PDA

View Full Version : Was Anyone Else Screaming at Their TVs About the Playcalling???



WARHORSE
12-08-2008, 02:41 AM
Great win by the Cos, but I about blew a nad screamin at the playcalling. If I saw ONE more Tatum Bell attempt up the middle I would have sent a lamp through the television. One more quick pass out to a WR at the LOS and I would have slapped the neighbor for bein there. Talk about knowing what your players are capable of. Once Hillis went out, and Tatum came in, the runs should have been pitches left and right, mixed with some off tackle where our strength on the line matches Tatums ability to turn the corner vs his INABILITY to run hard up the gut consistently. They FINALLY pitched the #$&*^#($ ball out to Tatum for a huge run, and then that was it. Our Oline was CRUSHING them in the flats. Clady was a three hundred plus pound rolling pin throwin cross blocks all over the place.

Also, could anyone have clued Cutler in on the fact that the Cheefers have a mere 6 sacks on the year? Yet soon as there was a little pressure youd have thought the field caught fire. A little more patience in the pocket or poise out on wing would have been so much more damaging imo.

And once more, where are the crossing patterns that carve up the defensive style of play that the Cheefers play??

This is one game that Im proud of our team for a hard fought, dont get rattled, come from behind win............but I did not enjoy it one bit.:coffee:

I felt we were lucky to have come out of it with that W.

MHCBill
12-08-2008, 07:17 AM
I don't know... around 450 yards total offense and three scoring drives of 80+ yards leads me to believe the playcalling wasn't bad.

BeefStew25
12-08-2008, 07:49 AM
I was happy Cutty was looking underneath.

Running Tater of the gut was lame, but maybe it set up his big gainer later.

I don't know. None of us know anything end of the day.

gobroncsnv
12-08-2008, 08:03 AM
Well, I hated those WR screens as well, until we decided to block for one of them... I think the receivers were wondering for a while why they call them "screens". The one they got some blocking done, Marshall scored.
I guess you have to run Bell up the middle to keep them honest, but it doesn't do much more than that. Does his most damage outside the tackles. I about fell over when I saw him break an arm tackle on his long run.

Dirk
12-08-2008, 08:48 AM
I was screaming at the TV on those quick outs to the WRs. I have always hated those plays.

Ziggy
12-08-2008, 08:58 AM
The play calling was adjusted to fit the personnel on the field. In the first half, we had a 50/50 mix of run and pass. In the second, with Hillis out and Tatum as the only back left, we passed the ball more than we ran. Sounds like good playcalling to me. The WR drag play was designed to get the ball to Marshall. He had the hot hand. The WR screens are basically like handoffs to the outside.

9-14 on third downs, 4.6 yards per rush, 425 total net yards, and kept the ball for the last 2:30 or so of the game when we needed to. I had no problem with the playcalling.

BigDaddyBronco
12-08-2008, 09:01 AM
I was screaming about the playcalling until they started running the ball, then I was ok. I understood the pass calling after Hillis got hurt, but in the beginning of the first quarter it was asinine not to run Hillis against that Chiefs front 7.

Traveler
12-08-2008, 09:05 AM
Defensive play calling is still suspect. Still not sure why we have our CB's 10 yards off the line of scrimage when it's 3rd down and 5 for a first down.

OT: Don't be surprised this offeseason if we cut or trade some big name players. With the kiddies playing as well as they have -especially on defense- some prominent players just became expendable IMO.

LRtagger
12-08-2008, 09:08 AM
Well I wasnt screaming at the TV because I was watching it on my computer screen :mad:

Anyways, I thought running tater up the middle was dumb. It's almost as if the gameplan didnt change at all when Hillis went down.

I disagree about Jay moving in the pocket. I thought his pocket awareness was stellar and he even made a couple plays where most QBs would have been sacked (in particular the one inside our own 5 where a LB came unblocked to his left and he stepped up and completed a first down pass to Scheff).

The playcalling that boggled my mind was the defensive playcalling. We still continue to give 10 yard cushions on 3rd and short and KC took advantage. Yea I know people will look at the stats and say we had a good defensive gameplan, etc. I know we held LJ to few yards, but this is not the same LJ from week 4. He made some rookie mistakes, even running 10 yards backwards on a play like he was Barry Sanders. Not sure why they didnt give the ball to Charles more. He looked ten times better than LJ on that 13 yard carry.

The worst playcalling had to have come when we went up by a TD late in the 4th and our D went into meltdown mode. "Dont give up the big play" is our mantra anytime we get a lead. Newsflash to Slowik, this mentallity is only effective if there is less than a minute in the game. Unfortunately, there was still nearly 5 min left in the game. Instead of remaining aggressive and getting pressure on the QB, we decided to rush three, send 2 guys 40 yards deep, and leave our corners one-on-one on the outside.

Doom finally gets a sack, forcing a neary impossible 2nd and 20 conversion. What do we do? We rush three and leave our Rookie Josh Bell on an island with Bowe. What happens? They gain 19 yards on one play. Don't get me wrong, Bell has been stellar in Champ's absense, but putting him one-on-one against their best receiver on 2nd and 20 is probably the dumbest thing I have ever seen and nearly cost us the game if not for a dumb QB draw call on 4th down and a pretty good tackle by Bly.

Our saving grace in this game was having the ball 13 minutes more than the Chiefs. And the offense's clutch play when Hillis went down.

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 09:08 AM
The play calling was adjusted to fit the personnel on the field. In the first half, we had a 50/50 mix of run and pass. In the second, with Hillis out and Tatum as the only back left, we passed the ball more than we ran. Sounds like good playcalling to me. The WR drag play was designed to get the ball to Marshall. He had the hot hand. The WR screens are basically like handoffs to the outside.

9-14 on third downs, 4.6 yards per rush, 425 total net yards, and kept the ball for the last 2:30 or so of the game when we needed to. I had no problem with the playcalling.

Exactly. A lot of our playbook became useless after Hillis got hurt. We adjusted, and those outside screens etc. were really run game substitutes. The offense worked pretty well after the first two possesions, because after a punt (first possesion) and the interception (second) I don't think they kept us out of scoring position the rest of the game unless you want to count the final drive where we just ate up the rest of the clock.

Bronco Bible
12-08-2008, 09:50 AM
Defensive play calling is still suspect. Still not sure why we have our CB's 10 yards off the line of scrimage when it's 3rd down and 5 for a first down.

OT: Don't be surprised this offeseason if we cut or trade some big name players. With the kiddies playing as well as they have -especially on defense- some prominent players just became expendable IMO.

I agree at least give the DB's a shot:coffee:

broncofaninfla
12-08-2008, 10:57 AM
I qusetioned a few of teh play calls but liked the game plan for the most part. Wish we would have never called that pass to Hillis though, totally bummed he is hurt.

Northman
12-08-2008, 10:59 AM
Playcalling didnt bother me yesterday.

Mike
12-08-2008, 11:03 AM
Playcalling didnt bother me yesterday.

Even that soft ass zone on the last Chefs drive?

GEM
12-08-2008, 11:05 AM
My big complaint was Tater up the middle. The guy doesn't have the size for middle runs. I agree on the CB being 10 yards off. That has never worked well for us, so I don't know why they keep doing that.

Northman
12-08-2008, 11:08 AM
Even that soft ass zone on the last Chefs drive?

Nah, i expect all that. Until there is some moves made to better both the talent and coaching on D i dont expect much from there. The fact that young guys are even playing at a higher level than our starters is good enough for me.

MOtorboat
12-08-2008, 11:08 AM
My big complaint was Tater up the middle. The guy doesn't have the size for middle runs. I agree on the CB being 10 yards off. That has never worked well for us, so I don't know why they keep doing that.

You know, I really didn't notice it a whole lot. According to the play-by-play, he had four runs "up the middle" of 8, 1, 2, 3, which is 3.5 per carry, not spectacular, but like it was mentioned before, did it set up the 28-yard run off the left end?

Northman
12-08-2008, 11:11 AM
I think Tatum's biggest hangup when it comes to rushing the middle is his indecisiveness. Whereas Hillis will pick a hole and pound through it Tatum chooses to dance around before finding a hole but by then the defense has zoned in on him and shut him down. His size doesnt help either but if think if he would just follow the script and run through the first hole he sees he might be more productive. I was surprised we didnt do any screens to him yesterday but maybe he is still getting warmed up.

MOtorboat
12-08-2008, 11:13 AM
I think Tatum's biggest hangup when it comes to rushing the middle is his indecisiveness. Whereas Hillis will pick a hole and pound through it Tatum chooses to dance around before finding a hole but by then the defense has zoned in on him and shut him down. His size doesnt help either but if think if he would just follow the script and run through the first hole he sees he might be more productive. I was surprised we didnt do any screens to him yesterday but maybe he is still getting warmed up.

That's always been his knock.

We had a lot of wide receiver screens. The two passes to Bell were dump-offs over the middle.

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 11:15 AM
Is it just me or does it seems like Slowik play the game scared to loose?
that could be said of many coordinators here as well though but....


why play off when Bly and Paymah are best at bumping.
Why play in the four point stance at the line and not spread the line out at least when it is third and long. Or second and long.

If they can execute a big play, then that is because their players are great. But you dont have to give them easy plays because you are afraid of giving up a big one.
And you want get a lot players getting individually better when they dont feel you have the faith in them to make a play on top of all that.

MOtorboat
12-08-2008, 11:17 AM
Is it just me or does it seems like Slowik play the game scared to loose?
that could be said of many coordinators here as well though but....


why play off when Bly and Paymah are best at bumping.
Why play in the four point stance at the line and not spread the line out at least when it is third and long. Or second and long.

If they can execute a big play, then that is because their players are great. But you dont have to give them easy plays because you are afraid of giving up a big one.
And you want get a lot players getting individually better when they dont feel you have the faith in them to make a play on top of all that.

Yup, scared...scared of losing his job...as he should be...

When our corners play up, they disrupted KC's receivers, and more often than not, the play resulted in less than first-down yardage.

I believe a lot in players abilities to make plays regardless of scheme, but the playing off by the corners is just driving me nuts.

CoachChaz
12-08-2008, 11:18 AM
We ALWAYS have short routes to the recievers anymore. Hence our receivers YPC.

Marshal - 12.4
Royal - 11.6
Stokely - 10.7

NightTrainLayne
12-08-2008, 11:19 AM
At the same time we probably need to give some credit for a pretty good overall performance.

The Chiefs only scored 10 points with their offense, and rushed for less than 100 yards. LJ was completely contained, and Thigpen looked more or less average.

If JC doesn't throw that pick 6 and put us down by 10 to start the game, this might have been the blow-out we were looking for.

frauschieze
12-08-2008, 11:21 AM
At the same time we probably need to give some credit for a pretty good overall performance.

The Chiefs only scored 10 points with their offense, and rushed for less than 100 yards. LJ was completely contained, and Thigpen looked more or less average.

If JC doesn't throw that pick 6 and put us down by 10 to start the game, this might have been the blow-out we were looking for.

First game we didn't make an average QB look All-Pro. I'll take it.

Cutler6MVP
12-08-2008, 11:21 AM
I hate Bell, he is a ***** (EDIT)

MHCBill
12-08-2008, 11:27 AM
We ALWAYS have short routes to the recievers anymore. Hence our receivers YPC.

Marshal - 12.4
Royal - 11.6
Stokely - 10.7
It would be interesting to see how many teams have three receivers with over 10 YPC averages with each having more than 35 receptions.

MHCBill
12-08-2008, 11:28 AM
Other than a few inaccurate throws I was impressed by Thigpen. I think he's KC's best QB... not saying much, but he wasn't terrible.

Could it be... two weeks in a row our D didn't make the opposing QB look like a Hall of Famer?

NightTrainLayne
12-08-2008, 11:30 AM
It would be interesting to see how many teams have three receivers with over 10 YPC averages with each having more than 35 receptions.

Yeah. I think Coach had the sarcasm button on that one. .. at least that's why I saluted him.

KCL
12-08-2008, 11:34 AM
At the same time we probably need to give some credit for a pretty good overall performance.

The Chiefs only scored 10 points with their offense, and rushed for less than 100 yards. LJ was completely contained, and Thigpen looked more or less average.
If JC doesn't throw that pick 6 and put us down by 10 to start the game, this might have been the blow-out we were looking for.

well to be fair...Thigpen is a 3rd string QB.

Medford Bronco
12-08-2008, 11:35 AM
well to be fair...Thigpen is a 3rd string QB.

and his brothers are Yancy and Bobby;)

http://www.steelertribute.com/YANCEY30.GIF
http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesplayers/thigpen.jpg :lol:

KCL
12-08-2008, 11:36 AM
Other than a few inaccurate throws I was impressed by Thigpen. I think he's KC's best QB... not saying much, but he wasn't terrible.



I give the guy alot of credit...hasn't played let alone started but a handful of games.Better than the other 2.

KCL
12-08-2008, 11:36 AM
and his brothers are Yancy and Bobby;)

http://www.steelertribute.com/YANCEY30.GIF
http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesplayers/thigpen.jpg :lol:

Mixed family huh Med? ;)

Northman
12-08-2008, 11:41 AM
Other than a few inaccurate throws I was impressed by Thigpen. I think he's KC's best QB... not saying much, but he wasn't terrible.

Could it be... two weeks in a row our D didn't make the opposing QB look like a Hall of Famer?


He certainly looks more promising than Frayle.

BigDaddyBronco
12-08-2008, 11:43 AM
He certainly looks more promising than Frayle.


I wonder if Thigpen's wife is as hot as Brodie's?

NightTrainLayne
12-08-2008, 11:44 AM
I wonder if Thigpen's wife is as hot as Brodie's?

That's probably not possible.

MHCBill
12-08-2008, 11:46 AM
Yeah. I think Coach had the sarcasm button on that one. .. at least that's why I saluted him.
I'm not sure if he was being sarcastic.

GEM
12-08-2008, 11:48 AM
You know, I really didn't notice it a whole lot. According to the play-by-play, he had four runs "up the middle" of 8, 1, 2, 3, which is 3.5 per carry, not spectacular, but like it was mentioned before, did it set up the 28-yard run off the left end?

Very well could have. It was just very noticeable that he wasn't really going anywhere when he went up the middle. The only reason he got that 8 was because his initial point of contact missed the tackle. The first thing I said was who the hell is pointing Tater to run up the middle. He's NEVER been an up the middle back. I did say to my dad that it is nice to see that he hasn't fumbled since returning.

Northman
12-08-2008, 11:51 AM
Very well could have. It was just very noticeable that he wasn't really going anywhere when he went up the middle. The only reason he got that 8 was because his initial point of contact missed the tackle. The first thing I said was who the hell is pointing Tater to run up the middle. He's NEVER been an up the middle back. I did say to my dad that it is nice to see that he hasn't fumbled since returning.


Got to give Tatum credit on that miss tackle. Usually the one armers bring him down. :lol:

topscribe
12-08-2008, 11:52 AM
I think Tatum's biggest hangup when it comes to rushing the middle is his indecisiveness. Whereas Hillis will pick a hole and pound through it Tatum chooses to dance around before finding a hole but by then the defense has zoned in on him and shut him down. His size doesnt help either but if think if he would just follow the script and run through the first hole he sees he might be more productive. I was surprised we didnt do any screens to him yesterday but maybe he is still getting warmed up.

Yes, I was surprised yesterday by how authoritative his running was.

Tater did a good job. But, of course, the difference in size from Hillis was obvious.

-----

Medford Bronco
12-08-2008, 11:53 AM
He certainly looks more promising than Frayle.

Croyle does suck. It was a blessing for KC to get this kid some pt

good luck to him next week especially;)

LordTrychon
12-08-2008, 11:54 AM
Very well could have. It was just very noticeable that he wasn't really going anywhere when he went up the middle. The only reason he got that 8 was because his initial point of contact missed the tackle. The first thing I said was who the hell is pointing Tater to run up the middle. He's NEVER been an up the middle back. I did say to my dad that it is nice to see that he hasn't fumbled since returning.

Tatum's game is the same as it always was... 5 mediocre to bad runs and one to make his average look good.

If we find a way to just give him the good ones... without calling the bad ones... well...

That won't happen. :laugh:

BigDaddyBronco
12-08-2008, 11:58 AM
Tatum's game is the same as it always was... 5 mediocre to bad runs and one to make his average look good.

If we find a way to just give him the good ones... without calling the bad ones... well...

That won't happen. :laugh:
At least he didn't fumble once or twice. Looked like he was running like he always has, soft but fast.

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:03 PM
Tatum's game is the same as it always was... 5 mediocre to bad runs and one to make his average look good.

If we find a way to just give him the good ones... without calling the bad ones... well...

That won't happen. :laugh:

I'll take Hillis 8-10 yrdrs continually over Tatum's 1 long one any day of the week. I'm on the kids' bandwagon. The Mile High Salute was just icing on the cake. Hope he didn't do any permanent damage. :tsk:

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 12:04 PM
Tatum's fumble problems are largely an Urban legend. The numbers say he isn't that bad. I'll agree he isn't a long term solution, but his role now is to be dangerous enough that the defense has to honor the possibility of the running play. He is fully capable of that, and can make a defense pay if they go to sleep. What he cannot do is reliably convert a 3rd and one, pound it in the end zone, or kill a clock via running into a stacked line. So be it; we'll have to adjust our playcalling.

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:06 PM
Tatum's fumble problems are largely an Urban legend. The numbers say he isn't that bad. I'll agree he isn't a long term solution, but his role now is to be dangerous enough that the defense has to honor the possibility of the running play. He is fully capable of that, and can make a defense pay if they go to sleep. What he cannot do is reliably convert a 3rd and one, pound it in the end zone, or kill a clock via running into a stacked line. So be it; we'll have to adjust our playcalling.

The fumble notion isn't that he fumbled alot, he just fumbled at THE worse possible times. :noidea:

Medford Bronco
12-08-2008, 12:08 PM
The fumble notion isn't that he fumbled alot, he just fumbled at THE worse possible times. :noidea:

Kind of like Ernest Byner;)

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 12:09 PM
Tatum's game is the same as it always was... 5 mediocre to bad runs and one to make his average look good.

If we find a way to just give him the good ones... without calling the bad ones... well...

That won't happen. :laugh:

that is why he is great at being a second runner who can make the big plays when they are tiring. And he is not a dependable runner.
Never was, and never will be. He can be a good to great role player though.

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:11 PM
Kind of like Ernest Byner;)

:shocked: Med!!! :laugh:

I almost feel bad for Byner. ALMOST...

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 12:12 PM
that is why he is great at being a second runner who can make the big plays when they are tiring. And he is not a dependable runner.
Never was, and never will be. He can be a good to great role player though.

Agreed. I wouldn't even mind keeping him around...if only we could find that punishing, bruising, no nonesense North-and-South type runner. Somewhere that guy has to exist...

:D

LRtagger
12-08-2008, 12:14 PM
At the same time we probably need to give some credit for a pretty good overall performance.

The Chiefs only scored 10 points with their offense, and rushed for less than 100 yards. LJ was completely contained, and Thigpen looked more or less average.

If JC doesn't throw that pick 6 and put us down by 10 to start the game, this might have been the blow-out we were looking for.

This is due mainly to the fact that the offense controlled the clock for really the first time all season. Like I said, the stats will say we played a good defensive game, but if you look at their two sustained drives and look at the playcalling as a whole, it was the same old crap it has been all year.

They had a 17 play, 80 yard drive for a TD. They also had a 75 yard, 12 play drive that probably should have tied the game for them if not for some bad mistakes inside the 10 yard line and a really good play by Bly.

There is no disguising plays, no blitzes, no nothing. Just the same old crap every play. 3 or 4 man rush, corners off the ball, and expect our LBs to make plays. Luckily Woodyard is playing lights out and Winborn has been playing great as well....and now we actually have a good safety in the mix as well.

It doesn't change the fact that Slowik is an idiot. Watch these highlights if you want to see how a real defense can disguise plays and confuse the QB.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d210cf

I know, we dont have the defensive talent of the Steelers, especially on the DL...but we have enough speed on defense that we should be able to show 8 in the box, have some DL in a 2-point stance, and drop back into zone blitzes, bring guys from different angles, etc. If we mixed it up some we could actually be a decent defense.

Medford Bronco
12-08-2008, 12:16 PM
Agreed. I wouldn't even mind keeping him around...if only we could find that punishing, bruising, no nonesense North-and-South type runner. Somewhere that guy has to exist...

:D

You mean Hillis :D:beer::salute: maybe he will be only out 2-3 weeks and be back for the playoff game hopefully

LordTrychon
12-08-2008, 12:16 PM
Agreed. I wouldn't even mind keeping him around...if only we could find that punishing, bruising, no nonesense North-and-South type runner. Somewhere that guy has to exist...

:D

Well, I wouldn't mind it either... but at the same time, I think Alridge has a shot to be that guy for us now too.


What's the over/under on the number of RBs on the team headed to Camp? 10?

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 12:20 PM
I know, we dont have the defensive talent of the Steelers, especially on the DL...but we have enough speed on defense that we should be able to show 8 in the box, have some DL in a 2-point stance, and drop back into zone blitzes, bring guys from different angles, etc. If we mixed it up some we could actually be a decent defense.

Great point. Given that the strength of our defense (such as it is) is speed and athleticism it ought to be be maximized by using that to confuse the Hell out of the offense. We ought to be especially giving rookie QB's nightmares, which we have not.

Playing a fairly safe base defense is not a bad option if your guys are bigger/stronger than the other teams guys, because you minimze opponent's big plays. For us it will only lead to a "Death by 1,000 cuts."

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 12:23 PM
You mean Hillis :D:beer::salute: maybe he will be only out 2-3 weeks and be back for the playoff game hopefully

Oh yeah, we do have him already on the roster after all!

I'm actually thinking ahead to '09 here. I will be fanatical during draft season that under no circumstances imaginable should we pick a RB on day 1. We've got our guy already.

Lonestar
12-08-2008, 12:26 PM
Tatum's game is the same as it always was... 5 mediocre to bad runs and one to make his average look good.

If we find a way to just give him the good ones... without calling the bad ones... well...

That won't happen. :laugh:

Well finally someone gets it mr. "take it to the house anytime he touches the ball" never happens....

Some folks are getting it that a solid runner, that is not afraid of contact, can make a decision and pound it away, is the better player consistently because every once in awhile he will take it to the house..

I know that tater was our only option but he disgusts me with all of his speed and either mikey is to dumb to use it off tackle or he can't get past the first level..

The only solace I have is, he will be gone after the season and I will not have to hear about this waste again except from the tater bandwagoneers. Pining about how we need a "speed merchant" because we are boring with a Hillis type "just" getting 4.5+ a crack..

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:38 PM
Well finally someone gets it mr. "take it to the house anytime he touches the ball" never happens....

Some folks are getting it that a solid runner, that is not afraid of contact, can make a decision and pound it away, is the better player consistently because every once in awhile he will take it to the house..

I know that tater was our only option but he disgusts me with all of his speed and either mikey is to dumb to use it off tackle or he can't get past the first level..

The only solace I have is, he will be gone after the season and I will not have to hear about this waste again except from the tater bandwagoneers. Pining about how we need a "speed merchant" because we are boring with a Hillis type "just" getting 4.5+ a crack..

Hillis is anything but boring. Laying the wood is my kinda football. Pounding defenders to the ground...hellz yea. :D

Lonestar
12-08-2008, 12:43 PM
Hillis is anything but boring. Laying the wood is my kinda football. Pounding defenders to the ground...hellz yea. :D

But a year from now folks will be whining about him not being able to "take it to the house on every touch" how if we had a "fast" RB we would be better..

Give me the guy that can get the down and dirty yards and the other come later in the game.. I want to dominate on TOP minimum plus 5-7 mins every game and we will win more than we lose and they will be be ugly wins either..

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:47 PM
But a year from now folks will be whining about him not being able to "take it to the house on every touch" how if we had a "fast" RB we would be better..

Give me the guy that can get the down and dirty yards and the other come later in the game.. I want to dominate on TOP minimum plus 5-7 mins every game and we will win more than we lose and they will be be ugly wins either..

I hear ya JR. I was listening to Sirius and even the commentator on there said that Denver's fans are a spoiled bunch. We bitch til we get something then when we get it, we say it wasn't exactly what we were looking for. TD wasn't a pretty boy runner. He was tough and when we needed short yardage there was no question who to go to.

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 12:48 PM
But a year from now folks will be whining about him not being able to "take it to the house on every touch" how if we had a "fast" RB we would be better..

Give me the guy that can get the down and dirty yards and the other come later in the game.. I want to dominate on TOP minimum plus 5-7 mins every game and we will win more than we lose and they will be be ugly wins either..

Then all we have to do is point out that our best running back ever, the man who rushed for 2000 yards, best runner in playoffs ever and the man who helped our own favorite Elway to win the game of games, that man never was a speedster.
He didnt go down on first contact and he played so damn smart.

Now, who the hell might I be talking about?

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:50 PM
Then all we have to do is point out that our best running back ever, the man who rushed for 2000 yards, best runner in playoffs ever and the man who helped our own favorite Elway to win the game of games, that man never was a speedster.
He didnt go down on first contact and he played so damn smart.

Now, who the hell might I be talking about?

Exactly what I just said also harold. :lol: TD baby!! :salute:

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 12:50 PM
But a year from now folks will be whining about him not being able to "take it to the house on every touch" how if we had a "fast" RB we would be better..

Give me the guy that can get the down and dirty yards and the other come later in the game.. I want to dominate on TOP minimum plus 5-7 mins every game and we will win more than we lose and they will be be ugly wins either..

Oh I agree there. The fact that he was a 7th round pick will be cited. The fact that Mel Kyper Jr. didn't talk him up will be cited. etc.

I always hate the idea of drafting a RB on day 1 anyway, but now it would be inexcusable. Hillis can be that guy, and it doesn't matter what alleged experts have to say on it.

GEM
12-08-2008, 12:53 PM
Oh I agree there. The fact that he was a 7th round pick will be cited. The fact that Mel Kyper Jr. did talk him up will be cited. etc.

I always hate the idea of drafting a RB on day 1 anyway, but now it would be inexcusable. Hillis can be that guy, and it doesn't matter what alleged experts have to say on it.

If the powers that be don't realize that he is the best we've had this season, they are blind.

Hillis and Torrain for 09.

Lonestar
12-08-2008, 12:55 PM
Oh I agree there. The fact that he was a 7th round pick will be cited. The fact that Mel Kyper Jr. did talk him up will be cited. etc.

I always hate the idea of drafting a RB on day 1 anyway, but now it would be inexcusable. Hillis can be that guy, and it doesn't matter what alleged experts have to say on it.

I'm not a proponent of swinging for the fence each draft day but I have always been high on him after seeing his history..

I truly believe he would have been the MAN in ARK had McFadden not been on the scene.. Now I'm glad he was not we got a "first round talent" in the 7th.. with not a lot of miles on him..

We need about 15 more kids like this one good to great talent that does not have his head up his ass..

shank
12-08-2008, 12:57 PM
If the powers that be don't realize that he is the best we've had this season, they are blind.

Hillis and Torrain for 09.

don't forget alridge and his 16.8 yards per carry next year when we bring him in in the 2nd half after hillis and torain beat up the defenses.

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 12:59 PM
Oh I agree there. The fact that he was a 7th round pick will be cited. The fact that Mel Kyper Jr. did talk him up will be cited. etc.

I always hate the idea of drafting a RB on day 1 anyway, but now it would be inexcusable. Hillis can be that guy, and it doesn't matter what alleged experts have to say on it.

Hillis might be that guy but will the pounding cut his career short?
I am certain he can be at least the new Larry Centers if not better, but will he become just another good rb with a four year run?

I do not know, but I for one would try to get another prospect like Torain as I think today you need more than one good rb. But not on day one unless it is another Ray Rice. then i might consider it.
Look what happened to Larry Johnson, Portis, Marion Barber and more.
The constant pounding creates minor injuries which seems to eventually lead to a serious injury.

Then again, both Larry Johnson and Maroney might be cut, and both fits our system perfectly.
So let me be the first one to break the controversial idea.
If Larry Johnson was cut, and we could get him for a low price, would you go after him, would you go with Hillis or what would you do?
IMHO, a tandem of Hillis, Torain, LJ and Alridge would be a matchups nightmare, but what would you guys think?

GEM
12-08-2008, 01:01 PM
don't forget alridge and his 16.8 yards per carry next year when we bring him in in the 2nd half after hillis and torain beat up the defenses.

The best thing about all 3 mentioned. Lower rounds, lower money, young legs and we didn't pay over the friggen hill for an aged FA. LOOOOOVE IT!

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 01:10 PM
Then again, both Larry Johnson and Maroney might be cut, and both fits our system perfectly.
So let me be the first one to break the controversial idea.
If Larry Johnson was cut, and we could get him for a low price, would you go after him, would you go with Hillis or what would you do?

NO! maroney is just another one of those overregarded Draft expert sweethearts who has never been all that good. LJ? Is there a bigger pain in the Ass in the League than that guy? Good Lord spare us him and his antics! :pray:

GEM
12-08-2008, 01:12 PM
NO! maroney is just another one of those overregarded Draft expert sweethearts who has never been all that good. LJ? Is there a bigger pain in the Ass in the League than that guy? Good Lord spare us him and his antics! :pray:

Doesn't LJ have 2 court cases now set up for January....spitting on a woman and slapping a woman. Nevermind that he has spent a large amount of time on IR and the suspended list. No thanks. He plays when he wants to play. If a defense game plans for him, he is definately stoppable, as proven by his normal games vs the Broncos and yesterday's game vs. the Broncos.

Same with Moroney....guy has spent more time on the bench than the field, all due to injury.

Lonestar
12-08-2008, 01:13 PM
Bell, who rejoined the team on Nov. 11 after being out of football for more than two months, was effective enough to allow the Broncos to continue with their game plan against the Chiefs. He stayed in the game for the duration of the second half and finished with 52 yards on 11 carries, including a 28-yard run on Denver's game-winning drive early in the fourth quarter. Hillis had a team-high 58 yards before he was injured.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11164453

**********


Lets see take that 28 yarder out and we have 24 yards on 10 carries, yep that is 2.4 YPC and none of them were "take it to the house" runs not even the 28 yarder..

Time for tater to go back to selling cell phones..

NightTrainLayne
12-08-2008, 01:16 PM
JR you just can't take away the big runs like that.

Just like you can't take away two of LJ's "big runs" in our first meeting and fantasize that we kept him under 100.

That 28 yarder was huge at the time, and helped to extend an important drive.

Would I rather have had Hillis in there to pound it? No doubt, but every run counts.

MOtorboat
12-08-2008, 01:19 PM
JR you just can't take away the big runs like that.

Just like you can't take away two of LJ's "big runs" in our first meeting and fantasize that we kept him under 100.

That 28 yarder was huge at the time, and helped to extend an important drive.

Would I rather have had Hillis in there to pound it? No doubt, but every run counts.

If you take away Tater's 0-yard run on the goal-line at the end of the game (after the turnover on downs), he averaged 5.2 YPC.

Lonestar
12-08-2008, 01:22 PM
JR you just can't take away the big runs like that.

Just like you can't take away two of LJ's "big runs" in our first meeting and fantasize that we kept him under 100.

That 28 yarder was huge at the time, and helped to extend an important drive.

Would I rather have had Hillis in there to pound it? No doubt, but every run counts.

I know that but so many folks just look at the 28 yarder and have a wet dream because of it.. Just wanted to put some perceptive out there and maybe just maybe a few will give it up for this clown..

He has been a mediocre back for us at best and if he wasn't just the only option in the world I doubt he would have been brought back..

The tater tots have to face those facts..

Mike
12-08-2008, 01:24 PM
JR you just can't take away the big runs like that.

Just like you can't take away two of LJ's "big runs" in our first meeting and fantasize that we kept him under 100.

That 28 yarder was huge at the time, and helped to extend an important drive.

Would I rather have had Hillis in there to pound it? No doubt, but every run counts.

True. However, the point is legit. When it comes to needing 1 yard to sustain a drive, it's a dicey situation with Bell. I'd rather have the ball in Cutler's hands to be honest. When it comes to an every down RB...2, 1, 0, -2, 30 just isn't consistent enough. Change of pace back, sure. But if you can't count on solid production 4 out of 5 plays. :eh:

I like Bell and think that he is good enough to get Denver through the next few weeks...or at least be a contributing player. I just would prefer they call plays that are more in his wheelhouse (no more dives for heaven sake). I hope they give Pope more carries.

Zweems56
12-08-2008, 01:24 PM
JR you just can't take away the big runs like that.

Just like you can't take away two of LJ's "big runs" in our first meeting and fantasize that we kept him under 100.

That 28 yarder was huge at the time, and helped to extend an important drive.

Would I rather have had Hillis in there to pound it? No doubt, but every run counts.

Not necessarily true. Often times you can gauge how well your team did against the run by taking off a big run or maybe two. The thing about the run game is that it controls the tempo of the game. A 75 yard run by the tailback is no different in that aspect than a 75 yard pass. if you hold the rb to 15 carries 100 yards with taht 75 yarder included, then you're looking at a solid day out of your defense at stopping the run with one missed tackle being the result of that. Whats more important than that 75 yard run and 100 yard day is the 14 carries taht went for 25 yards total. A game like that, and the team with 100 yards didnt control the tempo of the game. Obviously its circumstantial, but you get my point about how the majority of the carries is larger than that one carry. Moving the chains consistently is more important than those 7 points and that 1 75 yard run

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 01:24 PM
If the powers that be don't realize that he is the best we've had this season, they are blind.

Hillis and Torrain for 09.

I want to Revise and Extend my earlier comment. If G~Money tells me that there's a Day 1 RB worth taking, I'll accept his judgement. His performance in evaluating our young guys this year has been so eerily good that he has earned my permanent deference to him on these matters. :salute:

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 01:27 PM
To be honest, Madden I think had a chart where he said that Peterson often got stuffed and then he broke a couple of big ones.

Our problem is that we have only had two running backs who had a nose for the TD when it is ..... and goal, and those were TD and MA.

As I have said earlier. We almost always get the rushing yards, but every season we are really good we have a lot of rushing touchdowns.
And that is the one and only reason why I even pounder the LJ question earlier. Perhaps Hillis truely does, and if so then my point is moot.

LRtagger
12-08-2008, 01:30 PM
don't forget alridge and his 16.8 yards per carry next year when we bring him in in the 2nd half after hillis and torain beat up the defenses.

I love your new sig because it really makes me believe that WW can play SS. He almost looks SMALLER than Barrett. I'm not counting on our idiot staff to realize it, though. I'm sure he will be a bench warmer next year :tsk:

honz
12-08-2008, 01:31 PM
Great win by the Cos, but I about blew a nad screamin at the playcalling. If I saw ONE more Tatum Bell attempt up the middle I would have sent a lamp through the television. One more quick pass out to a WR at the LOS and I would have slapped the neighbor for bein there. Talk about knowing what your players are capable of. Once Hillis went out, and Tatum came in, the runs should have been pitches left and right, mixed with some off tackle where our strength on the line matches Tatums ability to turn the corner vs his INABILITY to run hard up the gut consistently. They FINALLY pitched the #$&*^#($ ball out to Tatum for a huge run, and then that was it. Our Oline was CRUSHING them in the flats. Clady was a three hundred plus pound rolling pin throwin cross blocks all over the place.

Also, could anyone have clued Cutler in on the fact that the Cheefers have a mere 6 sacks on the year? Yet soon as there was a little pressure youd have thought the field caught fire. A little more patience in the pocket or poise out on wing would have been so much more damaging imo.

And once more, where are the crossing patterns that carve up the defensive style of play that the Cheefers play??

This is one game that Im proud of our team for a hard fought, dont get rattled, come from behind win............but I did not enjoy it one bit.:coffee:

I felt we were lucky to have come out of it with that W.

Complaining about the playcalling? They didn't keep us out of scoring range once after our first two drives. I'd say that the coaches did a hell of a job of either sticking to the gameplan or adjusting to what the Chiefs were doing. We had over 400 yards of offense and 28 points, including a missed FG, for goodness sakes.

GEM
12-08-2008, 01:36 PM
I want to Revise and Extend my earlier comment. If G~Money tells me that there's a Day 1 RB worth taking, I'll accept his judgement. His performance in evaluating our young guys this year has been so eerily good that he has earned my permanent deference to him on these matters. :salute:

Agreed! :salute: If a day one runner is best for what's available over defensive guys, I'll agree. I don't want to just take defensive because that's what we think we need, I just want the best guy on the board.

Medford Bronco
12-08-2008, 01:44 PM
Hillis might be that guy but will the pounding cut his career short?
I am certain he can be at least the new Larry Centers if not better, but will he become just another good rb with a four year run?

I do not know, but I for one would try to get another prospect like Torain as I think today you need more than one good rb. But not on day one unless it is another Ray Rice. then i might consider it.
Look what happened to Larry Johnson, Portis, Marion Barber and more.
The constant pounding creates minor injuries which seems to eventually lead to a serious injury.

Then again, both Larry Johnson and Maroney might be cut, and both fits our system perfectly.
So let me be the first one to break the controversial idea.
If Larry Johnson was cut, and we could get him for a low price, would you go after him, would you go with Hillis or what would you do?
IMHO, a tandem of Hillis, Torain, LJ and Alridge would be a matchups nightmare, but what would you guys think?


Larry Centers. :salute: a name from the past, but wast Mr. Centers more of a pass receiver type with the Cardinals and Skins

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CentLa00.htm

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 01:47 PM
Larry Centers. :salute: a name from the past, but wast Mr. Centers more of a pass receiver type with the Cardinals and Skins

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CentLa00.htm

Exactly. Centers was a lot smaller than Hillis; a consummate Pro as a small pass catching Fullback, but never much of a RB at all, and certainly no power back.

G_Money
12-08-2008, 01:50 PM
Oh yeah, we do have him already on the roster after all!

I'm actually thinking ahead to '09 here. I will be fanatical during draft season that under no circumstances imaginable should we pick a RB on day 1. We've got our guy already.

Day One is just 2 rounds now. There are backs we could take in the first two rounds that I would not be unhappy with, but I agree with you, we don’t NEED to draft a day 1 back.

Partly because many teams got their back last year, so this year’s “Day One” backs could show up on Day Two.

I’m looking for a 3rd round RB. If all the juniors and draft-eligible sophomores come out (Spiller, Moreno, McCoy, etc – probably not Coffee but maybe) then with Beanie Wells and the juniors laying claim to many of the first day spots, several of the really-good-but-not-perfect backs like Ringer, Greene, Brown, Davis etc could be there on the 2nd day.

And that’s where I’d like to get our 2nd RB. With these RB injuries we just can’t prep for a legit title run with one bruiser and some scatbacks. It’s not smart.

~G

G_Money
12-08-2008, 01:52 PM
I love your new sig because it really makes me believe that WW can play SS. He almost looks SMALLER than Barrett. I'm not counting on our idiot staff to realize it, though. I'm sure he will be a bench warmer next year :tsk:

Woodyard is smaller than Barrett.

It's not your imagination.

Barrett's dimensions and stats are out of a video game, not real life. Nothing that big can be that fast, and nothing that fast can be that big.

Putting him AND Woodyard back there would give us probably the biggest safety tandem in the league - and no slouches talent-wise either.

I approve. :coffee:

~G

Dreadnought
12-08-2008, 01:54 PM
More than anything else what I love about Woodyard is how disruptive he is. He blows up plays in ways that bring drives to a grinding halt. As good as DJ has been he has never been that kind of guy.

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 01:54 PM
Larry Centers. :salute: a name from the past, but wast Mr. Centers more of a pass receiver type with the Cardinals and Skins

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CentLa00.htm

then i didnt write good enough.

the point is that his receiving and route running skills make me think of a larry centers.
But in addition to that he can block better already than centers ever did, and he is a fine runner. That kind of fullback that can run up the middle on SY that Centers never did.

When you add all that up, then you have a fullback match up dream for many seasons to come.
And then you add in that we have proven we can find good to great running backs more often than not.
Then my question is, would you have Hillis at fullback with a running back or do you want him as rb knowing that he already plays something he hasnt done for four years and have already got injured albeit a freak injury. Even if you take that last argument against Hillis out, it still remains do you think his talent at fullback should be tried at rb?
In other words, an all pro for years at fb, but a damn fine player but nothing special at running back. Certainly no HOFer.

Put these arguments all together, and my stance is that Hillis impressed the hell outta me when he ran. Torain did as well but not as much, but I would prefer to have Hillis as a fullback weapon because he seems to be such a special weapon there, in fact a one in a ten year span player.

shank
12-08-2008, 02:00 PM
More than anything else what I love about Woodyard is how disruptive he is. He blows up plays in ways that bring drives to a grinding halt. As good as DJ has been he has never been that kind of guy.

DJ definitely has been that kind of guy... he destroyed many people in his rookie year. moving around really hurt his development, but he had some dominating games even this year before his injury.

woodyard's conversion to SS needs to begin the day after our season ends IMO. DJ and woodyard on the field together is fun to think about.

G_Money
12-08-2008, 02:02 PM
I want to Revise and Extend my earlier comment. If G~Money tells me that there's a Day 1 RB worth taking, I'll accept his judgement. His performance in evaluating our young guys this year has been so eerily good that he has earned my permanent deference to him on these matters. :salute:

Dammit man, now you're embarrassin me. ;) I'm glad those kids are makin me look good though. I loved their character as well as their talent and it's nice to see the good guys prove they belong. :salute:

If you want another one, look for RB Donald Brown from UConn in the draft. Tremendous football player, even better person. He's my early hope for a 3rd round fall, much as Forte was last year.

~G

G_Money
12-08-2008, 02:07 PM
More than anything else what I love about Woodyard is how disruptive he is. He blows up plays in ways that bring drives to a grinding halt. As good as DJ has been he has never been that kind of guy.

And that’s why I was reluctant to pay DJ a year before he hit FA when we’d just signed a guy I thought could do his job – in a different way – about as well as DJ for pennies on the dollar.

The day we lucked into Woodyard I had trouble paying DJ his money. I understand why we did it, but unless we convert Woodyard to safety and he excels there too it seems like it was a bit premature on our part.

Still, there are worse things than having two talented guys like that on the roster. We just have to figure out how to turn it to our advantage.

~G

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 02:08 PM
To put my argument into a statistical perspective.

And I am going to be very conservative with my estimations while showing off how highly I think of Hillis as a fullback.

What would you rather have?
Hillis at fullback with at least 300 or more yards receiving with at least two tds.
Hillis running for at least 200 yards and 5 or more touchdowns as a goal line back in jumbo sets and fullback.
ALONG with a 1000 yard rusher, 100 yard receptions along with 5 tds and 1 reception td.
All this for five or more years.

Or do you want Hillis running for 1300 yards, 10 plus touchdowns for five or fewer seasons?

This is the best way I can sum up my argument.
Adamantly I personally prefer the first option.

LRtagger
12-08-2008, 02:09 PM
And that’s why I was reluctant to pay DJ a year before he hit FA when we’d just signed a guy I thought could do his job – in a different way – about as well as DJ for pennies on the dollar.

The day we lucked into Woodyard I had trouble paying DJ his money. I understand why we did it, but unless we convert Woodyard to safety and he excels there too it seems like it was a bit premature on our part.

Still, there are worse things than having two talented guys like that on the roster. We just have to figure out how to turn it to our advantage.

~G

Let's hope the same guys that chose to play scrubs and hold out Barrett all season are smart enough to figure it out. I'm not counting on it, though.

haroldthebarrel
12-08-2008, 02:13 PM
Let's hope the same guys that chose to play scrubs and hold out Barrett all season are smart enough to figure it out. I'm not counting on it, though.

If he can play so well one on one vs Gonzales as a rookie.
Then if he is held out, I promise I will go on a rant.
At least now he has given us the option at the big nickle. At least we know he is AT LEAST as good as Sam Brandon being exactly that type of role player.

But I am gonna rant as hell if we are still not giving the rookies a shot when EVERY FRIGGING ONE OF THEM HAS MADE OUR TEAM MUCH BETTER THAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEASON!

Gimpygod
12-08-2008, 03:25 PM
Hillis is anything but boring. Laying the wood is my kinda football. Pounding defenders to the ground...hellz yea. :D

For some strange reason this post and delightful avatar made me feel funny and sweaty... and my pants felt kind of tight:eek:
In combination with my man crush on Hillis, I'm really wishing this gimpy guy understood more about the birds and the bees.:shocked::confused:

Lonestar
12-08-2008, 03:32 PM
DJ definitely has been that kind of guy... he destroyed many people in his rookie year. moving around really hurt his development, but he had some dominating games even this year before his injury.

woodyard's conversion to SS needs to begin the day after our season ends IMO. DJ and woodyard on the field together is fun to think about.


Add Barrett and Larsen to that list and we really only have to look at DL and then backup Lb's and perhaps safeties in the draft..

Superchop 7
12-08-2008, 11:02 PM
"Perhaps" safeties ?

This is "the" draft for safeties.

And yeah........we need two.......badly.

hamrob
12-09-2008, 12:15 AM
Pinnock or Boyd will be our short yardage backs. T. Bell, Pope & Young will be our speed backs. I hope they get a rotation going. They need to quit running TB up the middle 3-4 times in a row.

Superchop 7
12-09-2008, 01:50 AM
2 drives for 80 yards.

1 drive for 95.

Shut the hell up.

If you don't keep em honest.....you lose.