PDA

View Full Version : Here's a thought...



LRtagger
10-28-2008, 01:27 PM
Why not try Peyton Hillis out at TE? Shanny seems to be stuck on Larsen as a FB and not a LB, meanwhile Hillis rides the pine instead of being an asset to a struggling offense.

Why not put him at TE?

I was watching the Indy game last night and realized how a lack of a good pass catching TE has seemingly hurt us the past couple of weeks with Scheff out. Hillis has excellent hands and the ability to block. We have two china dolls as our pass catching TE and one TE that is essentially an extra tackle. Graham can catch the underneath ball, but with Scheff out we are limited over the top.

Hillis is very much like Dallas Clark in size and speed. Plus both guys have tremenous hands. With Scheff constantly on the DL, why not get Hillis on the field? Surely he can run routes and block as good as Nate or Mustard. I always looked at him as a hybrid type player, anyways.

http://broncotalk.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/peytonhillis1.jpg

silkamilkamonico
10-28-2008, 01:35 PM
Hillis must be in Shanahan's doghouse, which means his days in Denver are probably numbered.

I cannot think of another reason he isn't getting more playing time, other than maybe he just isn't ready to be out on the field.

Buff
10-28-2008, 01:37 PM
Can someone explain to me why everyone is obsessed with Hillis getting more playing time?

When he was FB, people were hoping he'd get a look at tailback. Now that he's lost his position at FB, we want him to be a TE. I mean, I'm not opposed to the idea, but could we also be open to the possibility that this guy isn't living up to his potential?

I don't know, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if his ball skills were as great as everyone makes them out to be, then he would be on the field one way or the other. Plus, it's hard for me to believe that he would be a better option at TE than Nate Jackson and Daniel Graham right now.

silkamilkamonico
10-28-2008, 01:40 PM
I don't know, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if his ball skills were as great as everyone makes them out to be, then he would be on the field one way or the other.

I agree.

Shanahan isn't just going to sit him, is he is as hyped as everyone here does with him. There's obviously a reason for it. Doghouse, or he just isn't that good right now.

Ziggy
10-28-2008, 01:43 PM
I thought his blocking was solid while he was in. He also catches everything thrown his way. I don't know why he's not on the field, but he looked good when he was.

G_Money
10-28-2008, 01:45 PM
We're gonna Hixon him - try to slide him onto the PS, let another team claim him, and then have to fill the position again in the draft.

Why? Who knows. You'd think a bruising back with good hands could be an asset to this offense, but Hillis is obviously doing something to piss off Shanahan. Hopefuly he gets a chance to play his way out of the doghouse eventually, but with Torain coming back the odds aren't good.

~G

broncofaninfla
10-28-2008, 01:47 PM
I like the idea of trying him out there. He looked good when I watched him at FB, not really sure why he isn't still starting at FB. He can block AND catch the ball. Larsen can block but can he catch the ball? I'm sure the coaches know better but it seems as though Denver took away a receiving option when they promoted Larsen over Hillis.

Does anybody know what Hillis ran in the 40 when he was coming out of college?

broncofaninfla
10-28-2008, 01:49 PM
I made it a point of watching Hillis when he was in and he looked good. Honestly, I feel he played better than Larsen has to date. I don't understand this demotion at all.

Ziggy
10-28-2008, 01:53 PM
I like the idea of trying him out there. He looked good when I watched him at FB, not really sure why he isn't still starting at FB. He can block AND catch the ball. Larsen can block but can he catch the ball? I'm sure the coaches know better but it seems as though Denver took away a receiving option when they promoted Larsen over Hillis.

Does anybody know what Hillis ran in the 40 when he was coming out of college?

4.5

broncofaninfla
10-28-2008, 01:56 PM
4.5 makes a good case to try him out for a TE. For the life of me, I can't understand why he isn't on the field? He is a solid pass receiving option and IMO is a solid FB.

Kaylore
10-28-2008, 01:57 PM
The tight end and full back in this system are already pretty much the same position. We flex our FB out to play TE and often do it the other way around as well. We'll even motion one into the slot sometimes. My only thought would be that Hillis doesn't work as hard as Larsen on special teams. It's unfortunate that Shanahan would rather play Larsen at FB than use his big hit tackling ability at the position he made a name for himself in college with. It's annoying.

broncofaninfla
10-28-2008, 02:02 PM
The tight end and full back in this system are already pretty much the same position. We flex our FB out to play TE and often do it the other way around as well. We'll even motion one into the slot sometimes. My only thought would be that Hillis doesn't work as hard as Larsen on special teams. It's unfortunate that Shanahan would rather play Larsen at FB than use his big hit tackling ability at the position he made a name for himself in college with. It's annoying.

I agree. I would much rather see Larsen at MLB and Hillis at FB. Don't understand it.

turftoad
10-28-2008, 02:04 PM
I agree. I would much rather see Larsen at MLB and Hillis at FB. Don't understand it.

We should have kept Foxworth. With a few extra pounds he could have been the DE that we need. :tsk:

dogfish
10-28-2008, 02:15 PM
people are hyped on hillis because he's a guy with a lot of potential, and he looked pretty good when he was in there (better than larsen, IMO). . . also, i think a lot of us would like to see the experienced fullback playing fullback and the experienced linebacker, you know-- playing linebacker. . . . that's not so crazy. . .


but knowing shenanigans, he'll keep larsen at FB and try hillis at LB. . . . :rolleyes:

Italianmobstr7
10-28-2008, 02:15 PM
People are WAY overreacting. Not a single one of you knows that Hillis is in Shanahan's dog house. Hillis got hurt, and got replaced for a week by Larsen. Larsen did a good job, and Hillis is yet to EARN his way back on to the field. Shanahan always says, whoever practices the best, plays on Sunday. So either Shanahan isn't liking what he's seeing in practice from Hillis, or Larsen is just flat out better than him. They are both rookies, so even if he doesn't get a ton of playing time this year, he'll still get his chance with us if he's as good as many of you seem to think. I liked the guy coming out of Arkansas, and he's played well when in, but just because we drafted the guy doesn't mean he should come in and start. He obviously did enough to make the team and get rid of Sapp, so Shanny must not have it out for him that bad.

Traveler
10-28-2008, 02:20 PM
This teams penchant of switching players from their natural positions makes me sick.

LRtagger
10-28-2008, 02:22 PM
Can someone explain to me why everyone is obsessed with Hillis getting more playing time?

When he was FB, people were hoping he'd get a look at tailback. Now that he's lost his position at FB, we want him to be a TE. I mean, I'm not opposed to the idea, but could we also be open to the possibility that this guy isn't living up to his potential?

I don't know, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if his ball skills were as great as everyone makes them out to be, then he would be on the field one way or the other. Plus, it's hard for me to believe that he would be a better option at TE than Nate Jackson and Daniel Graham right now.

Did you see him during preseason? He was very good and is a better blocker than Larsen IMO...Larsen is a friggen linebacker for pete's sake. Not to mention we dropped Sapp who was a legitimate FB because Hillis was a "sure thing".

Other than Shanny saying "Uh, Larsen like to hit people on kickoffs" I havent heard any other reason for this move. Sure Larsen likes to hit people, but I have seen him miss a blitz pickup on more than one occassion.

Nate Jackson has had ONE catch since Scheff went down (for a whopping 2 yards). ONE. Shannahan is all about experimenting with players at positions that they don't belong, why not try the kid at TE. He has the speed, size, and hands to be a threat on O...plus he can block.

I don't see how it would be a bad move. Most of Mike's "experiments" this season have been total BUSTS...it could only help this sputtering offense.

Italianmobstr7
10-28-2008, 03:03 PM
Did you see him during preseason? He was very good and is a better blocker than Larsen IMO...Larsen is a friggen linebacker for pete's sake. Not to mention we dropped Sapp who was a legitimate FB because Hillis was a "sure thing".

Other than Shanny saying "Uh, Larsen like to hit people on kickoffs" I havent heard any other reason for this move. Sure Larsen likes to hit people, but I have seen him miss a blitz pickup on more than one occassion.

Nate Jackson has had ONE catch since Scheff went down (for a whopping 2 yards). ONE. Shannahan is all about experimenting with players at positions that they don't belong, why not try the kid at TE. He has the speed, size, and hands to be a threat on O...plus he can block.

I don't see how it would be a bad move. Most of Mike's "experiments" this season have been total BUSTS...it could only help this sputtering offense.

What experiments are you talking about? The 3-4 has worked pretty well for us. It hasn't been great, but it hasn't been terrible. What other moves are you talking about? Pittman at RB after Young went down? Worked out pretty well....Eddie Royal in the starting lineup? Worked out pretty well too. Ryan Harris at RT...He's been great. Larsen hasn't been bad at FB. He's missed a few blocks, but there's not a RB or FB in the league who doesn't. I don't see what the big deal is I guess. I like Hillis, but if he's not the starting FB, it just goes to show that he needs to work harder.

Italianmobstr7
10-28-2008, 03:04 PM
This teams penchant of switching players from their natural positions makes me sick.

Who have we moved from their natural positions? Foxworth played Safety and CB.....Larsen was moved from LB to FB....What other moves are you talking about?

G_Money
10-28-2008, 03:07 PM
Hillis had a death in the family and took a week to go take care if it.

That's when Larsen saw the field as the FB, and even though he's missed several blocking assignments while on the field Shanny keeps running him out there instead of Hillis. Not that we actually use a FB much, but when we do, it ain't Hills.

It's just weird, that's all. Hillis had a few of his own protection issues, but he's a receiving threat in the flat that Larsen just isn't, and he has experience blocking, which Larsen doesn't.

Strange not to give the time to the guy who we should be trying to groom for the future of the position.

~G

Traveler
10-28-2008, 03:14 PM
Who have we moved from their natural positions? Foxworth played Safety and CB.....Larsen was moved from LB to FB....What other moves are you talking about?

DJ, Larsen, Foxworth, O'Neil, Dumervil, Pryce, and Pierce just to name a few.

LRtagger
10-28-2008, 03:50 PM
What experiments are you talking about? The 3-4 has worked pretty well for us. It hasn't been great, but it hasn't been terrible. What other moves are you talking about? Pittman at RB after Young went down? Worked out pretty well....Eddie Royal in the starting lineup? Worked out pretty well too. Ryan Harris at RT...He's been great. Larsen hasn't been bad at FB. He's missed a few blocks, but there's not a RB or FB in the league who doesn't. I don't see what the big deal is I guess. I like Hillis, but if he's not the starting FB, it just goes to show that he needs to work harder.


Slowik, Darrel Jax, McCree, Manuel, Lowry, Niko, Boss, Larsen at FB, Colbert.

Pittman was less an experiment and more of a "this is the obvious move"

Starting Royal wasnt really an experiment either. I give credit to Shanny for drafting him, but starting a 2nd round pick isnt exactly experimenting.

How is Ryan Harris an experiment? He is a third round tackle that finally cracked the starting lineup after a couple years. Plus it's not like Harris is paving the way for the running game. He has done well in pass protection, but he still has a lot of work to do to be a good RT.

I would say promoting an unproven secondary coach to DC to try to turn a defense around that was terrible last year against the run has been a failed experiment. Somehow we are now not only terrible against the run, but also against the pass.

Bringing in all of these free agent scrubs and overpaying them has been a total FAILURE. Niko, Boss, Manuel, McCree, etc. What a waste of an offseason.

Drafting guys to fill a need and then playing them as a rookie at a position they have never played before - FAIL.

Not sure which D you are watching, but I would classify the 4-3/3-4 hybrid a failure thus far. Considering we dont have a coach that can coach it, nor do we have the DL to run it. How anything we have done on D this year can be looked at as a success is beyond me.

We will see what happens with the Moss at OLB, but I'm not holding my breath.

Not saying every move Shanny makes fails, but lets be realistic...all these great moves he supposedly made this offseason to shore up the D and provide depth have been nothing but failures.

I figured Hillis must have worked plenty hard enough this offseason for Shanny to dump Sapp. Hillis missed a weekend because of a death in the family and now all of a sudden he has to work harder to get his spot back? It's not like Larsen has been blowing it up while he is in there. :confused:

dogfish
10-28-2008, 04:44 PM
Who have we moved from their natural positions? Foxworth played Safety and CB.....Larsen was moved from LB to FB....What other moves are you talking about?

remember deltha o'neal playing receiver and jarius jackson at safety? remember when they were working 5'11" 260 elvis dumervil at defensive tackle? he moved both carswell and mustard to OT. . . the list goes on. . . and while i have no problem with trying to get guys on the field, or increase their versatility to improve depth across the roster, sometimes you can't help wondering if he isn't out-thinking himself. . . what's wrong with just playing guys at spots they're accustomed to? it's not like hillis is badly undersized, too slow, or in any other way lacking the natural skill set to play fullback in the NFL. . . the guy was a highly-touted prospect, rated by a number of people as the top fullback of his class-- why not let him play where he's comfortable, and let larsen take those tackling skills and nasty attitude over to the defense that's in desperate need of them?

dogfish
11-03-2008, 01:07 AM
Can someone explain to me why everyone is obsessed with Hillis getting more playing time?




you get it now?

he just brings another dimension to our offense that larsen completely lacks. . .



for a minute there i thought that was larry centers out there. . .

NameUsedBefore
11-03-2008, 01:09 AM
Damn Buff, you got ownt.

dogfish
11-03-2008, 01:13 AM
Damn Buff, you got ownt.

happens to the best of us. . . .

NameUsedBefore
11-03-2008, 01:31 AM
happens to the best of us. . . .

Tell me about it, my pick 'em results are in shambles.

DenBronx
11-03-2008, 01:55 AM
it was obvious that hillis had this kind of talent yet he somehow didnt get the playing time. we got the best fb in the draft and havnt really been using him to his abilities. not only can he catch and run but the dude is a mauler too. he tries to punish you and dares not to go down. so can we stop trying all the projects and rejects at fb and just let the man play fb for us???

LRtagger
11-03-2008, 08:00 AM
Absurd that it took the coaching staff an entire offseason, preseason, and 8 games to realize what this kid can do. :tsk:

Tned
11-03-2008, 08:04 AM
I'm sorry, trying to remember who my adopted Bronco is. Hmmmm, I think his first name starts with P or maybe R, but I can't remember....

Seriously, earlier in this thread there was talk of using him at TE and stuff. He's where he needs to be, but this was the first game they used him the way he could be used.

Not just as a lead blocker, but in the same way you would use a TE on PA/Bootlegs, on screens, or as the relief valve, where Hillis can block and then release.

The long sideline throw, along with one where he was going down, shows the hands he has. It isn't a coincidence that he led Arkansas in catches two of his four years in Arkansas. Yes, on the one hand, that indicates a problem with the Ark passing game and WRs, but it still required Hillis catching the ball when it was thrown at him so much.

Earlier in the year, a couple Broncos players stated that Hillis not only have the best 'hands' of any RB on the team, but any offensive player.

Anyway, while the game sucked yesterday, one bright spot was that the coaches should now see Hillis as a weapon to use when other parts of the running game gets shut down, or when teams have strong pass rushes (screen passes).

Dreadnought
11-03-2008, 08:05 AM
Absurd that it took the coaching staff an entire offseason, preseason, and 8 games to realize what this kid can do. :tsk:

Well they'd better have a damned clue now! He needs to be in the lineup as much as possible from this point on.

LRtagger
11-03-2008, 08:18 AM
I'm sorry, trying to remember who my adopted Bronco is. Hmmmm, I think his first name starts with P or maybe R, but I can't remember....

Seriously, earlier in this thread there was talk of using him at TE and stuff. He's where he needs to be, but this was the first game they used him the way he could be used.

Not just as a lead blocker, but in the same way you would use a TE on PA/Bootlegs, on screens, or as the relief valve, where Hillis can block and then release.

The long sideline throw, along with one where he was going down, shows the hands he has. It isn't a coincidence that he led Arkansas in catches two of his four years in Arkansas. Yes, on the one hand, that indicates a problem with the Ark passing game and WRs, but it still required Hillis catching the ball when it was thrown at him so much.

Earlier in the year, a couple Broncos players stated that Hillis not only have the best 'hands' of any RB on the team, but any offensive player.

Anyway, while the game sucked yesterday, one bright spot was that the coaches should now see Hillis as a weapon to use when other parts of the running game gets shut down, or when teams have strong pass rushes (screen passes).

He was out wide as a WR and caught several passes out there. We wasnt lined up as a FB the entire game.

Hobe
11-03-2008, 08:38 AM
Throwing people in different positions is a sign desperation. We should not be desperate! We have a lot of talent. You can't move people around every game an expect them to play well. Just leave Hillis at Fullback. We know how to use a fullback, remember Grif!

Tned
11-03-2008, 08:41 AM
Throwing people in different positions is a sign desperation. We should not be desperate! We have a lot of talent. You can't move people around every game an expect them to play well. Just leave Hillis at Fullback. We know how to use a fullback, remember Grif!

Other than motioning him out to clear the backfield and go five wide, I agree.

Let him be a FB, and throw the ball at him a few times a game, or more, depending on the game. I certainly don't think he should be the 'featured' receiver like he was yesterday, but at the same time when you have an RB that can catch like that, you should throw him the ball more than twice in 7 games (which by memory, is what I think had happened prior to yesterday).

OMorange&blue
11-03-2008, 09:15 AM
Anybody pay attention to P.H.'s blocking skills? Couldn't have been that impressive. We only had 14 rushing yards.

DenBronx
11-03-2008, 03:23 PM
Sheff is one of the best pass catching TE's in the game and Graham one of the best blocking TE's. So why would we take Sheff off the field and replace him with a project TE. Then we have to turn around and put Michael Pittman at FB and then replace our starting RB all to try to put a FB at TE? Hillis is a natural FB so lets not tanker in areas that don't need to be tankered in. Keep this guy on the field at ALL times and let him develop. This season is valuable playing time for the future.

Id like to see what Royal, Torain, Hillis, Larsen, JMFW and Woodyard can all do the rest of the year at their natural positions.

LRtagger
11-03-2008, 03:38 PM
Sheff is one of the best pass catching TE's in the game and Graham one of the best blocking TE's. So why would we take Sheff off the field and replace him with a project TE. Then we have to turn around and put Michael Pittman at FB and then replace our starting RB all to try to put a FB at TE? Hillis is a natural FB so lets not tanker in areas that don't need to be tankered in. Keep this guy on the field at ALL times and let him develop. This season is valuable playing time for the future.

Id like to see what Royal, Torain, Hillis, Larsen, JMFW and Woodyard can all do the rest of the year at their natural positions.

When I made this thread, Hillis was riding the pine and we had a LB playing FB. Not to mention Scheff's bones are made of eggshells, so its not like we would be taking him off the field. He does a good job of that on his own.

We wouldnt have to move Pittman to FB, either. Our coaches at the time seemed to think Larsen was a FB, remember?

I made this thread because Hillis was not seeing the field aside from ST and Scheff typically gets hurt every couple games. Hillis is a playmaker and he has great hands. He can help block on the ends and IMO has the ideal skillset to play TE. I think it would have been a smart move if they were so deadset on Larsen at FB.

Now that the coaches have pulled their heads out of their collective asses and put Hillis back on the field at FB and we are getting him more involved, I don't think putting him at TE is necessary.

DenBronx
11-03-2008, 03:42 PM
When I made this thread, Hillis was riding the pine and we had a LB playing FB. Not to mention Scheff's bones are made of eggshells, so its not like we would be taking him off the field. He does a good job of that on his own.

We wouldnt have to move Pittman to FB, either. Our coaches at the time seemed to think Larsen was a FB, remember?

I made this thread because Hillis was not seeing the field aside from ST and Scheff typically gets hurt every couple games. Hillis is a playmaker and he has great hands. He can help block on the ends and IMO has the ideal skillset to play TE. I think it would have been a smart move if they were so deadset on Larsen at FB.

Now that the coaches have pulled their heads out of their collective asses and put Hillis back on the field at FB and we are getting him more involved, I don't think putting him at TE is necessary.



our coaches pulling their heads out of their asses? is that even possible? :laugh:

i still dont think larsen is cut out for offense. i think he is better suited on defense and special teams. now if hillis got hurt i could see why we would put him in temporarily but long term it wouldnt be a great idea. im glad he's diverse though. thats never a bad thing.

LRtagger
11-03-2008, 03:48 PM
our coaches pulling their heads out of their asses? is that even possible? :laugh:

i still dont think larsen is cut out for offense. i think he is better suited on defense and special teams. now if hillis got hurt i could see why we would put him in temporarily but long term it wouldnt be a great idea. im glad he's diverse though. thats never a bad thing.

Yea thats what was so frustrating. They had Larsen on the field at FB just because he made a few good hits on ST. So, in turn we had to sit Hillis which is why I suggested putting him at TE to get him back onto the field. It is pretty aparent what he is capable of doing for our passing game no matter what position he is playing.

I'm just glad he is back on the fied making plays.

Dreadnought
11-03-2008, 04:52 PM
OK - lets assume Hillis has earned his spot, finally. Here's a whacky idea...lets give Larsen some real playing time. On defense. At LB. Its not like he'd be replacing a perennial All-Pro or anything in, say, Nate Webster.

BroncoJoe
11-03-2008, 04:55 PM
OK - lets assume Hillis has earned his spot, finally. Here's a whacky idea...lets give Larsen some real playing time. On defense. At LB. Its not like he'd be replacing a perennial All-Pro or anything in, say, Nate Webster.

Yeah - he had a great hit on special teams, is a LB by trade, and we promote him to the starting lineup. AS A FULLBACK???

If the dude can hit like that, put him in as a Linebacker.

Broncolingus
11-03-2008, 06:54 PM
...a great game by the kid and very productive.

...and yet another loss.

We need to stop the turnovers and run the ball...

56crash
11-03-2008, 07:12 PM
I'm sorry, trying to remember who my adopted Bronco is. Hmmmm, I think his first name starts with P or maybe R, but I can't remember....

Seriously, earlier in this thread there was talk of using him at TE and stuff. He's where he needs to be, but this was the first game they used him the way he could be used.

Not just as a lead blocker, but in the same way you would use a TE on PA/Bootlegs, on screens, or as the relief valve, where Hillis can block and then release.

The long sideline throw, along with one where he was going down, shows the hands he has. It isn't a coincidence that he led Arkansas in catches two of his four years in Arkansas. Yes, on the one hand, that indicates a problem with the Ark passing game and WRs, but it still required Hillis catching the ball when it was thrown at him so much.

Earlier in the year, a couple Broncos players stated that Hillis not only have the best 'hands' of any RB on the team, but any offensive player.

Anyway, while the game sucked yesterday, one bright spot was that the coaches should now see Hillis as a weapon to use when other parts of the running game gets shut down, or when teams have strong pass rushes (screen passes).

Here is the deal I am tickled we might of just became a team this week ! Cutler might have learned that he needs to spread the wealth .