PDA

View Full Version : Bad year behind them, Broncos serious about becoming ground force



Denver Native (Carol)
08-18-2011, 09:57 AM
Kyle Orton, walking away from a team drill Wednesday at Broncos training camp, pulled off his helmet, exposing the biggest grin on his face.

And for good reason.

The first-team offense had just pulled off a big running play against the starting defense, with tailback Willis McGahee taking Orton's handoff and busting through a large hole opened by the interior linemen.

rest of article - http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_18704073

Tned
08-18-2011, 10:03 AM
One of the areas I'm most excited about (no matter what is happening in regard to the QB spot) is the running game. Franklin sounds like he has a ways to go in pass protection, but should be a beast in the run game. Clady is hopefully healthy, and then Walton and Beadles have more experience to help out Kuper on the inside.

McGahee sounds mostly good from what I'm reading, and some of the young guys (like Johnson) are sounding promising.

A good running game will help whichever QB is under center.

Dzone
08-18-2011, 10:08 AM
Good article. The Oline has to be loving this system.
Interesting that Fox is the one who chose JD as a game day captain. Everyone assumed that it was a team vote.

Have not heard the term Knee Irritation before.

bcbronc
08-18-2011, 02:37 PM
Even with no offseason, our oline should be miles (kilometers) ahead of where they were this point last year. Just having the starting 5 play pretty much every snap together--and in Beadles case all in the same position--should make a huge difference over the sloshing bucket of OLs we ran last camp due to injuries.

The big ??? At this point is whether Moreno and Mcgafee can stay healthy enough to be a pound the rock ball club. If they can, we should see a trickle down affect where a consistent run game improves our 3rd down% which improves our TOP which improves our defense.

And the best thing, with the youth on our OL, they should only get better and better week to week and year to year. Best way to be a perrenial contender is to have a dominant OL...too early to say we have that, but we do have what looks to be a great foundation.

BORDERLINE
08-18-2011, 03:05 PM
there is only one way to go if you where at the bottom. By simply getting a better balanced offense we can stay on the field longer and tire out the opposing defense. Also relying on the ground game to get us a first down on 3rd and 3 will be awesome. But, since we didn't address our DT position the opposing team could do the same to us since we will have a huge hole in the middle of our D-Line.

red98
08-18-2011, 07:44 PM
there is only one way to go if you where at the bottom. By simply getting a better balanced offense we can stay on the field longer and tire out the opposing defense. Also relying on the ground game to get us a first down on 3rd and 3 will be awesome. But, since we didn't address our DT position the opposing team could do the same to us since we will have a huge hole in the middle of our D-Line.

The run game looked pretty good during that early drive in the first pre-season game. I just hope when they get to first and goal from the one they will keep running it instead of throwing the fade.

Lancane
08-18-2011, 07:51 PM
I just hope that we don't become so focused on the ground game that we become mediocre elsewhere. I think that's what a lot of people had against Fox in Carolina, that he was so conservative and loyal to the run that at times it cost the team.

dogfish
08-18-2011, 07:57 PM
other than doom and von coming off the edges, the prospect of an improved running attack is about the ONLY thing i'm actually excited about this year. . . throwing walton and beadles immediately in the fire should pay some dividends this season-- particularly because we have a real O-line coach this time, not those f***tarded rejects mcdaniels pulled out of the CFL. . .

i think our group of running backs is average at the very best, but they should be good enough as long as the line opens holes, which i expect them to-- you know the opportunities will be there in a fox offense, he's not going to mcdaniels the running game. . .

we better hope franklin can hold up at tackle, though-- and pray there aren't any injuries, because our backup OLs pretty much all suck donkey balls. . . they better shell out for a backup tackle who's at least playable before the season starts if they don't want to potentially risk norton's life behind some arena league caliber stiff. . .

BroncoStud
08-18-2011, 11:31 PM
We'll see. We don't have the horses that Carolina did and we lack explosion at RB, plus Orton is not good under center, but hey, at least there will be no excuses for our lack of 3rd down and redzone production this season.

Canmore
08-19-2011, 12:29 AM
We'll see. We don't have the horses that Carolina did and we lack explosion at RB, plus Orton is not good under center, but hey, at least there will be no excuses for our lack of 3rd down and redzone production this season.

If the offensive line stays healthy, if, there should be no question about our third down and red zone production. Kyle Orton?

Agent of Orange
08-19-2011, 08:21 PM
Even with no offseason, our oline should be miles (kilometers) ahead of where they were this point last year. Just having the starting 5 play pretty much every snap together--and in Beadles case all in the same position--should make a huge difference over the sloshing bucket of OLs we ran last camp due to injuries.

The big ??? At this point is whether Moreno and Mcgafee can stay healthy enough to be a pound the rock ball club. If they can, we should see a trickle down affect where a consistent run game improves our 3rd down% which improves our TOP which improves our defense.

And the best thing, with the youth on our OL, they should only get better and better week to week and year to year. Best way to be a perrenial contender is to have a dominant OL...too early to say we have that, but we do have what looks to be a great foundation.

Don't forget to mention among the improvements you mentioned the idea of upgrading the offensive line coach, offensive coordinator, and head coach. At least I mention OC because I'm kind of assuming that he will be more dedicated to the running game with Fox and Magazu in Denver now.

And while it's great that Walton and Beadles now have experience, the flip side of that is that they never should have started last year...at least Walton.

bcbronc
08-19-2011, 09:17 PM
And while it's great that Walton and Beadles now have experience, the flip side of that is that they never should have started last year...at least Walton.

Ya, not really sure how that matters at this point. Going into this season there's zero negative to Beadles and JD having played last season.

Canmore
08-19-2011, 09:20 PM
Ya, not really sure how that matters at this point. Going into this season there's zero negative to Beadles and JD having played last season.

Agreed. The experience can only help.

Walton has to step up his game.

dogfish
08-19-2011, 09:34 PM
please! starting the rooks last year probably helped contribute to mcdaniels' exit-- best thing that could have happened. . . .

Lancane
08-19-2011, 10:06 PM
Don't forget to mention among the improvements you mentioned the idea of upgrading the offensive line coach, offensive coordinator, and head coach. At least I mention OC because I'm kind of assuming that he will be more dedicated to the running game with Fox and Magazu in Denver now.

And while it's great that Walton and Beadles now have experience, the flip side of that is that they never should have started last year...at least Walton.

But are we too dedicated? I've been constantly bringing this up because what were seeing and hearing is sounding more and more like the Carolina's Offense, not only are we using the terminology of it...which means that core of the playbook is either identical to either the Erhardt-Perkins variant used by Josh McDaniels or the variant used by Dan Henning, either of which have been proven to not be successful thus far in the league.

Point-and-Fact: Carolina's offenses were usually horrific no matter the numbers - in 02' they had 30th overall offense, 03' 15th overall offense, 04' 14th overall offense, 05' 8th overall offense, 06' 28th overall offense, 07' 26th overall offense, 08' 7th overall offense, 09' 21st overall offense, 10' 32nd overall offense. Are we seeing the trend yet? Mike McCoy was the Passing Coordinator under Henning in Carolina, Magazu and the rest of the new additions to the offense are all used to Henning's offense both in regards to the aerial and ground game, what have we seen thus far? We've seen parts of both offenses, including the one we used last year that became so predictable that it made mediocre defenses look like All-Pro units, when Tebow has been in we've seen several plays right out of Urban Meyer's Florida Spread playbook which it's variants have been disastrous for the most part at this level. And arguably they had far better offensive talent during that time then we currently have, give our offensive line.

This was my major knock against Fox, I was alright with his hiring because he's a solid defensive minded head coach but I was concerned that he would hire a questionable offensive coordinator, and thus far it's looks to be that way...if we start producing the type of offenses he's used to the fanbase will once again turn on a head coach, but this time...Elway, Bowlen and company will feel the backlash because few will support them.

dogfish
08-19-2011, 10:55 PM
cane. . . i do share your concerns to some extent, but at the same time. . .

do we really WANT norton flinging it forty times a game?

:noidea:

we've seen that too, and it wasn't pretty. . . i mean, obviously he generated a ton of stats, but we didn't score much, and we didn't win games. . .

i think most of us would agree that neckbeard's at his best when you can support him with a strong running game and defense. . . which goes for every QB, of course-- but some passers are created more equal than others, ifyaknowwhatimean. . . some guys are merely at their best with those things in place (think elway-- or peyton manning), while others NEED them to be successful. . . orton's the latter. . .

you are right, though-- it will be frustrating if they go super conservative. . . you have to have a defense to play ground and pound. . . orton's adequate at moving the ball between the twenties-- they need to get it balanced, but that includes taking some shots, and at least some early-down passing and three-wide sets. . .

the one potential plus i see to a conservative approach is that it should help keep us to more third-and-manageable type situations, where the ol' captain checkdown and the fainting goat syndrome won't kill us as much. . .

we'll see. . . in an ideal world at least some of orton's success at generating yardage would carry over, and the combination of the wild jesus formation and a stouter running game would help us to convert TDs at a higher clip. . .

i think you know i'm not so wildly optimistic about this year, though. . . :laugh:

Lancane
08-19-2011, 11:25 PM
cane. . . i do share your concerns to some extent, but at the same time. . .

do we really WANT norton flinging it forty times a game?

:noidea:

we've seen that too, and it wasn't pretty. . . i mean, obviously he generated a ton of stats, but we didn't score much, and we didn't win games. . .

i think most of us would agree that neckbeard's at his best when you can support him with a strong running game and defense. . . which goes for every QB, of course-- but some passers are created more equal than others, ifyaknowwhatimean. . . some guys are merely at their best with those things in place (think elway-- or peyton manning), while others NEED them to be successful. . . orton's the latter. . .

you are right, though-- it will be frustrating if they go super conservative. . . you have to have a defense to play ground and pound. . . orton's adequate at moving the ball between the twenties-- they need to get it balanced, but that includes taking some shots, and at least some early-down passing and three-wide sets. . .

the one potential plus i see to a conservative approach is that it should help keep us to more third-and-manageable type situations, where the ol' captain checkdown and the fainting goat syndrome won't kill us as much. . .

we'll see. . . in an ideal world at least some of orton's success at generating yardage would carry over, and the combination of the wild jesus formation and a stouter running game would help us to convert TDs at a higher clip. . .

i think you know i'm not so wildly optimistic about this year, though. . . :laugh:

That's the misconception of it all though, look at Delhomme's numbers from 2003 to 2005 he was constantly in the top echelon of the league's quarterbacks, in yards, attempts, completions and so on, it wasn't till his injury that his play fell and became mediocre. Even then he still had a fairly good season in 2008 which led to his mega-extension before his floor fell out.

What if I told you that while optimism is fine and dandy but we shouldn't ignore the fact that during Fox's tenure the Panthers even with a stellar defense played from behind nearly three quarters of the time, even with an above average run game? Delhomme was thrusted into a similar role that Elway had under Reeves, where he had to bail out the team more times then not. If the offense was so good, the scheme and execution then why were they almost always a mediocre to horrendous offense?

Shanahan when he left changed what he felt he failed at here in Denver, trying to become better and more aggressive defensively. Fox who was ran out of Carolina much the same way seems to be following the same disastrous blue-print which got him fired. It wasn't the defense the fans were unhappy with, it was the continual lackluster offense that was run, run and then pass, with a less then elite quarterback that had to try and carry the team because the ground game was simply not enough and they had to play from behind - Fox's tenure in Carolina proves that even with a great defense that balance is the key to winning it all, his best two seasons as the head coach 05' and 08' the defense wasn't only good but the offense was even in top ten rankings.

I feel that all this attention to the run and steadfast keeping to a mediocre passing attack, with what is undoubtedly a questionable offensive scheme is a disaster waiting to happen.

dogfish
08-19-2011, 11:31 PM
cane, read my post again-- i said i'm not that optimistic. . .

:D

i'm just saying that i don't necessarily think having an aggressive passing attack with orton is exactly some great recipe for success either. . .

;)

dogfish
08-19-2011, 11:41 PM
in regards to scheme, i understand what you're saying, but it's just like the DT situation-- like it or hate it, it pretty much is what it is at this point. . . ain't shit we can do but wait and see. . .

i've mentioned before, i think two factors might have forced fox in this direction whether he wanted to change or not. . . the lockout made it so much tougher to change coordinators, particularly with how young a lot of our offense is-- making them learn a new playbook and terminology with (supposedly) no coaching oversight would have been an ugly transition. . .

and frankly, i also suspect that cheap-ass ellis made his preference known for a coach that would retain most of the staff and save 'em a few rupies. . .


of course, that doesn't mean fox wouldn't have retained mccoy anyway. . . as you always like to point out, people stick with what's familiar. . . and i do think you're right, fox is juuust fine with a highly conservative offense. . .

if anything, though, the defense this first year just might be bad enough to force us out of it. . .

and let's be honest-- no offense could be good enough to overcome our current defense, and the overwhelming need to get that patched up was what led to the hiring of a defensive-minded coach. . . as far as i'm concerned, if fox can at least get us back to the road to respectability in that regard, he's done most of his job. . . the offense will probably be a project for the next guy. . .


*shrugs*

Lancane
08-19-2011, 11:42 PM
cane, read my post again-- i said i'm not that optimistic. . .

:D

i'm just saying that i don't necessarily think having an aggressive passing attack with orton is exactly some great recipe for success either. . .

;)

No, I knew what you were saying...I was explaining to you that Orton is going to be counted on as much as he was under McDaniels, who do you think Fox is going to look to, to shoulder the weight when were behind again and again? Granted, Orton isn't going to be expected to throw as much, but he'll be asked to be the one thing worse then anything could be asked, to be a leader who can carry the offense in times of need? The offensive scheme we're using has proven questionable time and again.

The point I was making to the board with all this is that while everyone is excited that they're focusing on the run game, that if you look at Fox's record in terms of his offenses then that focus, let alone the optimism the board is feeling may be extremely premature. His offensive scheme is below mediocre in terms of success. I understand that people hope Orton plays better with a good run game, but I think most would agree that Delhomme was a better quarterback then Orton and his play couldn't even help it. "It's ringing a warning sound in my mind, that we might just be more F'd then we previously thought".

dogfish
08-19-2011, 11:55 PM
gotcha. . .

see, i've felt like we were ****ed since i heard that xanders was being "considered" :rolleyes: for GM. . . my alarm bells stopped ringing in february or march. . . i'm just resigned now. . . i think there's a great chance we'll be starting a rookie QB next year anyway, in which case we're more or less just swimming in place this year. . .

if the O-line can come together enough to keep our next QB upright, i'll chalk it up as a win. . .


i totally understand what you're saying about fox and his offensive scheme. . . i just can't be bothered to worry about it until we have enough decent personnel to field an NFL defense-- until that happens, it's not gonna matter that much whether the offense is good or not. . . and with the full cap floor not coming into effect for another couple of years, it probably doesn't matter that much who the coach is the next year or two. . .

just my perspective on it. . . .

TXBRONC
08-20-2011, 12:04 AM
cane, read my post again-- i said i'm not that optimistic. . .

:D

i'm just saying that i don't necessarily think having an aggressive passing attack with orton is exactly some great recipe for success either. . .

;)

It isn't. Yards are great, points are better and that isn't something Orton has been particularly good at doing.

Canmore
08-20-2011, 12:05 AM
No, I knew what you were saying...I was explaining to you that Orton is going to be counted on as much as he was under McDaniels, who do you think Fox is going to look to, to shoulder the weight when were behind again and again? Granted, Orton isn't going to be expected to throw as much, but he'll be asked to be the one thing worse then anything could be asked, to be a leader who can carry the offense in times of need? The offensive scheme we're using has proven questionable time and again.

The point I was making to the board with all this is that while everyone is excited that they're focusing on the run game, that if you look at Fox's record in terms of his offenses then that focus, let alone the optimism the board is feeling may be extremely premature. His offensive scheme is below mediocre in terms of success. I understand that people hope Orton plays better with a good run game, but I think most would agree that Delhomme was a better quarterback then Orton and his play couldn't even help it. "It's ringing a warning sound in my mind, that we might just be more F'd then we previously thought".

I'm one who's excited that we are going to run the ball. I withhold judgement on the results. Will we have an effective run game? Can we run the ball on third and short, on the goalline and in the fourth quarter if the score dictates it? Im not a proponent of run run and pass for the third down conversion. That is not playing to Orton's strengths. Run, play action , keeping the defense honest. This is what we need to do offensively. It's a passers league, we need to run and throw effectively. Will we see that? I don't know. Your warning may well ring true.

Clipworthy
08-20-2011, 12:06 AM
Gonna be hard when Orton likes to audible out of running plays :lol:

Lancane
08-20-2011, 12:18 AM
gotcha. . .

see, i've felt like we were ****ed since i heard that xanders was being "considered" :rolleyes: for GM. . . my alarm bells stopped ringing in february or march. . . i'm just resigned now. . . i think there's a great chance we'll be starting a rookie QB next year anyway, in which case we're more or less just swimming in place this year. . .

if the O-line can come together enough to keep our next QB upright, i'll chalk it up as a win. . .


i totally understand what you're saying about fox and his offensive scheme. . . i just can't be bothered to worry about it until we have enough decent personnel to field an NFL defense-- until that happens, it's not gonna matter that much whether the offense is good or not. . . and with the full cap floor not coming into effect for another couple of years, it probably doesn't matter that much who the coach is the next year or two. . .

just my perspective on it. . . .

Unfortunately I think most of us are figuring this year as a 'wash' whether good or bad, more then likely bad that we still have a ton of rebuilding to do. I am concerned that Fox is more self destructive then I want to believe because of his nature as a coach, he's old fashioned and that could point to Elway being somewhat the same and that bothers me, because the NFL is ever evolving and if we can not evolve as a team then it's pointless to think we can compete.

I'm hoping that if McCoy sucks it up, like I feel he will that they'll be willing to go elsewhere and away from the Erhardt-Perkins tree with the next offensive coordinator. Defense is important, I just don't want to see us forget all else and become the Buccaneers pre-Gruden.

dogfish
08-20-2011, 12:27 AM
oh, i'm pretty sure we'll be moving away from the E-P tree with our next offensive coordinator. . .


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8097/imagescazqzynb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/imagescazqzynb.jpg/)

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/654/92749335jpg240080crop34.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/92749335jpg240080crop34.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Clipworthy
08-20-2011, 12:28 AM
Unfortunately I think most of us are figuring this year as a 'wash' whether good or bad, more then likely bad that we still have a ton of rebuilding to do. I am concerned that Fox is more self destructive then I want to believe because of his nature as a coach, he's old fashioned and that could point to Elway being somewhat the same and that bothers me, because the NFL is ever evolving and if we can not evolve as a team then it's pointless to think we can compete.



Great point, plus it is sort of hard to imagine Fox's philosophy working with the backs on Denver's roster

Lancane
08-20-2011, 12:34 AM
oh, i'm pretty sure we'll be moving away from the E-P tree with our next offensive coordinator. . .


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8097/imagescazqzynb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/imagescazqzynb.jpg/)

That wouldn't surprise me a bit should Houston decide to go a different route after the season. Other possibles would be Kyle Shanahan, Rick Dennison and Gregg Knapp as well.

dogfish
08-20-2011, 12:47 AM
That wouldn't surprise me a bit should Houston decide to go a different route after the season. Other possibles would be Kyle Shanahan, Rick Dennison and Gregg Knapp as well.

we'll see, but i do wonder if they got those defensive reinforcements a year too late for gary. . . mcnair has been really patient with him, and i suppose he MIGHT just squeak out one more year without a playoff appearance if the defense shows marked signs of improvement-- but the odds can't be good. . .

if they did let him go, it's pretty easy to think denver would be interested. . . we interviewed dennison, so it's hard to think we'd mind that offense coming back. . . and fine by me, but i'll take kubes over dennison or the shanny brat by a mile (i hope mike's whelp never gets within a thousand yards of denver except when he's coaching the opposing team, actually-- that punk's a little mcdaniels clone). . . kubes is the proven one from that group, as well as having the most direct denver roots. . .

and i know bosco is scowling somewhere :heh:, but gary's built a very potent offense in houston-- his ability as an OC has never really been in question. . . and the guy is an absolute top-notch quarterbacks coach, as well. . . something we could really use around here. . .


honestly though, i'm currently more interested in seeing whether dennis allen can pull his weight than anything else. . .

Lancane
08-20-2011, 01:09 AM
Great point, plus it is sort of hard to imagine Fox's philosophy working with the backs on Denver's roster

Actually I've long said that Moreno was a bad pick because he was drafted from an offense that used the ZBS and McDaniels planned to wing us off that blocking scheme for the more favored Power he was use to. Moreno and McGahee should be fine and I believe we'll add someone else next year later in the draft as well, or I should say it's very likely. Remember the Panthers last year had the 13th best rushing attack in the league, they've continually had a strong running game, but it didn't make their offense overall better by leaps and bounds, because other then twice, Fox's overall offenses have been at the bottom of the pile.

Actually, when I look at the best overall offenses last year for example I notice that the West Coast variant offenses are still the most productive in terms of successful offensive schemes.

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 01:59 AM
Ya, not really sure how that matters at this point. Going into this season there's zero negative to Beadles and JD having played last season.

It matters when listing reasons for why there should be a big difference between last year and this year. Walton (and possibly also Beadles) shouldnt have even been starting most of last year.

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 02:14 AM
I'm one who's excited that we are going to run the ball. I withhold judgement on the results. Will we have an effective run game? Can we run the ball on third and short, on the goalline and in the fourth quarter if the score dictates it? Im not a proponent of run run and pass for the third down conversion. That is not playing to Orton's strengths. Run, play action , keeping the defense honest. This is what we need to do offensively. It's a passers league, we need to run and throw effectively. Will we see that? I don't know. Your warning may well ring true.

This is something that gets said by the media a lot but the truth is, defensive teams with strong running games have beaten the Patriots (Ravens and Jets) in the playoffs the past two years. It's a fair point to make in the sense that the NFL has gone overboard in making it too easy to pass, but when you look at results, it's still mixed and teams with stronger running games and defenses have had a good chance against teams with a superior/elite passer.

But otherwise, Im with you.

I think Denver should always try to have a good running game. First of all, our running game back in the 90s was one for the ages and it's something we're identified with. But I also think that it's advantageous for a team that plays in altitude to be able to run the ball well. In the second half, the defensive linemen really start to feel the burn even moreso at altitude.

Canmore
08-20-2011, 02:26 AM
This is something that gets said by the media a lot but the truth is, defensive teams with strong running games have beaten the Patriots (Ravens and Jets) in the playoffs the past two years. It's a fair point to make in the sense that the NFL has gone overboard in making it too easy to pass, but when you look at results, it's still mixed and teams with stronger running games and defenses have had a good chance against teams with a superior/elite passer.

But otherwise, Im with you.

I think Denver should always try to have a good running game. First of all, our running game back in the 90s was one for the ages and it's something we're identified with. But I also think that it's advantageous for a team that plays in altitude to be able to run the ball well. In the second half, the defensive linemen really start to feel the burn even moreso at altitude.

Yes. Balanced teams with decent defenses should always fair well. Nothing taken away from Barry Sanders, but we were the best running team in football in the mid to late 90s and we won two Super Bowls doing just that. It helped having the best third down quarterback in football playing for us.

When teams new that we were going to line up and run the football, they couldn't stop it. We ran the ball effectively on third and short, in the red zone and at the end of games to close things out. We lined up and crammed the ball down our opponents throats. When I envision a running game for Denver, this is what I am hoping for.

BroncoJoe
08-20-2011, 09:41 AM
Eh. Fox is labeled a conservative, but not many people realize he was the first to use the "Wild-Cat" offense. Yes, before Miami made it popular.

Lancane
08-20-2011, 12:10 PM
This is something that gets said by the media a lot but the truth is, defensive teams with strong running games have beaten the Patriots (Ravens and Jets) in the playoffs the past two years. It's a fair point to make in the sense that the NFL has gone overboard in making it too easy to pass, but when you look at results, it's still mixed and teams with stronger running games and defenses have had a good chance against teams with a superior/elite passer.

But otherwise, Im with you.

I think Denver should always try to have a good running game. First of all, our running game back in the 90s was one for the ages and it's something we're identified with. But I also think that it's advantageous for a team that plays in altitude to be able to run the ball well. In the second half, the defensive linemen really start to feel the burn even moreso at altitude.

Agent, the Patriots had the 9th best running attack last season and the 11th overall passing offense, so they're very balanced. You mention teams beating them with stellar defenses and good ground games, but there is a hard statistical fact everyone is missing...those same said teams have lost in the post-season as well, in fact the more balanced teams have gone farther in the post-season then some of the best rushing teams, and it's been the better passing teams to come away with the championship that last few years. Green Bay had the 5th best passing offense, but we're 24th on the ground. New Orleans had the 4th best passing offense and the 6th overall running offense the year before.

A solid ground game does help, but more times then not it's the more balanced teams getting anywhere in the post-season! And lest not forget that our new head coach has only been to the post season three times, and he's continually had one of the better running attack offenses and top defenses in the league and his playoff record is just barely over .500.

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 12:10 PM
Yes. Balanced teams with decent defenses should always fair well. Nothing taken away from Barry Sanders, but we were the best running team in football in the mid to late 90s and we won two Super Bowls doing just that. It helped having the best third down quarterback in football playing for us.

When teams new that we were going to line up and run the football, they couldn't stop it. We ran the ball effectively on third and short, in the red zone and at the end of games to close things out. We lined up and crammed the ball down our opponents throats. When I envision a running game for Denver, this is what I am hoping for.

What also helps is having a QB with a big arm that can keep the defense away from the LOS, or if the defense crowds the LOS, they risk getting burned deep. It also helped having WRs who blocked along with that great offensive line and running back.

I actually think youre selling them short. That running game is on a very short list of all time greats. But youre right. We had a better running game than Detroit but not because TD was a better RB than Sanders. It was because we had almost every complimentary component that helps a running game working. The running back is a big part of it but there are other components of having a great running game.

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 12:30 PM
Agent, the Patriots had the 9th best running attack last season and the 11th overall passing offense, so they're very balanced. You mention teams beating them with stellar defenses and good ground games,

First of all, I wouldnt say New England is the 9th best running team. Aside from that, they played better running teams in the games I mentioned. New England had the better passer in both games but the Jets and Ravens were both legitimate running teams. And having the better running games was where there was seperation in both of those games.



but there is a hard statistical fact everyone is missing...those same said teams have lost in the post-season as well, in fact the more balanced teams have gone farther in the post-season then some of the best rushing teams, and it's been the better passing teams to come away with the championship that last few years. Green Bay had the 5th best passing offense, but we're 24th on the ground. New Orleans had the 4th best passing offense and the 6th overall running offense the year before.

Pittsburgh also wasn't a better passing team than Arizona. And the Saints weren't even really better than Minnesota. If not for turnovers, Minnesota steamrolls New Orleans in the NFC Ch. game. Also, you shouldnt dismiss Green Bay's defense. Green Bay went an entire season never being behind by more than 7 points.

But statistically, not since Dan Marino probably has a QB had a better season than Brady in 07. What happened in 07?



A solid ground game does help, but more times then not it's the more balanced teams getting anywhere in the post-season! And lest not forget that our new head coach has only been to the post season three times, and he's continually had one of the better running attack offenses and top defenses in the league and his playoff record is just barely over .500.

It's easy to say that balance trumps all. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What was being discussed is that there is a tendency to over value having a great passer in terms of assessing a correlation to winning in the post season. I don't really think New England is that balanced. I think they're a passing team that hangs on to the ball a lot and as a result of that, they're able to put up running numbers that aren't exactly representative of what they are as a running team.

If you really want to know what's what, defensive coordinators still make it more of a priority to stop the run when facing balanced teams than the pass. Just look at the Vikings in recent years. Defensive coordinators almost invariably made stopping the run a bigger priority than stopping the pass. That doesn't jive with the value that many place on being a great passing team.

Tned
08-20-2011, 12:36 PM
Agreed. The experience can only help.

Walton has to step up his game.

I'm still taking a wait and see approach with Walton and Beadles. Some good, some bad last year.

Northman
08-20-2011, 12:41 PM
First of all, I wouldnt say New England is the 9th best running team.

Well, they were ranked 9th last year but im not sure your denying that or just saying they are the "best" running team out there. Either way, unlike previous years their run game last year was MUCH better and stronger than before.


Pittsburgh also wasn't a better passing team than Arizona.

Again are we talking about last year or another year altogether? Arizona was 31st in passing last year while Pitt was 14th. Thats a pretty clear definition of being better but i may be lost in your conversation in this regard.


But statistically, not since Dan Marino probably has a QB had a better season than Brady in 07. What happened in 07?

True. As to what happened i would say Eli made the play of a lifetime by avoiding a sack and then the miracle catch that eventually lead to the Giants win happened.


It's easy to say that balance trumps all. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What was being discussed is that there is a tendency to over value having a great passer in terms of assessing a correlation to winning in the post season. I don't really think New England is that balanced. I think they're a passing team that hangs on to the ball a lot and as a result of that, they're able to put up running numbers that aren't exactly representative of what they are as a running team.

I would agree with this. Manning a great passer and makes the postseason regularly but because of the lack of running they do they generally end up coming up short. Sooner or later Caldwell will have to figure out that they will need to run the ball more in order to be successful in the end.

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 12:46 PM
Well, they were ranked 9th last year but im not sure your denying that or just saying they are the "best" running team out there. Either way, unlike previous years their run game last year was MUCH better and stronger than before.

I addressed this later.


Again are we talking about last year or another year altogether? Arizona was 31st in passing last year while Pitt was 14th. Thats a pretty clear definition of being better but i may be lost in your conversation in this regard.

I was looking back at recent years and referring to the super bowl between Arizona and Pittsburgh. That year, Arizona had a better passing game than Pittsburgh.



True. As to what happened i would say Eli made the play of a lifetime by avoiding a sack and then the miracle catch that eventually lead to the Giants win happened.

It was a 60 minute game. NY won the game because New Englands offense couldn't get out of the blocks because they couldnt pass effectively.



I would agree with this. Manning a great passer and makes the postseason regularly but because of the lack of running they do they generally end up coming up short. Sooner or later Caldwell will have to figure out that they will need to run the ball more in order to be successful in the end.

Yeah, truth be told, in 2006 when the Colts won against the Bears, Dominic Rhodes should have been the MVP. He had a big day running the ball.

Lancane
08-20-2011, 01:09 PM
First of all, I wouldnt say New England is the 9th best running team. Aside from that, they played better running teams in the games I mentioned. New England had the better passer in both games but the Jets and Ravens were both legitimate running teams. And having the better running games was where there was seperation in both of those games.

Pittsburgh also wasn't a better passing team than Arizona. And the Saints weren't even really better than Minnesota. If not for turnovers, Minnesota steamrolls New Orleans in the NFC Ch. game. Also, you shouldnt dismiss Green Bay's defense. Green Bay went an entire season never being behind by more than 7 points.

But statistically, not since Dan Marino probably has a QB had a better season than Brady in 07. What happened in 07?

It's easy to say that balance trumps all. I don't think anyone is disputing that. What was being discussed is that there is a tendency to over value having a great passer in terms of assessing a correlation to winning in the post season. I don't really think New England is that balanced. I think they're a passing team that hangs on to the ball a lot and as a result of that, they're able to put up running numbers that aren't exactly representative of what they are as a running team.

If you really want to know what's what, defensive coordinators still make it more of a priority to stop the run when facing balanced teams than the pass. Just look at the Vikings in recent years. Defensive coordinators almost invariably made stopping the run a bigger priority than stopping the pass. That doesn't jive with the value that many place on being a great passing team.

Of course defensive coordinators still focus more on run defense, because the one inarguable fact that making a team one dimensional gives the greater chance of victory, and let's not bullshit ourselves, it's easier to stop the run then it is the pass not only in the acquiring the personnel, but in the fiscal supplication of the matter, pass rushers are simply worth more in the modern NFL compared to the best run stoppers, the same with legit cover corners compared to their counterparts.

You bring up an interesting point regarding Minnesota and New Orleans, but even with that, the success ratio of powerful running attack based offenses versus high powered passing or more balanced offenses has long been put to rest, granted that we've seen the likes of Pittsburgh win, but we've seen them lose as well, even then they had a legit quarterback that can make things happen such as we did with Elway when the run game stalled.

If we sincerely broke down the in's and out's of the best teams of the last decade or so, the one glaring undeniable fact is that balanced teams have met with more success then those that could be labelled as overly focused one dimensional teams, such as Carolina under John Fox. That is where my concern is, that Coach Fox is following the same exact blue-print that saw the fanbase turn on him as well as the ownership. I'm all for having a solid running game offensively, it helps control the tempo of a game, and it helps open up the passing game as well. And as you stated a solid defense is but one more element of a good overall team, but when I look at Carolina, hell when I look at any offensive unit using a variant Erhardt-Perkins offensive scheme, especially those run-orientated then I also notice as we all should that their failure rate is higher then success rate. Fox in Carolina had only three winning seasons with the same formula he's instilling here...why? If it was unsuccessful three-quarters of the time then why continue with that base offense or for that matter any part of what has proven to fail more then succeed?

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 02:00 PM
Of course defensive coordinators still focus more on run defense, because the one inarguable fact that making a team one dimensional gives the greater chance of victory, and let's not bullshit ourselves, it's easier to stop the run then it is the pass not only in the acquiring the personnel, but in the fiscal supplication of the matter, pass rushers are simply worth more in the modern NFL compared to the best run stoppers, the same with legit cover corners compared to their counterparts.

Im not sure what you're trying to say here. I used the Vikings as an example. They truly were a balanced team a couple of years ago. When teams focused on stopping the run, they just made it easier to pass. Your response made no sense. The reason that teams try to stop the run first is that if teams can run the ball on you, it's a problem that won't go away. Passing teams can be streaky. There's also and old saying that when you pass, three things can happen and 2 of them are bad. If you can't stop the run, there is less of a chance (at least typically) to get a fumble than there is to get an interception or incompletion.


You bring up an interesting point regarding Minnesota and New Orleans, but even with that, the success ratio of powerful running attack based offenses versus high powered passing or more balanced offenses has long been put to rest, granted that we've seen the likes of Pittsburgh win, but we've seen them lose as well, even then they had a legit quarterback that can make things happen such as we did with Elway when the run game stalled.

Im not sure what this is supposed to mean. It seems like you're trying to link high powered passing games with more balanced offenses. That's usually not the case. A lot of high powered passing offenses have lacked balance. I've already said that few would dispute that it's more ideal to have a balanced offense. But that's not even what this discussion is about. So stop trying to throw that in there as a means of making a point. What's being discussed is the value of being a passing team vs a run heavy team. And, like I said originally, we've seen mixed results when run focused teams have played against passing teams. Baltimore and the Jets both beating New England over the past two years are two examples of this.




If we sincerely broke down the in's and out's of the best teams of the last decade or so, the one glaring undeniable fact is that balanced teams have met with more success then those that could be labelled as overly focused one dimensional teams, such as Carolina under John Fox.

OK, once again, you make reference to being more balanced. The truth is that having a strong running game helps the defense in most scenarios more than having a pass happy offense. If there's anything the past two years should have taught people, it's that.

To be perfectly honest, there haven't been a lot of truly balanced offenses over the past ten years. Simply being ranked 9th statistically in rushing doesnt make you the 9th best running team.



That is where my concern is, that Coach Fox is following the same exact blue-print that saw the fanbase turn on him as well as the ownership. I'm all for having a solid running game offensively, it helps control the tempo of a game, and it helps open up the passing game as well. And as you stated a solid defense is but one more element of a good overall team, but when I look at Carolina, hell when I look at any offensive unit using a variant Erhardt-Perkins offensive scheme, especially those run-orientated then I also notice as we all should that their failure rate is higher then success rate. Fox in Carolina had only three winning seasons with the same formula he's instilling here...why? If it was unsuccessful three-quarters of the time then why continue with that base offense or for that matter any part of what has proven to fail more then succeed?

Is it really the "variant of the Erhart-Perkins" or is it the fact that Magazu uses zone blocking? What has the greater impact on the offense? I think at some point, offenses have become homogenized and I wouldnt be surprised if the greatest difference is the ZBS and not the Erhart-Perkins. Or is the difference being truly dedicated to the run and not being so reliant on the pass.

You can talk about the importance of passing all you want. We've been over reliant on the pass the past 2 years and last year, under Orton, the offense rarely reached 21 points in a game. And a lot of Orton's stats came in garbage time. It's important to recognize that simply throwing a lot, doesnt put you on the same level as Green Bay or Indianapolis as a passing team. There's also the matter of not having Rodgers or Manning.

Lancane
08-20-2011, 04:06 PM
Your response made no sense. The reason that teams try to stop the run first is that if teams can run the ball on you, it's a problem that won't go away. Passing teams can be streaky. There's also and old saying that when you pass, three things can happen and 2 of them are bad. If you can't stop the run, there is less of a chance (at least typically) to get a fumble than there is to get an interception or incompletion.

Sorry, took so long to respond…damn internet is acting up! And I thought my response made perfect sense, but of course that’s the internet for you. What I was trying to imply was rather simple, and that is that teams that tend to become one dimensional are far easier to defeat then multiple dimensional teams. E.G. the Minnesota comment for which I agreed with you.

I disagree though that teams try to stop the run out of some lame sense to edge a major annoyance…but rather that it’s paramount to stop the run to force an offense to become one dimensional and therein rely on what you pointed out as a more ‘unstable offense’ I.E. interceptions, pass deflections, incompletions and so forth. Not to mention that a run based offense usually tends to control the ball longer then a pass based offensive scheme, and can ware a defense down more if effective.


Im not sure what this is supposed to mean. It seems like you're trying to link high powered passing games with more balanced offenses. That's usually not the case. A lot of high powered passing offenses have lacked balance.

No, I’m not linking high powered passing offenses with more balanced offenses, what I am and was pointing out is that heavy run offenses tend to be just as unbalanced if they focus too heavily on that aspect, much like John Fox did in Carolina and seems to be doing here, or is in my opinion at least. I believe you and I are agreeing at least on the base of the argument, just not in the same terminology sort-to-speak.


OK, once again, you make reference to being more balanced. The truth is that having a strong running game helps the defense in most scenarios more than having a pass happy offense. If there's anything the past two years should have taught people, it's that.

To be perfectly honest, there haven't been a lot of truly balanced offenses over the past ten years. Simply being ranked 9th statistically in rushing doesnt make you the 9th best running team.

Having a solid running game does help the defense, but I am pointing to the deficiencies on the offensive side of the ball more then the aid it renders the defense (As I stated earlier John Fox has continually fielded powerful running attack offenses and solid defenses with little overall success). Too many people are focusing on defense, defense, defense when it takes all three phases of the game to be successful in the league. And while I love a solid defense, the best defense is sometimes a better offense!

Why did Baltimore and Pittsburgh want a franchise quarterback or even the New York (J) for that matter? Because they knew from past experience that running the ball effectively only got you so far, they all understood the need of diversity, of balance and that includes fielding superior defensive units. And you may be correct in your assessment that having the 9th best offense on the ground statistically doesn’t mean you have the 9th best rushing team, but it does mean no matter what you want to believe that they were just as effective gaining yardage on the ground by whatever means as they were through the air. Most people would argue much the same with us and the passing attack which you eluded to, because though we had the 2nd rated aerial offensive unit, it was far worse then it looked statistically.


Is it really the "variant of the Erhart-Perkins" or is it the fact that Magazu uses zone blocking? What has the greater impact on the offense? I think at some point, offenses have become homogenized and I wouldnt be surprised if the greatest difference is the ZBS and not the Erhart-Perkins. Or is the difference being truly dedicated to the run and not being so reliant on the pass.

That’s actually a good question? I would say that the ZBS has proven to be deficient when utilized in the
‘Erhardt-Perkins’ varied offenses or in any spread or smash mouth based offensive schemes. Compared to those teams who utilize it as part of their West Coast, Pistol or even Coryell based offenses. I would say that both hold equal impact on an offense, because both can decimate the effectiveness of the offenses overall production. Let’s face it, those who use the spread or smash mouth variants have found greater success with power blocking offensive lines compared to those who’ve utilized the zone.


You can talk about the importance of passing all you want. We've been over reliant on the pass the past 2 years and last year, under Orton, the offense rarely reached 21 points in a game. And a lot of Orton's stats came in garbage time. It's important to recognize that simply throwing a lot, doesnt put you on the same level as Green Bay or Indianapolis as a passing team. There's also the matter of not having Rodgers or Manning.

Most of us would say that it was the ineffectiveness of Orton as a player that hurt the passing game then anything, but as you pointed out that his stats were indeed inflated through mundane means. That wouldn’t exactly point out the deficiency of the passing attack, but his deficiencies as a quarterback, I have no doubt whatsoever that if we had Cutler, Sanchez, Bradford or as you pointed out Rodgers or Manning that we’d have been effective offensively with the passing game we were utilizing.

But this really has no standing in the conversation of which we’re undertaking, because what I was pointing out was that Fox’s offenses have continually been less then productive without a solid passing attack, and that is based on unquestionable facts…if not for Delhomme and the above average passing offense that Carolina had fielded in 03’, 05’ and 08’, then they would not have been as successful as they were just as in those other seasons when the passing game was not effective and they relied to heavily on the running game and defense, and the results were mediocre.

Agent of Orange
08-20-2011, 04:42 PM
Sorry, took so long to respond…damn internet is acting up! And I thought my response made perfect sense, but of course that’s the internet for you. What I was trying to imply was rather simple, and that is that teams that tend to become once dimensional are far easier to defeat then multiple dimensional teams. E.G. the Minnesota comment for which I agreed with you.

I disagree though that teams try to stop the run out of some lame sense to edge a major annoyance…but rather that it’s paramount to stop the run to force an offense to become one dimensional and therein rely on what you pointed out as a more ‘unstable offense’ I.E. interceptions, pass deflections, incompletions and so forth. Not to mention that a run based offense usually tends to control the ball longer then a pass based offensive scheme, and can ware a defense down more if effective.

If you agree with the last part, then you agree with the first part. It's all tied together. If you can't stop the run, you have a huge problem because, relative to passing, it's low risk and it's not going to go away.



No, I’m not linking high powered passing offenses with more balanced offenses, what I am and was pointing out is that heavy run offenses tend to be just as unbalanced if they focus too heavily on that aspect, much like John Fox did in Carolina and seems to be doing here, or is in my opinion at least. I believe you and I are agreeing at least on the base of the argument, just not in the same terminology sort-to-speak.

I said from the very outset that it's more ideal to have balance. But even teams that are balanced have a preference often times. If teams are hyper-effective at running, for reasons, stated above, they'll often prefer to run. But this whole discussion is about being pass heavy vs run heavy and how, contra to popular belief, being the better running team doesn't negate your chances at winning.



Having a solid running game does help the defense, but I am pointing to the deficiencies on the offensive side of the ball more then the aid it renders the defense (As I stated earlier John Fox has continually fielded powerful running attack offenses and solid defenses with little overall success). Too many people are focusing on defense, defense, defense when it takes all three phases of the game to be successful in the league. And while I love a solid defense, the best defense is sometimes a better offense!

Well, Steve Smith put up some good numbers in those offenses. So I wouldn't be too quick to rule out the fact that they could pass. And, like I said before, I think having a stalwart running game in Denver helps more because in Denver, there is the game within a game of keeping your defensive linemen off the field more than the opponents. If you can make the visiting teams feel the pain late in games, it helps the offense and defense that much more.


Why did Baltimore and Pittsburgh want a franchise quarterback or even the New York (J) for that matter? Because they knew from past experience that running the ball effectively only got you so far, they all understood the need of diversity, of balance and that includes fielding superior defensive units. And you may be correct in your assessment that having the 9th best offense on the ground statistically doesn’t mean you have the 9th best rushing team, but it does mean no matter what you want to believe that they were just as effective gaining yardage on the ground by whatever means as they were through the air. Most people would argue much the same with us and the passing attack which you eluded to, because though we had the 2nd rated aerial offensive unit, it was far worse then it looked statistically.


No. The reason they want a franchise QB is because they're a franchise QB away from being truly balanced. Everyone would like to have the ability to be balanced. Them wanting a franchise QB doesnt preclude them from winning without one. For any team, its easier to have prolonged winning if you have balance.



That’s actually a good question? I would say that the ZBS has proven to be deficient when utilized in the
‘Erhardt-Perkins’ varied offenses or in any spread or smash mouth based offensive schemes.

Something has only been proven when its been tested removing other variables. That's not the case here. Like I said, I think offenses have been homegenized to a large extent. Most offenses, regardless of what they've been branded, have slants, quick screens, skinny posts, etc...stuff that works. Shanahan's WCO was different than Bill Walsh's. Also, the Erhardt-Perkins originally utilized a lot of smallish, quick WRs. Randy Moss isn't exactly smallish and quickish like the NY Giants WRs of yesteryear.

Most of the offenses that has ties back to the 80s or before have been customized to the point where they, to some extent have become homogenized. The end result might be the degree that ZBS is used might be the biggest difference between offenses.


Compared to those teams who utilize it as part of their West Coast, Pistol or even Coryell based offenses. I would say that both hold equal impact on an offense, because both can desimate the effectiveness of the offenses overall production. Let’s face it, those who use the spread or smash mouth variants have found greater success with power blocking offensive lines compared to those who’ve utilized the zone.

I think you're wrong about this. There's nothing inherent about running a spread that makes a power scheme better. If you're making this observation, you really need to go back to what I said about removing other variables.




Most of us would say that it was the ineffectiveness of Orton as a player that hurt the passing game then anything, but as you pointed out that his stats were indeed inflated through mundane means. That wouldn’t exactly point out the deficiency of the passing attack, but his deficiencies as a quarterback, I have no doubt whatsoever that if we had Cutler, Sanchez, Bradford or as you pointed out Rodgers or Manning that we’d have been effective offensively with the passing game we were utilizing.

It's kind of interesting that you say this, yet you somehow conclude the blocking system in a spread offense is inherently better with one blocking scheme instead of another.


But this really has no standing in the conversation of which we’re undertaking, because what I was pointing out was that Fox’s offenses have continually been less then productive without a solid passing attack, and that is based on unquestionable facts…if not for Delhomme and the above average passing offense that Carolina had fielded in 03’, 05’ and 08’, then they would not have been as successful as they were just as in those other seasons when the passing game was not effective and they relied to heavily on the running game and defense, and the results were mediocre.

Define what it means to be productive. Earlier you said New England had the 9th best rushing attack based on some statistical ranking. I pointed out that statistical output doesnt exactly mean they're the 9th best. I point this out because you have to look at what an offense accomplishes and what it's designed to accomplish. In other words, has Fox's offenses protected his defenses? Has Fox's offenses put them in more winnable games as a result? Keep in mind that teams who run the ball, typically don't score as many points or put up as many yards because running the ball squeezes the clock...which goes back to helping the defense. In a sense, with run heavy offenses, it's not really enough to look up statistical rankings and make conclusions from that.

TXBRONC
08-20-2011, 05:22 PM
oh, i'm pretty sure we'll be moving away from the E-P tree with our next offensive coordinator. . .


http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8097/imagescazqzynb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/28/imagescazqzynb.jpg/)

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/654/92749335jpg240080crop34.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/52/92749335jpg240080crop34.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

What makes you think that Kubiak will be coming back to Denver as the offensive coordinator?

Lancane
08-20-2011, 06:16 PM
If you agree with the last part, then you agree with the first part. It's all tied together. If you can't stop the run, you have a huge problem because, relative to passing, it's low risk and it's not going to go away.

Maybe so…quit making me think on the weekend Agent, it makes my head hurt! :lol:

Like I said, I think for the most part you and I agree, I just don’t want us to become V.2.0 of the Tampa Buccaneers ‘Pre-Gruden’ or V.2.0 of the Carolina Panthers ‘Fox Era’ which both had above average running attacks and stellar defenses and yet accomplished little on the field and eventually had to go in different directions altogether after tasting mediocrity for far too long.


I said from the very outset that it's more ideal to have balance. But even teams that are balanced have a preference often times. If teams are hyper-effective at running, for reasons, stated above, they'll often prefer to run. But this whole discussion is about being pass heavy vs run heavy and how, contra to popular belief, being the better running team doesn't negate your chances at winning.

I wouldn’t say that being effective with a solid running game negates the chances to be effective upon the field, but I guess I personally tend to lean toward teams that have elite quarterbacks that can be effective when the other aspects stall. Does that make sense? Instead we have ‘Horton hears a who’ and when he hears the ‘who’ he simply folds.

And it’s not that I really care if we do run heavy this season, because it takes the ball out of Orton’s hands, but I would honestly say that I am concerned that we might stick to that form above and beyond and end up less then effective then we were under McDaniels which is rather hard to fathom for most people. I just don’t want to see Denver completely relying on the run and continuing the use of mediocre quarterback play, if we’re going to be the next Pittsburgh then fine, but then get us our own Big Ben and not Kordell Stewart, who indeed might be better then Orton. :sick:


Well, Steve Smith put up some good numbers in those offenses. So I wouldn't be too quick to rule out the fact that they could pass. And, like I said before, I think having a stalwart running game in Denver helps more because in Denver, there is the game within a game of keeping your defensive linemen off the field more than the opponents. If you can make the visiting teams feel the pain late in games, it helps the offense and defense that much more.

That is probably the greatest plus to a solid run game, the fact that it wares down defenses and eats up the clock, but there will be times (as I pointed out) that an offense needs to score faster and more repeatedly because of other high powered offenses.


No. The reason they want a franchise QB is because they're a franchise QB away from being truly balanced. Everyone would like to have the ability to be balanced. Them wanting a franchise QB doesnt preclude them from winning without one. For any team, its easier to have prolonged winning if you have balance.

I do agree with this, but I would tend to say that their chances to win without a franchise quarterback are far slimmer then some believe.


Something has only been proven when its been tested removing other variables. That's not the case here. Like I said, I think offenses have been homegenized to a large extent. Most offenses, regardless of what they've been branded, have slants, quick screens, skinny posts, etc...stuff that works. Shanahan's WCO was different than Bill Walsh's. Also, the Erhardt-Perkins originally utilized a lot of smallish, quick WRs. Randy Moss isn't exactly smallish and quickish like the NY Giants WRs of yesteryear.

Most of the offenses that has ties back to the 80s or before have been customized to the point where they, to some extent have become homogenized. The end result might be the degree that ZBS is used might be the biggest difference between offenses.

But can you really say that they’ve been homogenized, when you look at the effectiveness of those offenses and the changes to each which have shown or not shown results? Wouldn’t the final result be equivalent of removing or ever changing variables? As I stated the most effective teams to use the Pro-Spread, Erhardt-Perkins, Air-Erhardt or Smash Mouth offenses have tended to find more success with a power blocking scheme, whereas those who’ve used the zone have not had as much success. Could it be the overall scheme more then the blocking system itself? I suppose that is possible if we really think about it, but then again we have to look at McCoy, he’s not really the best Offensive Coordinator we could have wanted, he’s spent too much time learning ineffective offenses that while the same in terminology tend to clash somewhat, and could both be considered ineffective for the most part.


It's kind of interesting that you say this, yet you somehow conclude the blocking system in a spread offense is inherently better with one blocking scheme instead of another.

How does the ineffectiveness of Orton imply to anything? McDaniels blocking scheme was more power based then zone by the time he left. The overall success of those using similar offensive systems which themselves utilize the power blocking scheme comparative to those using the zone is rather well founded when looking at the overall effectiveness of their offenses. So I wouldn’t say inherently better, no…just statistically better, but I won’t say that one couldn’t succeed beyond the other if utilized correctly.


Define what it means to be productive. Earlier you said New England had the 9th best rushing attack based on some statistical ranking. I pointed out that statistical output doesnt exactly mean they're the 9th best. I point this out because you have to look at what an offense accomplishes and what it's designed to accomplish. In other words, has Fox's offenses protected his defenses? Has Fox's offenses put them in more winnable games as a result? Keep in mind that teams who run the ball, typically don't score as many points or put up as many yards because running the ball squeezes the clock...which goes back to helping the defense. In a sense, with run heavy offenses, it's not really enough to look up statistical rankings and make conclusions from that.

Productive to me would be the end result, win-loss and post-season appearances. In regards to Fox’s offenses I would say that yes they protected his defense. Has the offense put them in more winnable situations? I would say no, they continually had to play from behind and count on Delhomme to play like he was Elway because they tended to fall behind, Fox’s record is barely above .500 as a head coach, and he’s only had three winning seasons, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for the base offense he likes to run, especially when you look at the scoring portion of the offense in question, at how mediocre their scoring offense was overall (only twice did they have a Top Ten scoring offense, only three times were they above the Top Fifteen). And what if I told you that Fox’s defense has only been ranked in the Top Ten of Rushing Defenses once, but his Passing Defense has been in the Top Ten five times? Or that typically his offense has been outscored by almost a 3 to 1 ratio?

So again, as I said I have a reason to be concerned that we’re sticking with his offense, one which has been highly ineffective overall and had minimal productivity, and one in which the ineffectiveness was not due to their run game as a whole, but more so as an overall offense because they relied too heavily on the running game. Some will disagree, but they need to know I am not against a solid run game, but I am against a team focusing on that aspect and sticking with it when it’s been proven inadequate.