Post-Marshall era forces new strategy

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_15154923

It really is a common thing to watch a Broncos practice in May that doesn't include Brandon Marshall.

But unlike the springs of 2008 and 2009, when Marshall sat out with injuries, the 2010 Broncos know the star wide receiver isn't coming back, leaving them with the major question of who will replace him. The answer, at least in the short-term, might not come in the form of a single player.

The Broncos have 12 wide receivers on their roster, a mixture of veterans such as Jabar Gaffney and Brandon Stokley, younger guys such as Eddie Royal and a whole bunch of rookies. Not one has been a true No. 1 receiver in the NFL, a guy who is involved in the most plays and receives the most attention from opposing defenses.

Yet the lack of a true top receiver seems to fit with the Josh McDaniels plan.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year — a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels said. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."

For the past three seasons, under Mike Shanahan and in McDaniels' offense in 2009, there was no doubt Marshall was the team's No. 1 receiver.

Last season, Marshall caught 101 of the Broncos' 341 receptions, and was responsible for 1,120 of the team's 3,825 total receiving yards — both approximately 29 percent of the team's total receiving production.

Gaffney was second to Marshall, with 54 catches and 732 yards — though much of that came in the final game. With Marshall inactive, Gaffney caught 14 passes for 213 yards.

While current starting quarterback Kyle Orton will miss Marshall's consistent on-field production, McDaniels said Monday the 2010 Broncos receiving corps has the potential to be more balanced. It seems McDaniels would be just as happy to have several receivers with 50 catches each than just one with 100.

"With our receiving corps now, we can do a lot of things," second-year receiver Kenny McKinley said. "The more guys we have contributing, the better it will be."

Still, the roles those players will fill remain undefined. Gaffney, Lloyd and Mc-Kinley seem to fit best as outside receivers, though Gaffney can play all three receiver spots.

The Broncos believe Royal could be effective as a slot receiver, and at Monday's passing camp at Dove Valley, Royal worked almost exclusively at that inside spot.

"They want me to feel comfortable playing every position," Royal said. "This is the spring right now, so this is time to learn, and I'm trying to make the most of it."

The biggest question is how ready rookies Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker will be, as they recover from foot injuries and make the difficult transition to the NFL. Routes in the NFL are substantially more complicated, and defensive coverage markedly better than what either player faced in college.

"I remember my rookie year, my head was spinning just learning the playbook," Royal said. "We're going to work with those guys when they get healthy and get on the field. We'll try to coach them up as much as possible. They're big guys, you see them in the locker room and they are bigger than you think they are. So we'll see how they are when the get on the field."

Lindsay H. Jones: 303-954-1262 or ljones@denverpost.com

[Lonestar]

So much for BM.

Will not be missed except for some adoring fans.

His $30 jerseys are at the emboridery shop now getting Tebow sewn on as we speak. Ahahahahahahaha. Best deal I ever got.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Northman]

This year will be very telling in that regard that is for sho.

[silkamilkamonico]

Anyone know when the rookies are going to be ready? I would have thought they would have been ready to go by now..

[arapaho2]

So much for BM.

Will not be missed except for some adoring fans.

His $30 jerseys are at the emboridery shop now getting Tebow sewn on as we speak. Ahahahahahahaha. Best deal I ever got.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


untill some idiots discover gaffney isnt a legit threat at #1wr...our passing game flounders without nthat wr playmaker...orton is pulled because he is ineffective without a sure go to guy...and we watch our offense slip even further down the chart

then he'll be missed

[claymore]

untill some idiots discover gaffney isnt a legit threat at #1wr...our passing game flounders without nthat wr playmaker...orton is pulled because he is ineffective without a sure go to guy...and we watch our offense slip even further down the chart

then he'll be missed

Hopefully the 2 hurt WR's we drafted can make a difference.

[Northman]

Hopefully the 2 hurt WR's we drafted can make a difference.

:lol:

[Denver Native (Carol)]

What I got from the article is that the Broncos will not have a receiver that every other team KNOWS we will throw to 95% of the time - therefore, be double, tripled teamed. To me, I like the idea of keeping the other teams guessing - will the pass go to the TE, RB, or a receiver - not ALWAYS knowing who the pass will be going to.

[Northman]

What I got from the article is that the Broncos will not have a receiver that every other team KNOWS we will throw to 95% of the time - therefore, be double, tripled teamed. To me, I like the idea of keeping the other teams guessing - will the pass go to the TE, RB, or a receiver - not ALWAYS knowing who the pass will be going to.

Thats great in theory Carol. But, thus far our QB locks only on to one WR and last year it was one of the best receivers in the league. If Gaffney can reproduce what he did against the Chiefs than there isnt really cause for alarm. But, i dont see that happening which means Orton will be trying to force the ball where it shouldnt go.

[TXBRONC]

Hopefully the 2 hurt WR's we drafted can make a difference.

That probably wont happen considering that most rookie wide receiver take time to develop.

[Northman]

That probably wont happen considering that most rookie wide receiver take time to develop.

5-11 here we come. :lol:

[silkamilkamonico]

True story. I had a nightmare, just last night, that Denver lost week 1 65-45, and I came away thinking what a disappointment because Brandon Marshall would have made the difference, and how bad our offense sucked.

[silkamilkamonico]

That probably wont happen considering that most rookie wide receiver take time to develop.

I wouldn't expect them to make a difference regardless if they were healthy or not. I don't think Marshall even saw the field much his first year until the last 5 games of the season.

[claymore]

Thats great in theory Carol. But, thus far our QB locks only on to one WR and last year it was one of the best receivers in the league. If Gaffney can reproduce what he did against the Chiefs than there isnt really cause for alarm. But, i dont see that happening which means Orton will be trying to force the ball where it shouldnt go.

If we couldnt take advantage of Marshall drawing double and triple coverage, I dont see how we will be able to take advantage of single coverage.

Just thinking out loud.

[claymore]

That probably wont happen considering that most rookie wide receiver take time to develop.

To be honest I hope these guys contribute sometime in their career period. I hate drafting injured players, I have zero faith in our medical staff.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

From article:

Yet the lack of a true top receiver seems to fit with the Josh McDaniels plan.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year — a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels said. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."

[Northman]

From article:

Yet the lack of a true top receiver seems to fit with the Josh McDaniels plan.

"I hope we have a lot of guys that become our No. 1 receiver at different times during the year — a tight end that catches 10 balls, two or three different receivers that can catch that many balls in a week over the course of the season," McDaniels said. "We're not looking for it to be predictable or throw it to only one or two players. We'd like to attack the defense with a number of skilled players, and ultimately that's what we'll be when we get everybody out there and have time to practice together."

Based off what? One year that he has been a HC? In that year it was a top reciever that helped him to a .500 season. Plainly put, i'll believe it when i see it. So far, he hasnt shown that he can win without a top flight reciever.

[silkamilkamonico]

Based off what? One year that he has been a HC? In that year it was a top reciever that helped him to a .500 season. Plainly put, i'll believe it when i see it. So far, he hasnt shown that he can win without a top flight reciever.

Considering Denver had the majority of their success last year early when Marshall was a non factor, and finished well below .500 in games where Marshall was, I'm not sure what to believe in terms of WR production.

I do think it's blindly obvious that the system works regardless of who's playing in it, and the last game where MArshall didn't play we certainly did not have trouble finding a WR, or even go to one at that. The system will allow someone to have ample oppurtunities to catch the ball.

[guitarj]

True story. I had a nightmare, just last night, that Denver lost week 1 65-45, and I came away thinking what a disappointment because Brandon Marshall would have made the difference, and how bad our offense sucked.

Offense scores 45 in a loss and its the offense that sucked??:confused:

Sounds like the logic of some of my dreams...haha

[T.K.O.]

hopefully the "new strategy" includes more than the 8 wins a year we have averaged for 4 years:beer:

[Slick]

I agree with Clay in the thought he had about drafting injured players. Our training staff scares me too.

I will go into this season cautiously optimistic about our receiving core. We don't have any household names, but that doesn't mean a star wont rise, or themselves as a group perform better than we might think.

Also, I'd like to see more of Royal the rookie and less of Royal the sophomore.

[TXBRONC]

I wouldn't expect them to make a difference regardless if they were healthy or not. I don't think Marshall even saw the field much his first year until the last 5 games of the season.

No he sure didn't.

[TXBRONC]

I agree with Clay in the thought he had about drafting injured players. Our training staff scares me too.

I will go into this season cautiously optimistic about our receiving core. We don't have any household names, but that doesn't mean a star wont rise, or themselves as a group perform better than we might think.

Also, I'd like to see more of Royal the rookie and less of Royal the sophomore.

I think much of that will depend on the quarterback.

[TXBRONC]

Considering Denver had the majority of their success last year early when Marshall was a non factor, and finished well below .500 in games where Marshall was, I'm not sure what to believe in terms of WR production.

I do think it's blindly obvious that the system works regardless of who's playing in it, and the last game where MArshall didn't play we certainly did not have trouble finding a WR, or even go to one at that. The system will allow someone to have ample oppurtunities to catch the ball.

That was the first two games after that he started playing more and considering who opponents were I think you should take that into consideration.

[Slick]

I think much that will depend on the quarterback,

Absolutely. not to start crap, or throw Orton under the bus here, but it is much easier to have tunnel vision for a guy like Marshall when you can get the ball somewhere close and he goes and gets it.

Noone on this current roster has shown that ability yet IMO.

[nevcraw]

let's face it..
the O has a ton of questions and young guys.. The defense is going to have it hands full trying to keep us in games..

[Tempus Fugit]

Based off what? One year that he has been a HC? In that year it was a top reciever that helped him to a .500 season. Plainly put, i'll believe it when i see it. So far, he hasnt shown that he can win without a top flight reciever.

Could you name the "top flight receiver" that the Patriots had in the years 2001-2006? Particular attention to 2005 and 2006, the years where McDaniels was the O.C. and neither Welker nor Moss had yet arrived on scene, would be appreciated.

[silkamilkamonico]

That was the first two games after that he started playing more and considering who opponents were I think you should take that into consideration.

I do see that. I think it's hard for us fans to think of what it will be like without a guy like Marshall, because he has been such a great player for us, and more importantly has been all we really had.

Someone will step up in his absence. That's inevitable. It's the ebb and flow of the NFL, and players step up all the time. People laughed at New England for trading a 4th round pick for some little white guy named Wes Welker, and although that's a rare incident, it's a good example that shows how systems can create Pro Bowl type players when they are given the chance.

Someone will step up, and even if they don't, I refuse to believe that Denver is going to have some lethargic offense that will average 6 points a game and 100 yards, like so many people here think will happen without Marshall.

We weren't even that productive with Marshall scoring TD's, and that was with Cutler, Scheffler, arguably the best oline in the NFL system comparison, and a hotshot young rookie in Royal.

[silkamilkamonico]

Could you name the "top flight receiver" that the Patriots had in the years 2001-2006? Particular attention to 2005 and 2006, the years where McDaniels was the O.C. and neither Welker nor Moss had yet arrived on scene, would be appreciated.

Both of their starting WR's couldn't even make another NFL roster, and the SuperBowl MVP in Branch has been an average WR in the NFL at best since he left.

The system has done wodners in New England for WR's. Now they have some white gu ythat played QB in college and was undrafted competing for the third WR spot in Julina Edelman because he seems to fit into the system so well.

[TXBRONC]

I do see that. I think it's hard for us fans to think of what it will be like without a guy like Marshall, because he has been such a great player for us, and more importantly has been all we really had.

Someone will step up in his absence. That's inevitable. It's the ebb and flow of the NFL, and players step up all the time. People laughed at New England for trading a 4th round pick for some little white guy named Wes Welker, and although that's a rare incident, it's a good example that shows how systems can create Pro Bowl type players when they are given the chance.

Someone will step up, and even if they don't, I refuse to believe that Denver is going to have some lethargic offense that will average 6 points a game and 100 yards, like so many people here think will happen without Marshall.

We weren't even that productive with Marshall scoring TD's, and that was with Cutler, Scheffler, arguably the best oline in the NFL system comparison, and a hotshot young rookie in Royal.

I don't think we'll average 6 points a game either, but will we be better than last season? Right now I think with the loss of Marshall we'll be doing good to average about what did in '09.

[Tempus Fugit]

Both of their starting WR's couldn't even make another NFL roster, and the SuperBowl MVP in Branch has been an average WR in the NFL at best since he left.

The system has done wodners in New England for WR's. Now they have some white gu ythat played QB in college and was undrafted competing for the third WR spot in Julina Edelman because he seems to fit into the system so well.

Come the second half of the season, Gaffney was starting for that 2006 team. He'd been a late signing, and Gabriel hadn't worked out. That Patriots team lost in the AFCCG because the defense collapsed in the second half, with players being ill and their special teams players being forced into service with the regular defense. Had that defense not gotten ill, it's likely that the Patriots would have won the game and had another title, since they'd already beaten the Bears earlier that year and most people felt that the AFCCG was the real Super Bowl that year.

Just re-emphasize the point...

Gaffney and Reche Caldwell were the starters on that team in the second half of the season and the playoffs.

[TXBRONC]

Could you name the "top flight receiver" that the Patriots had in the years 2001-2006? Particular attention to 2005 and 2006, the years where McDaniels was the O.C. and neither Welker nor Moss had yet arrived on scene, would be appreciated.

And who was starting quarterback in 2001-2006? There's a huge difference between having one of the top two or three quarterbacks in the League throwing the ball to journey wide receivers and having a journeyman quarterback throwing journeymen wide receivers.

[Northman]

Considering Denver had the majority of their success last year early when Marshall was a non factor, and finished well below .500 in games where Marshall was, I'm not sure what to believe in terms of WR production.

I do think it's blindly obvious that the system works regardless of who's playing in it, and the last game where MArshall didn't play we certainly did not have trouble finding a WR, or even go to one at that. The system will allow someone to have ample oppurtunities to catch the ball.

One game against a very poorus defense. And again, the system works when you have a QB who can FIND more than one receiver on the team. That isnt the case in Denver.

[Northman]

Could you name the "top flight receiver" that the Patriots had in the years 2001-2006? Particular attention to 2005 and 2006, the years where McDaniels was the O.C. and neither Welker nor Moss had yet arrived on scene, would be appreciated.

Key word "OC". That doesnt mean shit at the HC level. For all we know Belly could of been just as responsible for that success than McD. And considering Belly had already won a couple of rings without McD i would say that would be the case. Its laughable that you would even try to make excuses. In fact, you just made a case against yourself. If McD was all great like you make him out to be why couldnt he turn water into wine here? Oh yea, thats right. He wasnt the HC at NE. Next...

[Northman]

And who was starting quarterback in 2001-2006? There's a huge difference between having one of the top two or three quarterbacks in the League throwing the ball to journey wide receivers and having a journeyman quarterback throwing journeymen wide receivers.

Owned. Thank you.

[TXBRONC]

Owned. Thank you.

No problem. :salute:

[silkamilkamonico]

One game against a very poorus defense. And again, the system works when you have a QB who can FIND more than one receiver on the team. That isnt the case in Denver.

I don't understand the argument. Do we want a QB that can find more than one WR? Or do we want a Marshall type player where we don't need a QB to find more than one WR? Having the dominant WR argument like Denver has had with Marshall certainly hasn't help the Houston Texans, who have a better WR with Andre Johnson (and I love Marshall).

I think people tend to forget that Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady when New England beat arguably a top 5 offense in the NFL historically in the St Louis Rams. And during New Englands second SuperBowl, I believe their WR's were David Givens and David Patton, 2 nobodys.

[TXBRONC]

Key word "OC". That doesnt mean shit at the HC level. For all we know Belly could of been just as responsible for that success than McD. And considering Belly had already won a couple of rings without McD i would say that would be the case. Its laughable that you would even try to make excuses. In fact, you just made a case against yourself. If McD was all great like you make him out to be why couldnt he turn water into wine here? Oh yea, thats right. He wasnt the HC at NE. Next...

I don't have any articles to back me but I remember hearing that after Weis left that Belichick was going to do most of the play calling in '05. If that's the case McDaniels only called played as the o.c. for two season.

[TXBRONC]

I don't understand the argument. Do we want a QB that can find more than one WR? Or do we want a Marshall type player where we don't need a QB to find more than one WR? Having the dominant WR argument like Denver has had with Marshall certainly hasn't help the Houston Texans, who have a better WR with Andre Johnson (and I love Marshall).

I think people tend to forget that Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady when New England beat arguably a top 5 offense in the NFL historically in the St Louis Rams. And during New Englands second SuperBowl, I believe their WR's were David Givens and David Patton, 2 nobodys.

I disagree. Brady was starting quarterback for the majority of the '01 season. He wasn't quite as refined but the talent was still there.

[Northman]

I don't understand the argument. Do we want a QB that can find more than one WR? Or do we want a Marshall type player where we don't need a QB to find more than one WR? Having the dominant WR argument like Denver has had with Marshall certainly hasn't help the Houston Texans, who have a better WR with Andre Johnson (and I love Marshall).

I think people tend to forget that Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady when New England beat arguably a top 5 offense in the NFL historically in the St Louis Rams. And during New Englands second SuperBowl, I believe their WR's were David Givens and David Patton, 2 nobodys.

We want a QB who can do both, like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, etc. We dont have that. So now, you take away one weapon that we did (and justifiablly so) and now the offense has nothing because there is just no way that Gaffney will produce the kinds of numbers that Marshall did. And since Kyle cant seem to spread the ball around enough to make that system work it will become severely stagnant. My basis point is that the system isnt flawed, the QB position is.

[silkamilkamonico]

I disagree. Brady was starting quarterback for the majority of the '01 season. He wasn't quite as refined but the talent was still there.

Right that's what I mean.

Their offense in 2001 was Tom Brady (who was a good young talent but hardly the franchise QB he is now), Antwain Smith, Troy Brown, David Patten, and Jermaine Wiggins.

I guess I just don't see the talent, on offense anyways. Troy Brown was solid, but he was also an aged WR who was never considered elite. Other than him they had, for a lack of a better word, "garbage" for players.

That was also the year that Terry Glenn (a top tier WR at the time) was mysteriously outcasted by Belichek, and he took a lot of heat from analaysts all over the NFL about being a young head coach who failed miserably in his first gig, and was on the "hot seat" early in the year for his dealings with a Superstar talent in Glenn, and then made another controversial decision in not giving back Bledsoe his job when he came back.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I don't have any articles to back me but I remember hearing that after Weis left that Belichick was going to do most of the play calling in '05. If that's the case McDaniels only called played as the o.c. for two season.

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=24595

Josh McDaniels enters his eighth NFL season and his eighth season in New England. He joined the Patriots on March 1, 2001 as a personnel assistant in the scouting department and assisted the defensive coaching staff for three seasons. He began serving as the Patriots' quarterbacks coach in 2004 and was named offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach on January 20, 2006.

[silkamilkamonico]

We want a QB who can do both, like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, etc. We dont have that. So now, you take away one weapon that we did (and justifiablly so) and now the offense has nothing because there is just no way that Gaffney will produce the kinds of numbers that Marshall did. And since Kyle cant seem to spread the ball around enough to make that system work it will become severely stagnant. My basis point is that the system isnt flawed, the QB position is.

Well, with all due respect, everyone wants another Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. There are numerous organizations that have never had a QB even close to that ability. I'm not sure it's healthy to sit back and hope for a player that you have about a .01% chance in acutally acquiring, whether it's through a trade, or draft.

[Northman]

Well, with all due respect, everyone wants another Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. There are numerous organizations that have never had a QB even close to that ability. I'm not sure it's healthy to sit back and hope for a player that you have about a .01% chance in acutally acquiring, whether it's through a trade, or draft.

Ok, fair enough. But then you cant really say that McD's system works. Because right now it only works with a HOF type of QB. So its a bit of a stretch to say it will work here, especially without a top tier WR.

[Dreadnought]

Well, its possible that losing BM improves McD's dismal play calling and Orton's lethal case of single target-lock. Consider; in the SD game we for once used Scheffler to take advantage of the natural mismatch he created - result was he demolished the SD pass defense and we won. Thats about the last time we saw him meaningfully used in a game plan. Eddie Royal was exiled to Siberia, but not quite as cold a part of it as Hillis was. Stokley? He was forgetten about for large chunks of the Year. We weren't lacking weapons by any means, just the will and imagination to use more than the biggest brightest, and shiniest of them.

[silkamilkamonico]

Ok, fair enough. But then you cant really say that McD's system works. Because right now it only works with a HOF type of QB. So its a bit of a stretch to say it will work here, especially without a top tier WR.

I think it worked pretty well with Cassell. The stats show it, and that's all you really have to go by.


I think it's too early to say what it will do here. I think I can say accurately that when it was working we had WR's and recieving options all over the field that had good looks at catching the ball. New England implemented their system, tweaked it over years, and then once they had the infrastructure for their offense they went out and got guys like Moss, Welker, etc. Denver is having to make the transistion all at once. I expect a little more progress this year, but I would expect to see McDaniels finished product by the end of next year (11'), and that's regardless of who's playing QB.

There was a lot missing on offense last year. Especially with the problems along the oline. I cannot stand Kyle Orton, but I also can't say he was bad. The system gave him very good stats last year. At the same time, the system can't account for his falling over at the touch of the wind, and issues like that. IMHO, McDaniels gave Orton a good oppurtunity to be successful, but it's Orton's inabilities like pocket prescence, mobility, wanting to make a play, etc.. that hold him and the system back. I firmly believe it's why we saw so many screens last year, is because McDaniels didn't trust Orton to make a play when he had too.

[slim]

Ok, fair enough. But then you cant really say that McD's system works. Because right now it only works with a HOF type of QB. So its a bit of a stretch to say it will work here, especially without a top tier WR.

It worked fairly well with Matt Cassel at the controls.

Orton is a better QB than Cassel. I know about the disparity in the WR talent, but to say it only works with a HOF type QB isn't really accurate.

[arapaho2]

I don't understand the argument. Do we want a QB that can find more than one WR? Or do we want a Marshall type player where we don't need a QB to find more than one WR? Having the dominant WR argument like Denver has had with Marshall certainly hasn't help the Houston Texans, who have a better WR with Andre Johnson (and I love Marshall).

I think people tend to forget that Tom Brady wasn't Tom Brady when New England beat arguably a top 5 offense in the NFL historically in the St Louis Rams. And during New Englands second SuperBowl, I believe their WR's were David Givens and David Patton, 2 nobodys.


and i think your forgetting brady took over in week two of the season and played himself into the probowl ...if tom brady in the probowl isnt the normal tom brady then i dont know what is

you also seem to forget bledsoe got healthy but still was relegated to the bench by bradys play

so
probowl caliiber play from the qb + average wrs = SOLID OFFENCE

however

merely average qb + AVERAGE WRS= AVERAGE OFFENSE

[Tempus Fugit]

And who was starting quarterback in 2001-2006? There's a huge difference between having one of the top two or three quarterbacks in the League throwing the ball to journey wide receivers and having a journeyman quarterback throwing journeymen wide receivers.

That's irrelevant to Northman's post:


Based off what? One year that he has been a HC? In that year it was a top reciever that helped him to a .500 season. Plainly put, i'll believe it when i see it. So far, he hasnt shown that he can win without a top flight reciever.

Nothing there about a QB.


Owned. Thank you.

You mustn't understand the definition of "owned".

[Northman]

I think it worked pretty well with Cassell. The stats show it, and that's all you really have to go by.


I think it's too early to say what it will do here. I think I can say accurately that when it was working we had WR's and recieving options all over the field that had good looks at catching the ball. New England implemented their system, tweaked it over years, and then once they had the infrastructure for their offense they went out and got guys like Moss, Welker, etc. Denver is having to make the transistion all at once. I expect a little more progress this year, but I would expect to see McDaniels finished product by the end of next year (11'), and that's regardless of who's playing QB.

There was a lot missing on offense last year. Especially with the problems along the oline. I cannot stand Kyle Orton, but I also can't say he was bad. The system gave him very good stats last year. At the same time, the system can't account for his falling over at the touch of the wind, and issues like that. IMHO, McDaniels gave Orton a good oppurtunity to be successful, but it's Orton's inabilities like pocket prescence, mobility, wanting to make a play, etc.. that hold him and the system back. I firmly believe it's why we saw so many screens last year, is because McDaniels didn't trust Orton to make a play when he had too.

I dont think Orton is bad. But he is extremely one dimensional and doesnt have what i think it takes to read defenses fast enough to exploit them. Whats going to happen is he is going to target a wr next year (probably Gaffney) and then try to force it too him because it will be his favorite target. But, when it wasnt there Orton and offense sputtered. Sure, NE tweaked some things but remember one thing about the whole Cassell ordeal. And that is he came in with a veteran team who knew when to step it up. So while Matt had some success it really fell on the shoulders of his teammates. But again, we are talking about one year where there was no prior game film on the guy. We saw something very simliar happen in Clev with Derek Anderson and then the following year he wasnt near as successful and the same thing happened to Cassell in KC. I, like you expect much better results this year but frankly i dont see it happening.

[Tempus Fugit]

Key word "OC". That doesnt mean shit at the HC level. For all we know Belly could of been just as responsible for that success than McD. And considering Belly had already won a couple of rings without McD i would say that would be the case. Its laughable that you would even try to make excuses. In fact, you just made a case against yourself. If McD was all great like you make him out to be why couldnt he turn water into wine here? Oh yea, thats right. He wasnt the HC at NE. Next...

"OC" is only the key word for people who are being dishonest in their complaints, given that McDaniels has only been a head coach for one season and you're bitching about what he's allegedly not done without Marshall.

You ask "based off what?" and then you specifically define your claim in such a way that nobody can possibly give a response that disagrees with yours, not because you're correct, but because you've defined the parameters so narrowly.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Shanahan considered an offensive genius? That Genius failed to get above .500 with Jay Cutler under center. Pulling the "water into wine" crap after one year is just pathetic.

[weazel]

5-11 here we come. :lol:

which isn't much worse than the previous 3 or 4 seasons.

[TXBRONC]

Well, its possible that losing BM improves McD's dismal play calling and Orton's lethal case of single target-lock. Consider; in the SD game we for once used Scheffler to take advantage of the natural mismatch he created - result was he demolished the SD pass defense and we won. Thats about the last time we saw him meaningfully used in a game plan. Eddie Royal was exiled to Siberia, but not quite as cold a part of it as Hillis was. Stokley? He was forgetten about for large chunks of the Year. We weren't lacking weapons by any means, just the will and imagination to use more than the biggest brightest, and shiniest of them.

There are a lot people who wont like what I have to say but the lack of imagination imho was do to McDaniels evaluation of what Orton's strengths and weaknesses are.

[Northman]

which isn't much worse than the previous 3 or 4 seasons.

Depends on your perspective i guess. If your a Raider fan you might want to strive to be better. :lol:

[silkamilkamonico]

and i think your forgetting brady took over in week two of the season and played himself into the probowl ...if tom brady in the probowl isnt the normal tom brady then i dont know what is


If you're actually trying to argue that Tom Brady version 2001 was around as dymanic as Tom Brady version 2007, then I really can't help you.



you also seem to forget bledsoe got healthy but still was relegated to the bench by bradys play

No I didn't, I already mentioned that actually.



so
probowl caliiber play from the qb + average wrs = SOLID OFFENCE

however

merely average qb + AVERAGE WRS= AVERAGE OFFENSE



With you saying "Pro Bowl calibiur", I'm assuming you're using stats and play to argue a QB as "Pro Bowl calibur". With that being said, 3800+ yards, 21 TD's 12 int's, and a rating of 86+ is in fact "Pro Bowl calibur", and I can show you a plethora of other QB's that did not have better stats than Orton, and actually did make the Pro Bowl over the years.

[T.K.O.]

i think your all guilty of "premature exclamation":welcome:

[BigBroncLove]

I dont think Orton is bad. But he is extremely one dimensional and doesnt have what i think it takes to read defenses fast enough to exploit them. Whats going to happen is he is going to target a wr next year (probably Gaffney) and then try to force it too him because it will be his favorite target. But, when it wasnt there Orton and offense sputtered. Sure, NE tweaked some things but remember one thing about the whole Cassell ordeal. And that is he came in with a veteran team who knew when to step it up. So while Matt had some success it really fell on the shoulders of his teammates. But again, we are talking about one year where there was no prior game film on the guy. We saw something very simliar happen in Clev with Derek Anderson and then the following year he wasnt near as successful and the same thing happened to Cassell in KC. I, like you expect much better results this year but frankly i dont see it happening.

Well the reason i think it worked with Cassel in NE was he had several years to get comfortable in the system and know it backwards and forwards. He knew the reads, he knew the plays, and he didn't try and do more than he was capable of.

Orton for his part last year, I agree. His entire ability to move through his progression was lacking. He almost always targeted one specific reciever every game. The Broncos went to the long ball in game one, and after realizing the problem, chopped the legs out to give Orton the best shot in the system. Over time it seemed as if the Broncos playbook got more and more predictable which I see as only being because they had to for Orton.

Orton has a problem of staring down his receivers also which is a great tip to opposing DB's. He doesn't have a ton of zip on the ball either which allows the DB's to make up room for mistakes or well run routes. Was all of this a byproduct of not knowing the system? not at all, but it is very possible for Orton to improve his ability to be more comfortable in his reads and check downs now further entrenched in a system he should know much much better.

Despite all this, I think a lot rests on the OL at this point. If they become better all around, it will allow more time for lazy eye Orton to find more than one target if he somehow is on par with his play from last season. It will also help open up the running game and could allow for a wide opening passing game because of it. The alternative (a similar or worse Oline this year) is a very scary prospect for the Broncos chances in 2010 IMO with Orton and Quinn as the man in the pocket. Neither inspires confidence when under pressure.

[Northman]

"OC" is only the key word for people who are being dishonest in their complaints, given that McDaniels has only been a head coach for one season and you're bitching about what he's allegedly not done without Marshall.

There's no bitching. Its just me as a fan stating my opinion on how i think its going to turn out. You disagree. Whoopee doo.


You ask "based off what?" and then you specifically define your claim in such a way that nobody can possibly give a response that disagrees with yours, not because you're correct, but because you've defined the parameters so narrowly.

I defind the parameters based off what people have tried to use in their own arguements. Hence, people try to say his system is successful when it hasnt been proven to be successful. You simply cannot have it both ways.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Shanahan considered an offensive genius? That Genius failed to get above .500 with Jay Cutler under center. Pulling the "water into wine" crap after one year is just pathetic.

I never called Shanahan an offensive genius so your barking up the wrong tree.

[TXBRONC]

That's irrelevant to Northman's post:



Nothing there about a QB.



You mustn't understand the definition of "owned".

Yes it's relevant. You brought up years 2001-2006 in relationship to wide receivers that they had during that period. If you're going to tell me that Tom Brady has bearing on success of Patriots during that time then there's nothing left to say.

[Northman]

Well the reason i think it worked with Cassel in NE was he had several years to get comfortable in the system and know it backwards and forwards. He knew the reads, he knew the plays, and he didn't try and do more than he was capable of.

Orton for his part last year, I agree. His entire ability to move through his progression was lacking. He almost always targeted one specific reciever every game. The Broncos went to the long ball in game one, and after realizing the problem, chopped the legs out to give Orton the best shot in the system. Over time it seemed as if the Broncos playbook got more and more predictable which I see as only being because they had to for Orton.

Orton has a problem of staring down his receivers also which is a great tip to opposing DB's. He doesn't have a ton of zip on the ball either which allows the DB's to make up room for mistakes or well run routes. Was all of this a byproduct of not knowing the system? not at all, but it is very possible for Orton to improve his ability to be more comfortable in his reads and check downs now further entrenched in a system he should know much much better.

Despite all this, I think a lot rests on the OL at this point. If they become better all around, it will allow more time for lazy eye Orton to find more than one target if he somehow is on par with his play from last season. It will also help open up the running game and could allow for a wide opening passing game because of it. The alternative (a similar or worse Oline this year) is a very scary prospect for the Broncos chances in 2010 IMO with Orton and Quinn as the man in the pocket. Neither inspires confidence when under pressure.


Well, no one can say that McD doesnt have his guys in there now so the excuses will just not work after this year. I agree the OL is key here but im still just not sold enough on Orton to be a quick enough decision maker to utilize all the wr's on this team. Time will tell but im not really holding my breathe here.

[BigBroncLove]

Well, no one can say that McD doesnt have his guys in there now so the excuses will just not work after this year. I agree the OL is key here but im still just not sold enough on Orton to be a quick enough decision maker to utilize all the wr's on this team. Time will tell but im not really holding my breathe here.

Oh, I'm not holding my breath either. As far as confidence of Orton becoming a better QB then we've seen.... I'd give it a 15% - 25% shot. I tend to be a more positive fan though, taking the wait and see approach in the offseason on things that I don't like and being a little more vocal about things I like. When we get to see real football thats when I start spouting off an opinion I'm sure no ones waiting on the edge of their seat to read.

About the McD and his guys in there now.... my opinion is both yes and no. He has his guys IMO, but they need time to develop (that goes for Quinn to). I don't think we can properly guage McD's system and guys until the end of 2011 when I think, depending, will be when Bowlen starts holding him to a higher standard as well.

[arapaho2]

If you're actually trying to argue that Tom Brady version 2001 was around as dymanic as Tom Brady version 2007, then I really can't help you.



No I didn't, I already mentioned that actually.





With you saying "Pro Bowl calibiur", I'm assuming you're using stats and play to argue a QB as "Pro Bowl calibur". With that being said, 3800+ yards, 21 TD's 12 int's, and a rating of 86+ is in fact "Pro Bowl calibur", and I can show you a plethora of other QB's that did not have better stats than Orton, and actually did make the Pro Bowl over the years.

cut to the quick...your insinuated we could play with average wrs because in 2001 brady was not the real brady yet he took and bunch of average joes to the superbowl

for one the fact brady made the probowl shows alot of that is wrong...he played at a very high level..high enought to get in the probowl in the 2 spot

brady was brady...orton is no brady...period

[Tempus Fugit]

Yes it's relevant. You brought up years 2001-2006 in relationship to wide receivers that they had during that period. If you're going to tell me that Tom Brady has bearing on success of Patriots during that time then there's nothing left to say.

Again:


Based off what? One year that he has been a HC? In that year it was a top reciever that helped him to a .500 season. Plainly put, i'll believe it when i see it. So far, he hasnt shown that he can win without a top flight reciever.

I'm not sure what part of "receiver" you keep missing, so I can't clarify further than to note that the issue is about receivers rather than quarterbacks or quarterback/receiver combinations.

So, if you keep deflecting the obvious, you're right. There's nothing left to say.

[Bosco]

untill some idiots discover gaffney isnt a legit threat at #1wr..

Good thing he's the 3rd receiver, where he's one of the best in the NFL.

[Tempus Fugit]

There's no bitching. Its just me as a fan stating my opinion on how i think its going to turn out. You disagree. Whoopee doo.

Please.... the bitching is almost non-stop.


I defind the parameters based off what people have tried to use in their own arguements. Hence, people try to say his system is successful when it hasnt been proven to be successful. You simply cannot have it both ways.

His system was proven to be successful in 2005-2008. You're limiting the scope to the 2009 season by arguing OC/HC, which doesn't matter if you're honestly arguing system.


I never called Shanahan an offensive genius so your barking up the wrong tree.

He's almost universally hailed as an offensive genius when it comes to football. And, unfortunately for your arguments, that genius couldn't manage better than .500 with Cutler under center and Marshall and Scheffler catching passes.

2-3
7-9
8-8

If you'd keep that in mind more often, you might come to better, and more sound, conclusions.

[Northman]

Please.... the bitching is almost non-stop.



His system was proven to be successful in 2005-2008. You're limiting the scope to the 2009 season by arguing OC/HC, which doesn't matter if you're honestly arguing system.



He's almost universally hailed as an offensive genius when it comes to football. And, unfortunately for your arguments, that genius couldn't manage better than .500 with Cutler under center and Marshall and Scheffler catching passes.

2-3
7-9
8-8

If you'd keep that in mind more often, you might come to better, and more sound, conclusions.


My conclusions are fine, you just dont happen to agree with them.

[Northman]

His system was proven to be successful in 2005-2008. You're limiting the scope to the 2009 season by arguing OC/HC, which doesn't matter if you're honestly arguing system.






Actually, my scope hasnt been just limited to OC/HC. Ive mentioned the QB position as well but i guess you would have to actually read the thread to have known that.

[TXBRONC]

Again:



I'm not sure what part of "receiver" you keep missing, so I can't clarify further than to note that the issue is about receivers rather than quarterbacks or quarterback/receiver combinations.

So, if you keep deflecting the obvious, you're right. There's nothing left to say.

No I'm not one deflecting you brought up the 2001-2006 Patriots now you've walked back from that angle so we'll leave it at that.

[TXBRONC]

Good thing he's the 3rd receiver, where he's one of the best in the NFL.

Please, you're the only one making that claim. When I here it from a reputable source then I'll believe it.

[elsid13]

Both of their starting WR's couldn't even make another NFL roster, and the SuperBowl MVP in Branch has been an average WR in the NFL at best since he left.

The system has done wodners in New England for WR's. Now they have some white gu ythat played QB in college and was undrafted competing for the third WR spot in Julina Edelman because he seems to fit into the system so well.

Brady has done wonders in NE for the WRs

[elsid13]

Once again talent on fields beats system. Right now we don't have any receiver on field that forces DC to game plan for him or QB that forcs the safeties to play honest. Add in a offense line that in transition and Denver's offense could easily struggle at the start of the season.

[gregbroncs]

I don't think we'll average 6 points a game either, but will we be better than last season? Right now I think with the loss of Marshall we'll be doing good to average about what did in '09.I think we'll be better simply because I believe OL is more important than 1 receiver. Maybe orton could have looked around more if he thought his OL could give him enough time to do so. I think they have improved the OL and that it will more than make up for the loss of Marshall and that whomever wins the QB battle will be able to look for secondary receiver's simply because they should have more time more often.

[Bosco]

I don't have any articles to back me but I remember hearing that after Weis left that Belichick was going to do most of the play calling in '05. If that's the case McDaniels only called played as the o.c. for two season.

You heard wrong. McDaniels ran the offense from 2005-2008


Please, you're the only one making that claim. When I here it a reputable source then I'll believe it.

You know Gaffney's performance last year was better or comparable to 16 of the 32 secondary receivers in the league? If that doesn't make him one of the best third receivers in the league, I don't know what does.

[Dreadnought]

Settle down everyone and debate/argue this without getting insulting towards each other. TIA

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Here ya go.

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=24595

Josh McDaniels enters his eighth NFL season and his eighth season in New England. He joined the Patriots on March 1, 2001 as a personnel assistant in the scouting department and assisted the defensive coaching staff for three seasons. He began serving as the Patriots' quarterbacks coach in 2004 and was named offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach on January 20, 2006.

If you know how count that's two years he was the oc.

You proclaim Gaffney to whatever the hell you want. But your opinion doesn't make it fact.

Would that not be 3 years - 2006, 2007 and 2008?

[Bosco]

Here ya go.

http://www.patriots.com/team/index.cfm?ac=playerbio&bio=24595

Josh McDaniels enters his eighth NFL season and his eighth season in New England. He joined the Patriots on March 1, 2001 as a personnel assistant in the scouting department and assisted the defensive coaching staff for three seasons. He began serving as the Patriots' quarterbacks coach in 2004 and was named offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach on January 20, 2006.

If you know how count that's two years he was the oc. I'm pretty sure I said "ran the offense" not "was the offensive coordinator" and I was correct.


After offensive coordinator Charlie Weis left the team following the 2004 season, the Patriots did not name an offensive coordinator for the 2005 season. According to The New York Times, in 2008, it was McDaniels who called the offensive plays for the 2005 season, although suggestions to that effect were made in 2005.[2][4] After the season, McDaniels was officially promoted to offensive coordinator, while retaining his responsibilities coaching the team's quarterbacks.


When Charlie Weis left the Patriots for Notre Dame after that season, McDaniels was given control of play-calling, although Belichick did not name him offensive coordinator and kept the identity of the play-caller a mystery, perhaps to shield McDaniels, whose youthful countenance belies his deep coaching experience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/sports/football/30patriots.html?_r=1

Josh McDaniels in 2005 is Jeremy Bates in 2008, except unlike Bates, Josh brought his own wrinkles to an established offensive system and got his team to the playoffs.


You proclaim Gaffney to whatever the hell you want. But your opinion doesn't make it fact. So what's your counterpoint?

[Bosco]

Would that not be 3 years - 2006, 2007 and 2008?

Owned.

[TXBRONC]

I'm pretty sure I said "ran the offense" not "was the offensive coordinator" and I was correct.





http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/sports/football/30patriots.html?_r=1

Josh McDaniels in 2005 is Jeremy Bates in 2008, except unlike Bates, Josh brought his own wrinkles to an established offensive system and got his team to the playoffs.

So what's your counterpoint?

Someone that's going to use Wikipedia as source I need for countering.

[Bosco]

Someone that's going to use Wikipedia as source I need for countering.

Did you not see the quote AND link to the article which Wikipedia cited?

[TXBRONC]

Would that not be 3 years - 2006, 2007 and 2008?

Hmm how does being the oc from '06-07 add up to three years?

He was the quarterback's coach starting in '06 that adds up to three years.

[Bosco]

Hmm how does being the oc from '06-07 add up to three years?

Oh. My. God.

[TXBRONC]

Did you not see the quote AND link to the article which Wikipedia cited?

Oh you mean speculation by the NY. Times that McDaniels was running the offense in '05. Yeah that's undeniable fact. :rolleyes:

[Bosco]

I am utterly speechless right now.

[Bosco]

Hmm how does being the oc from '06-07 add up to three years?

He was the quarterback's coach starting in '06 that adds up to three years.

Umm, no.

From the link you posted.
He began serving as the Patriots' quarterbacks coach in 2004 and was named offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach on January 20, 2006.

Now follow me here.

2006 - 1st year as OC.
2007 - 2nd year
2008 - 3rd year

[Tempus Fugit]

No I'm not one deflecting you brought up the 2001-2006 Patriots now you've walked back from that angle so we'll leave it at that.

Yes, I brought up the 2001-2006 Patriots regarding the system and the receivers. McDaniels took the Weiss system and modified it, therefore I went all the way back to the point the Patriots began having the recent success. It was still about the WRs. I pointed specifically to 2005-2006 because that was the McDaniels tenure as OC (he was the OC without the title in 2005) covered in that span.

How that's supposed to be walking back is beyond my ken.

[Tempus Fugit]

Actually, my scope hasnt been just limited to OC/HC. Ive mentioned the QB position as well but i guess you would have to actually read the thread to have known that.

I read the entire thread. Are you really going to try playing these games when I've quoted your posts and responded to specific claims you made? Come on...

[TXBRONC]

Yes, I brought up the 2001-2006 Patriots regarding the system and the receivers. McDaniels took the Weiss system and modified it, therefore I went all the way back to the point the Patriots began having the recent success. It was still about the WRs. I pointed specifically to 2005-2006 because that was the McDaniels tenure as OC (he was the OC without the title in 2005) covered in that span.

How that's supposed to be walking back is beyond my ken.

No the New England system isn't about the wide receivers its about the guy behind center. They won those three Super Bowls because Brady was behind center not because of the wide receivers. In '08 why didn't the Patriots make the playoffs if the offense is all about the wide receivers? You don't have to know a lot about New England to know that the offense goes threw Brady not the wide receivers.

[Bosco]

In '08 why didn't the Patriots make the playoffs if the offense is all about the wide receivers?

I don't think I'd use the first 11-5 team since the expansion to not make the playoffs as my example, especially when they were still a top 10 offense without Brady.

[Northman]

I read the entire thread. Are you really going to try playing these games when I've quoted your posts and responded to specific claims you made? Come on...

Are you really going to make narrow minded arguements without considering the entire context in which i am making my basis? Especially since you've tried to claim i was doing the same thing? My, your one big contradiction. :lol: