reason being that he never plays a 16 game season. (technically, he has finished one season out of seven, so I am exagerating). He will not finish this one either. If the past is indicative of the future, he has a 14% chance of playing all 16 games. Do we have someone on the roster who has a better chance of staying healthy that can also gain 1400 yards? If the answer is no, then you gotta go with Henry. If the answer is yes, you gotta go with that guy. Reliability is an important factor. Henry isn't reliable. And if he sucks this bad when he plays hurt, then DON'T PLAY HIM WHEN HE IS HURT.

Anyway, that is my take on Henry. I really wish we could have brought in Michael Turner though.

denver5459
05-20-2008, 04:29 PM
That's exactly what everyone is talking about....there is ALWAYS some kind of injury with travis...:coffee: No one gets a chance to forget it....they always pan to him on the sideline surrounded by trainers.

If he wasn't hurt all the time then maybe we wouldn't see him on the sideline surrounded by the trainers! :salute:

GEM
05-20-2008, 04:33 PM
If he wasn't hurt all the time then maybe we wouldn't see him on the sideline surrounded by the trainers! :salute:

That's pretty much what I said...? :confused:

OMorange&blue
05-20-2008, 04:37 PM
If he wasn't hurt all the time then maybe we wouldn't see him on the sideline surrounded by the trainers! :salute:


That's pretty much what I said...? :confused:

Yes..no..wait....What??

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 04:38 PM
Last year's offensive line was by far the most inconsistent and least talented of any Bronco OLine in over 15 years......and we're somehow blaming Henry for struggling against top run defenses and not punching it in in the redzone.

I suppose the lack of rushing TDs had nothing at all to do with the fact that the DLine was in the backfield on every short yardage run.

It's funny how the Travis Henry bashers purposely ignores facts and post such as these but post that mentions anything about Travis' Baby Mamas or his injuries or anything blindly negative about Travis Henry gets 6-7 High Fives and all by the same gang of People. They know who they are.

dogfish
05-20-2008, 04:40 PM
Too bad we didn't trade back into the 1st round to get Mendenhall. :D

I agree with your scenario, but I hope it doesn't come to that. I don't want to have to rely on those rookie backs for the success of our team, like we've had to last season at times.


You don't want to rely on rookie backs, yet you were in favor of bringing in Mendenhall? Odd.



;)



mendenhall is a little more promising option than hillis and torrain, at least according to conventional wisdom. . . .

TXBRONC
05-20-2008, 04:41 PM
Ok. To sum this thread up:

Majority: Travis Henry is trash. We hate him. Babies daddy is a terrible human being and we hate to see him in a Bronco uni. God help us let somebody else start at RB!!!

Minority: Babies daddy is trash alright, but he's the best RB we have right now. His durability is questionable, but when healthy, he makes a good back in our system. For how long? Who knows. Some depth would sure help.

Nature Boy & Tubby: Henry is the man. BIG HOSS!

Jrwiz: I hate Shanny. It's his fault Henry is here and has all those kids. Hell, I heard he even wanted to DAFT him years ago.


Did I miss anything?

No I think you covered it all.

denver5459
05-20-2008, 04:51 PM
I more in the camp that Travis Henry is trash. I do not like him. Babies daddy is a terrible human being and I hate to see him in a Bronco uni. But I also realize he is the best running back we have right now. And yes his duribility is very questionable so if someone else were to step in and take his spot I would be all for it!!

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 04:56 PM
Too bad we didn't trade back into the 1st round to get Mendenhall. :D



It would have been a horrible decision to pass on Clady and trade back to get Mendenhall. Plus, Mendenhall was not drafted til the 23rd pick by the Steelers. If the Broncos really wanted him, they could have traded next year's 1st and 2nd rounder to move into the 23rd or before to get him. Apparently, Mike Shanahan is content with who he has in his stable, led by Travis Henry. It just makes sense that the mastermind has his RB situation planned out.

dogfish
05-20-2008, 05:03 PM
It would have been a horrible decision to pass on Clady and trade back to get Mendenhall. Plus, Mendenhall was not drafted til the 23rd pick by the Steelers. If the Broncos really wanted him, they could have traded next year's 1st and 2nd rounder to move into the 23rd or before to get him. Apparently, Mike Shanahan is content with who he has in his stable, led by Travis Henry. It just makes sense that the mastermind has his RB situation planned out.



that's what he meant, which is why he said trade back INTO the 1st round, not trade back IN the 1st round. . . gotta pay attention to those prepositions. . .






okay omac, that's the last one of your posts i'm translating today. . . . :lol:

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 05:08 PM
I should have read more careful.

Northman
05-20-2008, 09:38 PM
That's quite a ballsy statement from somebody who has only proven that he knows how to get into pissing contests on internet boards.

If you'd take the time to listen, there are a lot of people here with something to say that's worth hearing.

You might even learn something - and we might be more interested in your POV if you didn't have to tell us we're stupid in order to make yourself feel smart.

~G
*****EDIT**** Ive explained my stance on Henry and the concerns about his injuries that go with it throughout this thread. Ive even made the statement that i hope he proves my concerns wrong for the good of the Denver Broncos. Its actually very important that Henry has a strong year for the growth of the young players on this team. But, as usual, certain individuals cant see past their own over the top homerism and look at things objectively. The good news is now its much easier to weed out the individuals who dont bring good discussions to the board.

frauschieze
05-20-2008, 09:47 PM
This thread = :banghead:.

BroncoBuff
05-20-2008, 09:54 PM
Lack of creativity and predictability. That is what it has boiled down to in the last couple of years, IMO.

When you say the last COUPLE years, we go back to Mike Bell's 8 TDs as the goalline back in 2006. He was pretty good at the goalline, but even so, we failed again and again to punch the ball into the endzone in the season finale against the 49ers. Cost us a playoff appearance. And we had both Hamilton and Nalen for that game, so what's the deal? My opinion is, 1) undersized linemen are less adept at drive-blocking generally, especially after, 2) Shanahan went away from FB as lead-blocker in 2002 when he moved Mike Anderson over to start alongside Portis. I was hoping we would get back to the blocking FB by drafting Owen Schmitt last month ... the prototype lead-blocking FB. Instead we take Hillis, the prototype NON-blocking FB.

Requiem / The Dagda
05-20-2008, 10:12 PM
There were a lot of people that had stated that Schmitt's blocking abilities were overrated prior to the draft and rated Hillis as a better FB. We'll be fine with Mr. Hillis.

rcsodak
05-20-2008, 10:37 PM
I got a text message from cbs4 about Travis Henry and the pulled Hammy. But in the same text message it also said and I quote, "Brandon Marshall healing quickly."

Wonder what that means.

Translation: Brandon Marshall is healing.....quickly. :listen:

He's ahead of where they thought he'd be, in rehab, and is already running routes, though not taking balls.

Shanny thinks he might be ready in June, now.

rcsodak
05-20-2008, 10:43 PM
Hey everyone, enough of this Shanny and Henry bashing; it gets pretty old. Some of us around here have been walking on eggshells avoiding saying anything negative about Jake, in deference to some posters who are big fans of him, so out of respect for fans of Travis, let's keep things football related.

And despite the night-and-day shift of fans here from last pre-season to this pre-season regarding Travis Henry's potential, I think he can definitely have a very good rushing season as a Bronco.

How about this...

...when Travis helps win as many games as Jake did, and helps get them to as many playoffs as Jake did, then, and ONLY then, will the bashing stop.

A 1yr player, a Bronco doesn't make. ;)

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 10:44 PM
I always find that there are a couple of guys like NB on every board. Ive explained my stance on Henry and the concerns about his injuries that go with it throughout this thread. Ive even made the statement that i hope he proves my concerns wrong for the good of the Denver Broncos. Its actually very important that Henry has a strong year for the growth of the young players on this team. But, as usual, certain individuals cant see past their own over the top homerism and look at things objectively. The good news is now its much easier to weed out the individuals who dont bring good discussions to the board.

Your analysis of Travis Henry is dead wrong. *******EDIT*******

We're aware of Travis' situation on and off the field that led to his less that steller 2007 season. But to say that he's a lousy RB is terribly wrong statement.

rcsodak
05-20-2008, 10:46 PM
If this is true, you should have known that Henry was never a speed back. He was always a low to ground, shifty cutback runner with great tackle breaking abilities.

I think you forgot "injury prone", and "one false step from being booted out of the league" runner.

Ok. Now the world is right. :coffee:

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 10:46 PM
Henry is an average back at best.

Average.

Northman
05-20-2008, 10:48 PM
Your analysis of Travis Henry is dead wrong. I would refer you to my signature but a moderator took it off without my permission.

We're aware of Travis' situation on and off the field that led to his less that steller 2007 season. But to say that he's a lousy RB is terribly wrong statement.


I would refer you to my post #99. Pay attention to the highlighted part.



Exactly. Call it bad luck, call it ill-advised on his part for the off the field issues. But at the end of the day all that i care about is him performing on the field and remaining healthy. So far he has played 4 games and now is already hurt. Whether its major or minor is irrelevant. The problem is he has a track record here now and it should be a concern. Does he have the intangables to be a good back? Of Course. But it does no good if he spends 85% of time on the sidelines. I have this problem with ANY player who is a supposed to be a instrumental part of this team which Henry is supposed to be. Thankfully, we arent paying him outrageous money because then it would really hurt this team.

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 10:48 PM
That's quite a ballsy statement from somebody who has only proven that he knows how to get into pissing contests on internet boards.

If you'd take the time to listen, there are a lot of people here with something to say that's worth hearing.

You might even learn something - and we might be more interested in your POV if you didn't have to tell us we're stupid in order to make yourself feel smart.

~G

You seem to type way too much and make the longest post of any member on this board but more times that not, I don't find any of it the least bite interesting or insightful, really.

MOtorboat
05-20-2008, 10:51 PM
You seem to type way too much and make the longest post of any member on this board but more times that not, I don't find any of it the least bite interesting or insightful, really.

:pound:

You get better with each post...

:pound:

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 10:53 PM
I would refer you to my post #99. Pay attention to the highlighted part.

I still found it funny that your 1st comment about Henry on this thread was that Henry is not a speed back as though we don't know that. Henry's specialty is a combination of cut backs, quick shifts, elusiveness, power and the ability to shed off the 1st tackler that touches him. Shanahan never brought him here expecting him to be a straight ahead speed back, that's Selvin Young's job, but Selvin can barely stand up straight in a stiff wind. Your initial scout on Henry already told me what you know about our best RB on the team and your dislike for the guy has nothing to do with Henry's abilities on the field but him being a multiple baby daddy.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 10:54 PM
You seem to type way too much and make the longest post of any member on this board but more times that not, I don't find any of it the least bite interesting or insightful, really.

You're just about the only person with that opinion.

Dude - refer to your own previous signature. You're in a losing battle.

Northman
05-20-2008, 11:00 PM
I still found it funny that your 1st comment about Henry on this thread was that Henry is not a speed back as though we don't know that. Henry's specialty is a combination of cut backs, quick shifts, elusiveness, power and the ability to shed off the tackler that touches him. Shanahan never brought him here expecting him to be a straight ahead speed back, that's Selvin Young's job, but Selvin can barely stand up straight in a stiff wind. Your initial scout on Henry already told me what you know about our best RB on the team and your dislike for the guy has nothing to do with Henry's abilities on the field but him being a multiple baby daddy.


Wow, you must have ADD or something. I had already explained all this too you yesterday. Time for the ignore feature. :lol:

frauschieze
05-20-2008, 11:07 PM
You seem to type way too much and make the longest post of any member on this board but more times that not, I don't find any of it the least bite interesting or insightful, really.

.....one of the MOST respected football minds on this board.....and that's what you have to say?

Guess we're all just stupid around here. :cheers:

:pound:

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 11:10 PM
You're just about the only person with that opinion.



I find your post to be in the same category as G. Money's, but just less wordy.

I get tire of constantly having to reiterate my points again and again one at a time to the same coalition of circle back patting people who wont make a post unless they know it will make their friends nods approvals.

Now, I'm gonna stop now as I do not want to get into a pissing contest with your coalition that I spoke of and get pointed out as the bad guy.

MOtorboat
05-20-2008, 11:11 PM
I find your post to be in the same category as G. Money's, but just less wordy.

I get tire of constantly having to reiterate my points again and again one at a time to the same coalition of circle back patting people who wont make a post unless they know it will make their friends nods approvals.

Now, I'm gonna stop now as I do not want to get into a pissing contest with your coalition that I spoke of and get pointed out as the bad guy.

That's because your points are retarded and you're only here to fight with people.

BroncoJoe
05-20-2008, 11:13 PM
I find your post to be in the same category as G. Money's, but just less wordy.

I get tire of constantly having to reiterate my points again and again one at a time to the same coalition of circle back patting people who wont make a post unless they know it will make their friends nods approvals.

Now, I'm gonna stop now as I do not want to get into a pissing contest with your coalition that I spoke of and get pointed out as the bad guy.

~G Money has more football knowledge in his pinky finger than you'll ever have in your entire life.

You have no point. Henry hasn't done much in this league to warrant your man-love for him, and has done ZERO as a Bronco.

I guess I just don't understand your love for him. It's totally unwarranted.

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 11:14 PM
.....one of the MOST respected football minds on this board.....and that's what you have to say?

Guess we're all just stupid around here. :cheers:

:pound:

Look at the # of High Fives you're already received for your ingenious post. Does it really warrant such high praise other then that it's a volley to my previous post? :2thumbsdown: :2thumbsdown: :2thumbsdown:

I see and it's been 1 minute. Wait an hour, it's gonna be reach 10. That is the coalition that I speak of.

Northman
05-20-2008, 11:16 PM
~G Money has more football knowledge in his pinky finger than you'll ever have in your entire life.

You have no point. Henry hasn't done much in this league to warrant your man-love for him, and has done ZERO as a Bronco.

I guess I just don't understand your love for him. It's totally unwarranted.

Ive seen all kinds of player fanboys on Broncos boards. We had one at the mane who was all over Plummer's jock. And even admitted that he had followed Jake from the Arizona Forums and abruptly left when Jake was traded. Its a scary thing watching the obsession that some of these fans have for certain players. :eek:

MOtorboat
05-20-2008, 11:16 PM
Look at the # of High Fives you're already received for your ingenious post. Does it really warrant such high praise other then that it's a volley to my previous post? :2thumbsdown: :2thumbsdown: :2thumbsdown:

I see and it's been 1 minute. Wait an hour, it's gonna be reach 10. That is the coalition that I speak of.

It's not a coalition...you're clearly just here to pick fights, and the rest of us are sick of it.

You pick on the best minds here as if they're idiots, and come up with irrelevant, and borderline stupid posts to come back at them with, and then tell them to refer to your signature, which was deleted, mostly because you are rarely freakin' right.

TXBRONC
05-20-2008, 11:17 PM
You seem to type way too much and make the longest post of any member on this board but more times that not, I don't find any of it the least bite interesting or insightful, really.

Trust NB G's posts are quick read compared to Morambar in TX. He writes very long and tedious posts. (This isn't meant as personal attack just an observation.)

dogfish
05-20-2008, 11:17 PM
Ive seen all kinds of player fanboys on Broncos boards. We had one at the mane who was all over Plummer's jock. And even admitted that he had followed Jake from the Arizona Forums and abruptly left when Jake was traded. Its a scary thing watching the obsession that some of these fans have for certain players. :eek:

did you have daynetrain over at the OM?

frauschieze
05-20-2008, 11:18 PM
Look at the # of High Fives you're already received for your ingenious post. Does it really warrant such high praise other then that it's a volley to my previous post? :2thumbsdown: :2thumbsdown: :2thumbsdown:

I see and it's been 1 minute. Wait an hour, it's gonna be reach 10. That is the coalition that I speak of.

You think THAT'S a coalition? Check it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=220639&postcount=2

And you have your own opinion on my post just as they have theirs. Let it go.

Northman
05-20-2008, 11:19 PM
did you have daynetrain over at the OM?


There were a couple but it quickly faded.

Nature Boy
05-20-2008, 11:30 PM
You think THAT'S a coalition? Check it.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=220639&postcount=2

And you have your own opinion on my post just as they have theirs. Let it go.

Here is my question, how do you create a link like that takes you straight to a single previous post?

frauschieze
05-20-2008, 11:34 PM
Here is my question, how do you create a link like that takes you straight to a single previous post?

******EDIT*******

Just click the link on the post number in the upper right hand corner.

omac
05-20-2008, 11:46 PM
that's what he meant, which is why he said trade back INTO the 1st round, not trade back IN the 1st round. . . gotta pay attention to those prepositions. . .






okay omac, that's the last one of your posts i'm translating today. . . . :lol:

LOL, thanks for the assist. :D

MOtorboat
05-20-2008, 11:48 PM
Guys this is starting to spiral in the wrong direction.

That it be Tex...

Just a random fact.

In his seven year career, Henry has six 100-yard games in the month of December.

Does this mean he's not durable?

omac
05-20-2008, 11:52 PM
When you say the last COUPLE years, we go back to Mike Bell's 8 TDs as the goalline back in 2006. He was pretty good at the goalline, but even so, we failed again and again to punch the ball into the endzone in the season finale against the 49ers. Cost us a playoff appearance. And we had both Hamilton and Nalen for that game, so what's the deal? My opinion is, 1) undersized linemen are less adept at drive-blocking generally, especially after, 2) Shanahan went away from FB as lead-blocker in 2002 when he moved Mike Anderson over to start alongside Portis. I was hoping we would get back to the blocking FB by drafting Owen Schmitt last month ... the prototype lead-blocking FB. Instead we take Hillis, the prototype NON-blocking FB.

That's a good point, Schmitt's probably the better battering ram. I think they got Hillis because he understands the angles for run blocking, and would be a better fit for the zone blocking, but not necessarily for the goal line.

Stargazer
05-21-2008, 12:01 AM
For all the random smack talk in this thread, Travis Henry will be an important cog in determining the success of the Broncos this upcoming season.

Nature Boy
05-21-2008, 12:11 AM
For all the random smack talk in this thread, Travis Henry will be an important cog in determining the success of the Broncos this upcoming season.

Yup, but everyone on this board hates him. Why hate a guy that is such a huge factor for our team?

G_Money
05-21-2008, 12:16 AM
If G. Money was so knowledgeable, he should know the potential in Henry as a Bronco that has yet to be fully unleashed yet due to obvious circumstances. I thought it didn't take a genius to realize this but I guess I was wrong.

By mid season, You BroncoJoe will be changing your tune. You'll probably say sometime like, "I always knew Travis was a great RB,... blah blah blah."

Henry has yet to unleash his potential, true.

Of course, EVERY year is a year he can't unleash his full potential due to injury.

If we somehow luck into a year where he can run for 1500 yards because he plays every game at 100%, that'd be terrific.

What are the odds of that? 10%? 5? 1?

They're not in Henry's favor, that's for sure. So while I would HOPE for him to stay healthy and be awesome, I would not PLAN for it. I'd use Henry until he breaks and then have my backup plan ready. You apparently would plan for him to be totally healthy, and be left holding the bag when (not if) Travis gets injured again and is unable to help us win games.

You probably have a stock portfolio with one stock in it, too. It's great when the stock's up. Just never get bad news and you'll be fine.


I get tire of having to repeat myself as I stated above, so yes, I do get snappy and resort to just telling someone what I really think of there comment. I really don't have the time to sit around trying to educate those I think are less that knowing. Perhaps I will just make a blanket statement to cover all my nay sayers and go. The season isn't even close to starting, I do want to get picked out to be banned just because I tend to go against the grain.

Can you please explain to me how you have time to fight with every poster on this thread individually, to make an ass of yourself on a board that has now successfully integrated dozens and dozens of posters from three separate boards...but you have no time to educate those "less informed" than you?

No well-laid arguments, no proof from previous years, no refuting of injury status and failure to perform last season...

Your argument goes something like, "Travis is awesome, and the single reason he was unsuccessful last year was the totally unforeseen and unrepeatable cacophony of injuries he suffered. This year he is guaranteed to be awesome again and all nay-sayers must be belittled with no facts brought to bear whatsoever."

This is a community. That doesn't mean it's a group-think board of like-minded people. You should see us argue about what the problems are, or how to fix them.

But we argue, we don't fight. You don't seem to know or care what the difference is.

If you wind up taking a long walk off a short pier, it won't be because you disagree with the majority. It'll be because your ego won't allow you to participate in the community as anything more than an annoyance.

And annoyances without anything substantial to add aren't really useful or desirable, are they?

I'm pretty sure they're called trolls, actually. You can use the English language. You have a brain. Try using both and provide something substantive to benefit the board.

~G

MOtorboat
05-21-2008, 12:23 AM
Great post G...as usual.


That it be Tex...

Just a random fact.

In his seven year career, Henry has six 100-yard games in the month of December.

Does this mean he's not durable?

Again, bump...that's 34 possible games past Dec. 1 in his career. He's played in 24...which means he's missed 10 games in December (crunch time, when he's needed most) in seven years...more than 1 game per season. He has six games in those 24 that he's played where he's had 100 yards.

24 divided by 6 is 4...so, during the most crucial stretch of the season, he has not been of much use to any team he's played for.

He has durability issues...actually, I think we should sit his ass until November, then he can come in and be completely healthy for when he's actually needed.

Sure, he was great in the first month, but then he broke down, and when this team needed him most, he was sidelined with injuries and virtually ineffective.

topscribe
05-21-2008, 12:26 AM
This thread is closed until I can figure this last flame war out.

-----

topscribe
05-21-2008, 12:51 AM
Thread will now be reopened, at least as long as we can behave ourselves.

-----

Northman
05-21-2008, 12:55 AM
Henry has yet to unleash his potential, true.

Of course, EVERY year is a year he can't unleash his full potential due to injury.

If we somehow luck into a year where he can run for 1500 yards because he plays every game at 100%, that'd be terrific.

What are the odds of that? 10%? 5? 1?

They're not in Henry's favor, that's for sure. So while I would HOPE for him to stay healthy and be awesome, I would not PLAN for it.


This is exactly what ive been saying throughout this discussion.

BroncoJoe
05-21-2008, 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by Nature Boy
If G. Money was so knowledgeable, he should know the potential in Henry as a Bronco that has yet to be fully unleashed yet due to obvious circumstances. I thought it didn't take a genius to realize this but I guess I was wrong.

By mid season, You BroncoJoe will be changing your tune. You'll probably say sometime like, "I always knew Travis was a great RB,... blah blah blah."

Sorry. No I won't.

NightTrainLayne
05-21-2008, 09:39 AM
This has been an entertaining read. ..

I like Travis on the field. I like the way he runs, and I think he fits our system. Last year at this time several folks on the Freak correctly predicted that he wouldn't make it through the entire season, and was injury prone.

At the time I said give the guy a chance. There's no cosmic rule that says he has to get hurt every year.

One injury filled year later, and a pulled hamstring in QB camp and I find it hard to argue against the fact that he is injury prone. He does us no good injured.

I like him on the field. I hate his injuries. I dislike his family-planning off the field as well, but that's a whole other topic.

Here's hoping that he stays healthy this season. If he does he'll do well, and we will be better for it. If not. .. we'll be talking about someone else, and Travis will fade into the background.

BroncoJoe
05-21-2008, 09:42 AM
I just don't like the man - regardless of the fact he's a Bronco.

That said, and as I've stated before, if he helps the Broncos be successful this year, I'll be happy. I will still view him as a POS, and would be happy to see him playing somewhere else.

pnbronco
05-21-2008, 09:48 AM
This has been an entertaining read. ..

I like Travis on the field. I like the way he runs, and I think he fits our system. Last year at this time several folks on the Freak correctly predicted that he wouldn't make it through the entire season, and was injury prone.

At the time I said give the guy a chance. There's no cosmic rule that says he has to get hurt every year.

One injury filled year later, and a pulled hamstring in QB camp and I find it hard to argue against the fact that he is injury prone. He does us no good injured.

I like him on the field. I hate his injuries. I dislike his family-planning off the field as well, but that's a whole other topic.

Here's hoping that he stays healthy this season. If he does he'll do well, and we will be better for it. If not. .. we'll be talking about someone else, and Travis will fade into the background.

Well said NTL. I feel the same. I loved what I saw when he was healthy. I hated that he was injured so much of the time. In a really tough year his timing for off the field antics was terrible. Having said that I was happy to see that he restructured his contract right after the season ended.

Hearing that he pulled a hamstring and can not be active in the 1st camp makes me thing, are we in for the same as last year? So I hope he gets healthy and stays that way, I hope he contributes to the team in many major ways and I hope he keeps his personal life personal.

BroncoBuff
05-21-2008, 01:08 PM
Henry is an average back at best.

Average.

Dude ... average? Been a fan long? :rolleyes:

GEM
05-21-2008, 01:11 PM
Dude ... average? Been a fan long? :rolleyes:

Average usually means you can't take that next step to being good, for whatever reason. I'll give him this much....he was good for 4 games last season. That gives him the right to say he was good a fourth of last season. WOWSA!! I gotta put some money down on that guy....I'll just make sure I do it at the beginning of the season and not the end.

OMorange&blue
05-21-2008, 01:11 PM
Dude ... average? Been a fan long? :rolleyes:

Average....with an exceptional sperm count? That better?

BroncoJoe
05-21-2008, 01:14 PM
Dude ... average? Been a fan long? :rolleyes:

Yes, a very long time, thanks.

Yes. Average.

Lonestar
05-21-2008, 01:15 PM
Dude ... average? Been a fan long? :rolleyes:

I'm not even sure that at this point in his career he is an average Bronco RB..

Northman
05-21-2008, 01:16 PM
I could buy the "average" comparison as Henry really hasnt lived up to his potential yet as a player. In his 7 year career he has only completed one full one health wise. He has 38 TD's with 31 Fumbles to his credit. I would say thats pretty average as of right now. He certainly has a lot to prove yet if he wants to be taken seriously by me.

GEM
05-21-2008, 01:18 PM
Average usually means you can't take that next step to being good, for whatever reason. I'll give him this much....he was good for 4 games last season. That gives him the right to say he was good a fourth of last season. WOWSA!! I gotta put some money down on that guy....I'll just make sure I do it at the beginning of the season and not the end.

I think I'd probably make more though if I bet on the odds of how many more babies mama's there will be. :shrugs:

topscribe
05-21-2008, 01:23 PM
I'm not even sure that at this point in his career he is an average Bronco RB..

I'm not sure what he is at this point. When Henry is healthy, he is superb.
But five games a year just don't get it.

I would be willing to leave his past in the past . . . if he would. But that
does not alter the fact that he has been extremely injury prone. Shoot, he
didn't even get through the initial wind sprints this year.

I direly hope the Broncos have a capable, 16-game running back somewhere
in that group.

-----

dogfish
05-21-2008, 01:55 PM
Dude ... average? Been a fan long? :rolleyes:

average!


the guy has broken 1,000 rushing yards three times in his career, what else do you want us to call him? yes, he has the ability to be better than average IF he could ever stay healthy, but there are at least a dozen backs in this league that i'd rather have. . . henry is not a special player. . .

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 02:28 PM
average!


the guy has broken 1,000 rushing yards three times in his career, what else do you want us to call him?

The league average for running backs last year was below 500 yards. Even for just starters, it was well below 1,000 yards. Guys like Marion Barber and Maurice Jones Drew didn't even hit 1,000 yards rushing last year. Are they, therefore, BELOW average?

If a guy hits 1,000 yards multiple times in a career, by definition he is not average.

MOtorboat
05-21-2008, 02:36 PM
The league average for running backs last year was below 500 yards. Even for just starters, it was well below 1,000 yards. Guys like Marion Barber and Maurice Jones Drew didn't even hit 1,000 yards rushing last year. Are they, therefore, BELOW average?

If a guy hits 1,000 yards multiple times in a career, by definition he is not average.

How can we even figure the bolded number? Who counts towards that stats, Brandon Stokley? He had a carry...so did Javon Walker, he had 3.

And if starters were averaging below 1,000 it wasn't as far below it as Henry was, he had 691, well below a thousand, and not even leading the team.

MOtorboat
05-21-2008, 02:38 PM
Furthermore, there were 17 runners over 1,000 yards last year. So...by the law of averages, at least half of NFL teams had a 1,000 yard back. So, that would make Henry well below the average of starting running back, right?

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 02:54 PM
Furthermore, there were 17 runners over 1,000 yards last year. So...by the law of averages, at least half of NFL teams had a 1,000 yard back. So, that would make Henry well below the average of starting running back, right?

If you are only looking at last year....then yes. But, as you should notice, that was not the scenario presented to me. We were talking about his entire career and the fact that he had multiple 1,000 yard seasons already. Contrary to popular opinion around here, truly "average" running backs do not have three 1,000 yard rushing seasons prior to their 30th birthday.

BroncoJoe
05-21-2008, 02:57 PM
If you are only looking at last year....then yes. But, as you should notice, that was not the scenario presented to me. We were talking about his entire career and the fact that he had multiple 1,000 yard seasons already. Contrary to popular opinion around here, truly "average" running backs do not have three 1,000 yard rushing seasons prior to their 30th birthday.

What about the other four seasons? You can't just arbitrarily choose to look at the success, without looking at the failure. He's had three good years out of seven. That's pretty average in my book.

Lonestar
05-21-2008, 03:00 PM
If you are only looking at last year....then yes. But, as you should notice, that was not the scenario presented to me. We were talking about his entire career and the fact that he had multiple 1,000 yard seasons already. Contrary to popular opinion around here, truly "average" running backs do not have three 1,000 yard rushing seasons prior to their 30th birthday.


he has averaged less than a 1000 a season for his career.. normally that would be good. 7 years 6086 total yards.

BUT he has been replaced by two different teams after running for 1200 yards or more.. That is a huge red flag, sure they drafted other players to take his spot, but the smart guy has to ask why did they do that?..

Red flag.. again..

Has a huge injury history every year..

LAST RED FLAG.

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:11 PM
BUT he has been replaced by two different teams after running for 1200 yards or more.. That is a huge red flag, sure they drafted other players to take his spot, but the smart guy has to ask why did they do that?...

And the answer is simple: not because of anything he was doing ON the field. You don't replace a guy that is performing better than 90% of the league at his position, unless there is something going on off the field that you don't like. That is not the scope of what I am debating here, however. I am solely debating the issue of what is "average" on-field performance and what is "above average". The red flags you speak of are a separate matter.

dogfish
05-21-2008, 03:13 PM
okay, you i should have said "average for a starting RB". . . i thought it went without saying that he was better than the mike bells of the league. . . :rolleyes:


so let me ask again-- if he's not an average starter, what term would you guys use to describe him? slightly better-than-average? solid? quality? excellent? elite?



i'll stand by my contention that there are at least a dozen starting backs i'd rather have than henry, which IMO puts him squarely in the middle of the pack. . . .

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:14 PM
What about the other four seasons? You can't just arbitrarily choose to look at the success, without looking at the failure. He's had three good years out of seven. That's pretty average in my book.

I'm not ignoring anything. Most running backs don't even last seven years in this league. Most running backs don't have three seasons as good as Henry's three best.

You are spoiled and are letting that affect your definition of average. You should follow some other team's around for a little while and see how the other half have lived. Consistent, reliable 1,000 yard rushers don't grow on trees.

topscribe
05-21-2008, 03:15 PM
okay, you i should have said "average for a starting RB". . . i thought it went without saying that he was better than the mike bells of the league. . . :rolleyes:


so let me ask again-- if he's not an average starter, what term would you guys use to describe him? slightly better-than-average? solid? quality? excellent? elite?



i'll stand by my contention that there are at least a dozen starting backs i'd rather have than henry, which IMO puts him squarely in the middle of the pack. . . .

Henry makes Barry Sanders look slow and John Riggins look weak . . .

-----

dogfish
05-21-2008, 03:20 PM
And the answer is simple: not because of anything he was doing ON the field. You don't replace a guy that is performing better than 90% of the league at his position, unless there is something going on off the field that you don't like. That is not the scope of what I am debating here, however. I am solely debating the issue of what is "average" on-field performance and what is "above average". The red flags you speak of are a separate matter.

sorry, you can't pick and choose what you're going to rate him on. . . or, i suppose you can, but i can't see the sense in it. . . if on-field play happened in a vacuum, maybe that would be an effective way of judging a guy, but it doesn't. . . if he smokes weed and gets suspended, it affects his on-field production because it prevents him from being on the field. . . and i don't see how you could possibly think that his inability to stay healthy hasn't been a big factor in the decisions of teams to replace him. . . it all comes down to production, and while he's had several quality years, his carrer has been marred by injury and inconsistency-- things that do count against him. . .


i don't think anyone is saying that he isn't CAPABLE of coming back and having a big year for us, because the talent is there, but i also think that a healthy dose of skepticism is absolutely warranted given his history. . .

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:22 PM
so let me ask again-- if he's not an average starter, what term would you guys use to describe him? slightly better-than-average? solid? quality? excellent? elite?

When healthy, there are MAYBE a handful of guys I would take over him....I would say he is an excellent RB when healthy.

When he's not healthy, of course it's tough for people to say he's excellent. But, the same would apply to anyone. Nobody can play at a consistently elite level when they are hurt.

Acedude
05-21-2008, 03:27 PM
Travis Henry's best years are behind him, sad but true. Denver may have some good RB's on the roster now, if not they'll have to find some. Travis has used up his NFL shelf life.

G_Money
05-21-2008, 03:31 PM
But I thought the point of the Broncos running game was that we don't have to see how the other half lives. Isn't it?

If our "average" backs can get a thousand yards without breaking a sweat, then a good bruiser from a running team with an inferior blocking scheme should be able to crack 1400 here.

We brought on Travis Henry because he was a bruising back who should be able to flourish in a 1-cut, ZBS.

He didn't do that last year.

He'll have a do-over this year, and if he doesn't live up to expectations again he'll be gone.

He's more likely to be held down in carries to try to keep him healthy in a hybrid 2-back scheme, which means we'll probably be in the Anderson/Bell mode of 1000 yards for one back and 900ish for another.

On the plus side, this means Henry might have a chance to take less of a pounding and stay healthy further into the season.

Henry himself has said he needs lots of carries to get going and that he makes his bones in the 4th quarter after he's battered down the opposition.

So he might not be a good back for only getting 55% of the carries.

*shrugs* We'll see. I want him to stay healthy and do well, so the Broncos will have a successful running game to help Jay and the defense both.

But last year I was overly optimistic on his ability to stay healthy since our system doesn't require him to make his own holes with brawn alone. It didn't happen, and in fact only reinforced the pattern of his career.

And he's not getting younger. Most bruisers don't have extended careers. Jerome Bettis is an exception, but 7 years like Earl Campbell is more the norm. There's just too much punishment dished and taken to have an extended career.

So IMO Henry's winding down. Thankfully for us he didn't get to keep all the money on that contract thanks to his shenanigans. We're more free to cut him if he underperforms, and in order to keep paying all that child support he has good reason to want to have a great year.

But even if he has a great year, he's not a long-term solution to our running back position...which is why I have no problem with looking at Torain and Hillis as possible future solutions even if Henry DOES excel this year.

~G

Northman
05-21-2008, 03:31 PM
The league average for running backs last year was below 500 yards. Even for just starters, it was well below 1,000 yards. Guys like Marion Barber and Maurice Jones Drew didn't even hit 1,000 yards rushing last year. Are they, therefore, BELOW average?

If a guy hits 1,000 yards multiple times in a career, by definition he is not average.


Are Barber and Jones average? Dont know. Both shared carries with other backs on their roster and neither of them were deemed starters. Julius Jones and Fred Taylor were the starting tailbacks. So you really should be comparing J. Jones and Fred Taylor not Barber or M. Jones. But i think most people would find Julius Jones to be overrated and injury prone as well. I wouldnt call him an elite back. Jones also has 22 TDs in two years. Barber has 29 TDs in 3 years of service which means they can find the endzone when it matters. Health wise both Jones and Barber have only missed 4 regular season games collectively in the last 3 years. Henry has missed 18 games the last 4 years.

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:32 PM
sorry, you can't pick and choose what you're going to rate him on. . . or, i suppose you can, but i can't see the sense in it. . . if on-field play happened in a vacuum, maybe that would be an effective way of judging a guy, but it doesn't. . . if he smokes weed and gets suspended, it affects his on-field production because it prevents him from being on the field. . . .

OK. I'll play along. Terrell Davis was an average RB because he couldn't stay on the field long enough to put up elite career numbers.

See how silly that sounds.

I judge how good a RB is by how he performs when he is on the field. The side stuff obviously has to come into play for the owners and coaches when they are weighing the pros and cons of bringing a guy in and paying him millions of dollars. But it doesn't come into play when rating solely his talent.


and i don't see how you could possibly think that his inability to stay healthy hasn't been a big factor in the decisions of teams to replace him. . . .

In Tennessee, money was a lot bigger factor than health. He was healthy and coming off one of his best statistical seasons when he was cut. They even admitted at the time it was purely a cost-cutting move.

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:36 PM
Are Barber and Jones average? Dont know. Both shared carries with other backs on their roster and neither of them were deemed starters. Julius Jones and Fred Taylor were the starting tailbacks. So you really should be comparing J. Jones and Fred Taylor not Barber or M. Jones. But i think most people would find Julius Jones to be overrated and injury prone as well. I wouldnt call him an elite back. Jones also has 22 TDs in two years. Barber has 29 TDs in 3 years of service which means they can find the endzone when it matters. Health wise both Jones and Barber have only missed 4 regular season games collectively in the last 3 years. Henry has missed 18 games the last 4 years.

Julius Jones had far fewer carries, yards, YPC and TDs than Barber AND Henry last year.....even with Henry missing all that time. That's why I didn't include him (even though doing so would support my case). His numbers sucked big time.

G_Money
05-21-2008, 03:37 PM
I'm not ignoring anything. Most running backs don't even last seven years in this league. Most running backs don't have three seasons as good as Henry's three best.

You are spoiled and are letting that affect your definition of average. You should follow some other team's around for a little while and see how the other half have lived. Consistent, reliable 1,000 yard rushers don't grow on trees.

But I thought the point of the Broncos running game was that we don't have to see how the other half lives. Isn't it? :confused:

If our "average" backs can get a thousand yards without breaking a sweat, then a good bruiser from a running team with an inferior blocking scheme should be able to crack 1400 here.

We brought on Travis Henry because he was a bruising back who should be able to flourish in a 1-cut, ZBS.

He didn't do that last year.

He'll have a do-over this year, and if he doesn't live up to expectations again he'll be gone.

He's more likely to be held down in carries to try to keep him healthy in a hybrid 2-back scheme, which means we'll probably be in the Anderson/Bell mode of 1000 yards for one back and 900ish for another.

On the plus side, this means Henry might have a chance to take less of a pounding and stay healthy further into the season.

However, Henry himself has said he needs lots of carries to get going and that he makes his bones in the 4th quarter after he's battered down the opposition.

So he might not be a good back for only getting 55% of the carries.

*shrugs* We'll see. I want him to stay healthy and do well, so the Broncos will have a successful running game to help Jay and the defense both.

But last year I was overly optimistic in his ability to stay healthy since our system doesn't require him to make his own holes with brawn alone. It didn't happen, and in fact only reinforced the pattern of his career.

And he's not getting younger. Most bruisers don't have extended careers. Jerome Bettis is an exception, but 7-8 years like Earl Campbell is more the norm even for the good ones. There's just too much punishment dished and taken to have an extended career.

IMO Henry's winding down. Thankfully for us he didn't get to keep all the money on that contract thanks to his shenanigans. We're more free to cut him if he underperforms, and in order to keep paying all that child support he has good reason to want to have a great year.

But even if he has a great year, he's not a long-term solution to our running back position...which is why I have no problem with looking at Torain and Hillis as possible future solutions even if Henry DOES excel this year.

~G

BroncoJoe
05-21-2008, 03:37 PM
You can argue all you want. I have my opinion, you have yours. I certainly don't consider Henry to be an elite back, he's descent. Average.

Your reference of TD is silly.

Northman
05-21-2008, 03:39 PM
OK. I'll play along. Terrell Davis was an average RB because he couldn't stay on the field long enough to put up elite career numbers.

See how silly that sounds.

I judge how good a RB is by how he performs when he is on the field. The side stuff obviously has to come into play for the owners and coaches when they are weighing the pros and cons of bringing a guy in and paying him millions of dollars. But it doesn't come into play when rating solely his talent.



In Tennessee, money was a lot bigger factor than health. He was healthy and coming off one of his best statistical seasons when he was cut. They even admitted at the time it was purely a cost-cutting move.


Up until his career ending injury Davis was a consistenly healthy player aside from a migraine here and there. That isnt the cast with Henry who has been plagued with injuries. Henry has never had that type of injury that TD substained so the comparison is ridiculous.

Northman
05-21-2008, 03:43 PM
Julius Jones had far fewer carries, yards, YPC and TDs than Barber AND Henry last year.....even with Henry missing all that time. That's why I didn't include him (even though doing so would support my case). His numbers sucked big time.

Well, no actually it doesnt support your case. As i stated JJ is highly overrated to begin with. He is essentially a watered down version of Travis in my opinion. The fact that both Barber and M. Jones were not starters hurts your arguement.

GEM
05-21-2008, 03:44 PM
When healthy, there are MAYBE a handful of guys I would take over him....I would say he is an excellent RB when healthy.

When he's not healthy, of course it's tough for people to say he's excellent. But, the same would apply to anyone. Nobody can play at a consistently elite level when they are hurt.

He's never even sniffed elite status, 100% healthy or injured. :coffee:

MOtorboat
05-21-2008, 03:46 PM
If you are only looking at last year....then yes. But, as you should notice, that was not the scenario presented to me. We were talking about his entire career and the fact that he had multiple 1,000 yard seasons already. Contrary to popular opinion around here, truly "average" running backs do not have three 1,000 yard rushing seasons prior to their 30th birthday.

If you're going to say running totals were down last year, thus he's an average runner, than you have to look at running totals being up in those other years.

So:
2007, 31st in the league in rushing, 17 running backs over 1,000.
2006, 10th in the league in rushing, 23 backs over 1,000
2005, Not in the Top 41, 16 running backs over 1,000
2004, Not in the Top 41, 18 running backs over 1,000
2003, 11th in rushing, 18 backs over 1,000
2002, 5th in the league in rushing, 17 backs over 1,000

So...being that there's 32 teams, he's been worse than average three times in the lats six years, yes?

Now, if we want to go dig up stats from a guy like Kevin Faulk, and throw his numbers out there, then yes, Henry is an elite back, because he can start in the NFL.

See, it's all how you look at the word average...

As a starter, he's average. If you look at every running back in the league in the last seven years, you can call him a very good running back, because the majority of backs aren't starters.

elsid13
05-21-2008, 03:49 PM
1000 yards is one overrated numbers in the NFL. That is only 62.5 yards per game. True elite backs put up anywhere between 1300 to 1400+ yards per season.

topscribe
05-21-2008, 03:49 PM
He's never even sniffed elite status, 100% healthy or injured. :coffee:

I was downwind from Charleton Heston once.

So I sniffed elite status, you might say . . .

-----

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:49 PM
He's never even sniffed elite status, 100% healthy or injured. :coffee:

I said excellent.....which he most certainly was from 2002-2003 in particular.

3,300 all purpose yards and 25 TDs.

Northman
05-21-2008, 03:50 PM
If you're going to say running totals were down last year, thus he's an average runner, than you have to look at running totals being up in those other years.

So:
2007, 31st in the league in rushing, 17 running backs over 1,000.
2006, 10th in the league in rushing, 23 backs over 1,000
2005, Not in the Top 41, 16 running backs over 1,000
2004, Not in the Top 41, 18 running backs over 1,000
2003, 11th in rushing, 18 backs over 1,000
2002, 5th in the league in rushing, 17 backs over 1,000

So...being that there's 32 teams, he's been worse than average three times in the lats six years, yes?

Now, if we want to go dig up stats from a guy like Kevin Faulk, and throw his numbers out there, then yes, Henry is an elite back, because he can start in the NFL.

See, it's all how you look at the word average...

As a starter, he's average. If you look at every running back in the league in the last seven years, you can call him a very good running back, because the majority of backs aren't starters.

I was getting ready to say if all it takes is a 1,000 yd season here and there than Justin Fargas must be elite. He got 1,000 yds this year but yet the raiders still drafted Mcfadden. Who knew? :lol:

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 03:50 PM
1000 yards is one overrated numbers in the NFL. That is only 62.5 yards per game. True elite backs put up anywhere between 1300 to 1400+ yards per season.

Nobody is debating that.

We're debating "average" here. Not elite.

It shocks me that people here fail to acknowledge there is the possibility of something between average and elite.

BroncoJoe
05-21-2008, 03:51 PM
I said excellent.....which he most certainly was from 2002-2003 in particular.

3,300 all purpose yards and 25 TDs.

Don't forget the 18 fumbles! :D

GEM
05-21-2008, 03:54 PM
I said excellent.....which he most certainly was from 2002-2003 in particular.

3,300 all purpose yards and 25 TDs.

If you have to go back to 02-03 to prove excellence, you're living in the past and need to wake up to the here and now. Lately, he hasn't even been good. As a Bronco, he hasn't done squat. Hope he does, but I'm not going to count on it.

Northman
05-21-2008, 03:55 PM
Nobody is debating that.

We're debating "average" here. Not elite.

It shocks me that people here fail to acknowledge there is the possibility of something between average and elite.


Uh, if your not Elite you are either average or poor. If he is not Elite then you would have to agree he is average. Average/Decent/Good is the same in my book.

GEM
05-21-2008, 03:55 PM
Nobody is debating that.

We're debating "average" here. Not elite.

It shocks me that people here fail to acknowledge there is the possibility of something between average and elite.

No, it's just that most here don't even consider him good. He is condered potentially good with a lot of road blocks.

LRtagger
05-21-2008, 03:56 PM
Lets take a look at it this way. Which NFL teams would Henry be the starter for in 2008 (hypothetically speaking)?

AFC:
Baltimore - NO
Cincinnati - NO
Cleveland - NO
Pittsburgh - NO

Houston - Maybe (he and Ahman Green could take turns going on IR)
Indianapolis - NO
Jacksonville - NO
Tennessee - NO (by default)

Buffalo - NO (by default)
Miami - YES
New England - NO
NY Jets - NO

Denver - YES (by default)
Kansas City - Maybe (split time with LJ on IR)
Oakland - NO
San Diego - NO

NFC
Chicago - YES
Detroit - YES
Green Bay - Maybe (Ryan Grant has a chance to be VERY good this year)
Minnesota - NO

Atlanta - Probably (he would probably win the job over Michael Turner)
Carolina - NO
New Orleans - NO
Tampa Bay - Maybe (would have to beat out Earnest Graham who had a breakout2007 season and Warrick Dunn)

Dallas - NO
New York G's - NO
Philadelphia - NO
Washington - NO

Arizona - NO
San Francisco - NO
Seattle - Maybe (Jones and Morris will be a solid tandem in 2008)
St Louis - NO


So, out of every team in the NFL, there are FOUR that he would definitely start for in 2008 and TWENTY-TWO the he would definitely not start for in 2008. Unfortunately, we do not have the 2002 Travis Henry who would have started for a lot of NFL teams. I would say at this point in his career he is a pretty AVERAGE starting NFL running back (when compared to other NFL starting running backs).

topscribe
05-21-2008, 03:59 PM
Lets take a look at it this way. Which NFL teams would Henry be the starter for in 2008 (hypothetically speaking)?

AFC:
Baltimore - NO
Cincinnati - NO
Cleveland - NO
Pittsburgh - NO

Houston - Maybe (he and Ahman Green could take turns going on IR)
Indianapolis - NO
Jacksonville - NO
Tennessee - NO (by default)

Buffalo - NO (by default)
Miami - YES
New England - NO
NY Jets - NO

Denver - YES (by default)
Kansas City - Maybe (split time with LJ on IR)
Oakland - NO
San Diego - NO

NFC
Chicago - YES
Detroit - YES
Green Bay - Maybe (Ryan Grant has a chance to be VERY good this year)
Minnesota - NO

Atlanta - Probably (he would probably win the job over Michael Turner)
Carolina - NO
New Orleans - NO
Tampa Bay - Maybe (would have to beat out Earnest Graham who had a breakout2007 season and Warrick Dunn)

Dallas - NO
New York G's - NO
Philadelphia - NO
Washington - NO

Arizona - NO
San Francisco - NO
Seattle - Maybe (Jones and Morris will be a solid tandem in 2008)
St Louis - NO


So, out of every team in the NFL, there are FOUR that he would definitely start for in 2008 and TWENTY-TWO the he would definitely not start for in 2008. Unfortunately, we do not have the 2002 Travis Henry who would have started for a lot of NFL teams. I would say at this point in his career he is a pretty AVERAGE starting NFL running back (when compared to other NFL starting running backs).

Sounds as if he might make a good backup here . . .

-----

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 04:01 PM
If you're going to say running totals were down last year, thus he's an average runner, than you have to look at running totals being up in those other years..

Who said running totals were down last year? Do you mean league-wide?



So...being that there's 32 teams, he's been worse than average three times in the lats six years, yes?

Nope. Call me crazy, but I don't use one statistical measurement with no context to come up with definitive conclusions.


Now, if we want to go dig up stats from a guy like Kevin Faulk, and throw his numbers out there, then yes, Henry is an elite back, because he can start in the NFL.

Again, here we go with the "elite" label again. Let's try this again. I NEVER said anything about Henry being elite. I simply said he wasn't "average".


See, it's all how you look at the word average...

As a starter, he's average. If you look at every running back in the league in the last seven years, you can call him a very good running back, because the majority of backs aren't starters.

The original poster said he was average. There was no qualifier for starters vs. non-starters originally. Later, he back-pedalled and said starters only. Even in this case, he is still better than average....it just depends on how you want to measure it. Some statistics, like year end numbers, can be skewed because he missed games due to injury. So of course if you want to use those types of numbers to support your argument, you will look better than if you measured his performance in other ways (YPC, etc.)

G_Money
05-21-2008, 04:02 PM
I said excellent.....which he most certainly was from 2002-2003 in particular.

3,300 all purpose yards and 25 TDs.

Okay...but in the last 4 years he's been worthy of starting once. And it wasn't for us.

4-5 years ago might as well be 30 in running-back-years. They age like dogs.

The "average" RB has a career length of less than 3 years. In that respect Henry is definitely above average. Pulling a career like he has pulled means he has talent.

He showed that in '06 when he stayed mostly healthy and was able to put up a top-half-of-the-league performance.

But the older he gets and the more mileage gets put on his body, the harder the repeat performances will become.

I hope he finds a fountain of youth next year, or certainly manages to play injury-free.

But what exactly are YOU hoping he can do over the next, say, 2 years?

Are you thinking he's like Fred Taylor and even with the injuries he can put up 1200 yard seasons for a couple more seasons, and then we'll see where we are?

I'm just trying to get a grasp on your POV.

~G

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 04:04 PM
If you have to go back to 02-03 to prove excellence, you're living in the past and need to wake up to the here and now. Lately, he hasn't even been good. As a Bronco, he hasn't done squat. Hope he does, but I'm not going to count on it.

Dude, I was rebutting the statement that he's never even sniffed elite status. You do realize there is no time limit to rebutting a statement like that when someone says "ever".....don't you?

G_Money
05-21-2008, 04:06 PM
Dude, I was rebutting the statement that he's never even sniffed elite status. You do realize there is no time limit to rebutting a statement like that when someone says "ever".....don't you?

GEM's a chick - just FYI. :salute:

~G

Beantown Bronco
05-21-2008, 04:07 PM
Uh, if your not Elite you are either average or poor. If he is not Elite then you would have to agree he is average. Average/Decent/Good is the same in my book.

This is easily the most idiotic thing I've read today.

On par with the Ricky Bobby classic: "If you're not first you're last"

A+ is elite
C is average

So there is no room for Bs and A minuses in your world. How did you get graded in school?

GEM
05-21-2008, 04:07 PM
GEM's a chick - just FYI. :salute:

~G

I guess the avatar isn't a dead giveaway! :laugh:

NightTrainLayne
05-21-2008, 04:08 PM
I guess the avatar isn't a dead giveaway! :laugh:

Lot's of the guys around here have pics of hot women for their avatard, so no, that's not necessarily an accurate indicator.

BroncoBuff
05-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Words mean things, people. They have definitions :idea:

And when we apply the correct definition of "average," it's clear that Travis Henry way WAY surpassed it when he ran for a very impressive 1,480 yards in just his second season in the league (then 1350, and 1200 later).

An "average" running back would be, say, TJ Duckett, Michael Bennett, Najeh Davenport or Correll Buckhalter (now HE'S fragile). For Broncos backs, "average" applies to Mike Bell, Reuben Droughns, Derek Loville, Rod Bernstine, Gaston Green and Gerald Willhite.

Average means .... well, average. And a year ago every one of you were excited about Travis Henry. So how about a little perspective?

GEM
05-21-2008, 04:09 PM
Dude, I was rebutting the statement that he's never even sniffed elite status. You do realize there is no time limit to rebutting a statement like that when someone says "ever".....don't you?

Still fits though no? Leave off the 02-03 comment and there is still truth to it. Hope for the Broncos sake he's able to stay healthy and be good, based on past performance, not counting on it.

topscribe
05-21-2008, 04:09 PM
This is easily the most idiotic thing I've read today.

On par with the Ricky Bobby classic: "If you're not first you're last"

A+ is elite
C is average

So there is no room for Bs and A minuses in your world. How did you get graded in school?

I once taught school. I would not give even a "C" to a student who has missed so much class time.

I might give Henry an "I" (incomplete) for all the sick (injured) time he's had . . . :coffee:

-----