PDA

View Full Version : Woodyard at SS.........



WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 12:12 AM
Well. I guess someone is listening over there at Broncos HQ to us over here. Seeing Woodyard get mixed in at SS was a good step. Although he played mostly in run situations, being mixed in, they gave him the start. That bodes well, because the Broncos are telling Woodyard that they are very happy with his play. Rewarding him with the SS start is good lockeroom fertilizer. He didnt make a huge impact, but he made impact enough. And if not for Barretts bad angle on Williams long TD run, the Broncos run defense is stepping it up. I cant say that Im unhappy with todays effort on defense. We lack cohesiveness in the secondary, but the Dline, front seven is beginning to make progress in stuffing the running lanes. Im sure that barring injury, WW will get more and more time at SS, if for no other reason than to see if he can play that position in the future.

Barrett did ok, but I really didnt like that miss on the TD run by Williams. Mainly because I dont think he saw the play. And if you cant see the play.......you cant guess. His play diagnosis may be lacking, and if thats the case, hes backup material in the future........unless we need to shut down a TE.

Broncos Mtnman
12-15-2008, 12:17 AM
Well. I guess someone is listening over there at Broncos HQ to us over here. Seeing Woodyard get mixed in at SS was a good step. Although he played mostly in run situations, being mixed in, they gave him the start. That bodes well, because the Broncos are telling Woodyard that they are very happy with his play. Rewarding him with the SS start is good lockeroom fertilizer. He didnt make a huge impact, but he made impact enough. And if not for Barretts bad angle on Williams long TD run, the Broncos run defense is stepping it up. I cant say that Im unhappy with todays effort on defense. We lack cohesiveness in the secondary, but the Dline, front seven is beginning to make progress in stuffing the running lanes. Im sure that barring injury, WW will get more and more time at SS, if for no other reason than to see if he can play that position in the future.

Barrett did ok, but I really didnt like that miss on the TD run by Williams. Mainly because I dont think he saw the play. And if you cant see the play.......you cant guess. His play diagnosis may be lacking, and if thats the case, hes backup material in the future........unless we need to shut down a TE.

I'm not sure about WW playing safety, but he's done it before in college. I would rather see him put a few pounds on and play LB. He's a tackling machine at LB.

They played Barrett about 20-30 yards deep for just about the whole game. On that run play, he saw it coming, but with that much ground to cover, he wasn't able to get to Williams.

Slowick's game plan sucked today.

Medford Bronco
12-15-2008, 12:20 AM
Slowick's game plan sucked today.


What a shock that was :mad:

topscribe
12-15-2008, 12:31 AM
Well. I guess someone is listening over there at Broncos HQ to us over here. Seeing Woodyard get mixed in at SS was a good step. Although he played mostly in run situations, being mixed in, they gave him the start. That bodes well, because the Broncos are telling Woodyard that they are very happy with his play. Rewarding him with the SS start is good lockeroom fertilizer. He didnt make a huge impact, but he made impact enough. And if not for Barretts bad angle on Williams long TD run, the Broncos run defense is stepping it up. I cant say that Im unhappy with todays effort on defense. We lack cohesiveness in the secondary, but the Dline, front seven is beginning to make progress in stuffing the running lanes. Im sure that barring injury, WW will get more and more time at SS, if for no other reason than to see if he can play that position in the future.

Barrett did ok, but I really didnt like that miss on the TD run by Williams. Mainly because I dont think he saw the play. And if you cant see the play.......you cant guess. His play diagnosis may be lacking, and if thats the case, hes backup material in the future........unless we need to shut down a TE.

You have to remember that Barrett's number of games in the NFL is still in
the single digits. Diagonsis comes with experience. I believe Barrett has
done well for no more than he has played.

Now that Woodyard has been inserted at SS, I would like for them to be
consistent and keep him there. All this shuffling has to come to an end. It
is making some of the players jack of all trades and master of none.

Same with Larsen, when he comes back. Forget this FB crap. Put him at
LB, where he has spent his career and shown he is good, and keep him there.

The biggest improvement between now and next year would be the
disappearance of Bob Slowik. I believe the Broncos have more talent than
what a lot of people think on defense. But that doesn't help if the defense
is not designed around their strengths. They need somebody who knows how
to do that. Apparently, Slowik does not.

-----

SR
12-15-2008, 12:36 AM
Barrett is FAR from ever being backup material.

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 12:46 AM
I'm not sure about WW playing safety, but he's done it before in college. I would rather see him put a few pounds on and play LB. He's a tackling machine at LB.

They played Barrett about 20-30 yards deep for just about the whole game. On that run play, he saw it coming, but with that much ground to cover, he wasn't able to get to Williams.

Slowick's game plan sucked today.


It wasnt having to cover the ground between them that got him skunked, it was the fact that he was just running up the center of the field towards the line of scrimmage when he couldnt see DeAngelo, who was five yards to his right. Bad angle? No. He didnt see the play. And when you cant see the play, you dont just run towards the line of scrimmage......he completely left the defense out to dry. His job was the last line of defense, and he ran the last line of defense up to 10 yards beyond the LOS before he actually saw the play. All he had to do was stay back.

Its a rookie mistake, and Im not that upset about it. But play guessing comes from people who cant read whats happening in front of them. If thats an area of struggle for someone coming out of college, its gonna be even harder in the NFL which is a lot faster.

Its called vision, and like runningbacks, some have it and some dont. Doesnt matter what physical skills you have. It is the reason Ray Lewis is the linebacker that he is. He not only has awesome physical skills, his vision is exemplary. He can tell in an instant when the offensive line is coming at him, telling him run play in a split second, and he reacts immediately while moving too fast to be sealed off.

Its still early on Barrett, but thats not a good sign imo.

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 12:47 AM
Barrett is FAR from ever being backup material.

lol.

Its possible.

We'll see.


Call it the Roy Williams factor.

topscribe
12-15-2008, 12:54 AM
lol.

Its possible.

We'll see.


Call it the Roy Williams factor.

With one difference: Barrett would blow Williams' doors off when it comes to speed.

-----

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 01:05 AM
With one difference: Barrett would blow Williams' doors off when it comes to speed.

-----

Roy Williams gets burnt. He plays mean five plays, gets burnt one. Mean five plays, gets burnt one. But the burns are bad. It doesnt matter how fast you run if you dont know why youre running. Does that make sense?

If Barrett cannot diagnose plays, it doesnt matter how fast he is. All it means is he can run faster.....while making a mistake. Who needs that?

Its like having a long driver in golf. It doesnt matter if you can hit the ball 375 yards..................if you cant hit it straight. You just send the ball 375 yards out of play.

Same principle.


THAT, is the Roy Williams factor.

topscribe
12-15-2008, 01:13 AM
Roy Williams gets burnt. He plays mean five plays, gets burnt one. Mean five plays, gets burnt one. But the burns are bad. It doesnt matter how fast you run if you dont know why youre running. Does that make sense?

If Barrett cannot diagnose plays, it doesnt matter how fast he is. All it means is he can run faster.....while making a mistake. Who needs that?

Its like having a long driver in golf. It doesnt matter if you can hit the ball 375 yards..................if you cant hit it straight. You just send the ball 375 yards out of play.

Same principle.


THAT, is the Roy Williams factor.

Does not correlate.

Let's wait until Barrett has Williams' experience, then see what happens.

-----

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 01:36 AM
Does not correlate.

Let's wait until Barrett has Williams' experience, then see what happens.

-----


Does not correlate?

I dont think I can explain it any better than that. It not only correlates, its true.

G_Money
12-15-2008, 01:41 AM
Barrett was on the practice squad until 2 games ago, and he's gonna play FS not SS.

The number of times he should be the last line of defense on a running play are few and far between.

We'll see if it happens again. In the meantime, he played pretty well out there. I don't think he's great, but I think he can hold down the fort better than any of the FAs or vets we've brought in while we see if he can pick up the knowledge he needs to use those freakish physical abilities he has.

And that's either good, or pretty sad, depending on your POV.

~G

Superchop 7
12-15-2008, 01:52 AM
What exactly did Slowik do wrong ?

We have not been able to stop the run since Coyer.

Now we can.

With a bunch of inexperienced players.

So, Delhomme went after the secondary.

Aside from Bly.....who had experience ?

Honestly, with the crew he has......the INJURIES he has........the inexperience he has..................I think he is doing as well as anyone could expect.

Think about it.

The offense didn't exactly show up, now did they ?

BCJ
12-15-2008, 01:56 AM
I'm not sure about WW playing safety, but he's done it before in college. I would rather see him put a few pounds on and play LB. He's a tackling machine at LB.

They played Barrett about 20-30 yards deep for just about the whole game. On that run play, he saw it coming, but with that much ground to cover, he wasn't able to get to Williams.

Slowick's game plan sucked today.

he actually hasnt played much Safety as it was his first year playing that he switched to LB when he noticed his teammates at Kentucky sucked and asked the coaches to move to LB (which they agreed on both accounts). Wait until we clinch before experimenting is My opinion.

topscribe
12-15-2008, 02:08 AM
Does not correlate?

I dont think I can explain it any better than that. It not only correlates, its true.

I'm talking about the difference in experience.

-----

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 02:11 AM
ON the big run Barrett did what he was supposed to the run was going to his right and he ran toward that side and Hall got lost in the clutter of the OLINE by the time he saw he had changed direction he was almost by him..

At least that is how I saw it develop and since I could only tape the game today as it was local... The replay on it leaves alot to be desired..

As for WW I was glad to see him out there.. I note from the box scores he manged to have as many of more tackles than..

W. Woodyard 1-1
M. Manuel 1-1
K. Peterson 1-1
E. Ekuban 1-0
V. Fox 1-1
D. Robertson 1-0
M. Thomas 1-0

Now I did not see him on the field all that much so do not know how much he played.. I know he got locked out of the D. Hall big run was buried like almost everyone else was by a OLINE guy..


From what I saw considering slowiks game plan I do not feel that the safeties today were the issue..

DenBronx
12-15-2008, 02:53 AM
i vote to go back to the players, scheme, play calling, positions ect. that was working before this game for buffalo. it looked like we're trying to experiment with all of this with our playoff hopes on the line in the 13th game of the season.

can we really afford to move ww from weakside? the dude is beastly there. it just seems like were moving everything around because were afraid to bench webster and slide dj to mlb. i think dj at mlb is a huge upgrade over webster.

not that i actually have a say but it would be nice. :laugh:

fcspikeit
12-15-2008, 04:15 AM
It wasnt having to cover the ground between them that got him skunked, it was the fact that he was just running up the center of the field towards the line of scrimmage when he couldnt see DeAngelo, who was five yards to his right. Bad angle? No. He didnt see the play. And when you cant see the play, you dont just run towards the line of scrimmage......he completely left the defense out to dry. His job was the last line of defense, and he ran the last line of defense up to 10 yards beyond the LOS before he actually saw the play. All he had to do was stay back.

Its a rookie mistake, and Im not that upset about it. But play guessing comes from people who cant read whats happening in front of them. If thats an area of struggle for someone coming out of college, its gonna be even harder in the NFL which is a lot faster.

Its called vision, and like runningbacks, some have it and some dont. Doesnt matter what physical skills you have. It is the reason Ray Lewis is the linebacker that he is. He not only has awesome physical skills, his vision is exemplary. He can tell in an instant when the offensive line is coming at him, telling him run play in a split second, and he reacts immediately while moving too fast to be sealed off.

Its still early on Barrett, but thats not a good sign imo.

I would like to see any S in the league get lined up 25 yards up field and make a tackle on a great back like Williams in the open field. He can barely see what is going on behind the line of scrimmage, being lined up that far back

He was lined up at the 2 when they were on the 25. What the hell is he going to do from there? :confused: He didn't have to worry about anyone getting past him. If they even got to him they were going to get a TD.

There is a reason no one lines their S that far back. It does nothing but take them out of the play.

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 07:30 AM
I would like to see any S in the league get lined up 25 yards up field and make a tackle on a great back like Williams in the open field. He can barely see what is going on behind the line of scrimmage, being lined up that far back

He was lined up at the 2 when they were on the 25. What the hell is he going to do from there? :confused: He didn't have to worry about anyone getting past him. If they even got to him they were going to get a TD.

There is a reason no one lines their S that far back. It does nothing but take them out of the play.


There are a lot of safeties in this league that can make that tackle, and do. Williams is no Barry Sanders. All I gotta say, is watch the replay before you comment. It happened just like I said. And if you can barely see whats happening.......dont just run blindly towards the line of scrimmage.

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 07:32 AM
ON the big run Barrett did what he was supposed to the run was going to his right and he ran toward that side and Hall got lost in the clutter of the OLINE by the time he saw he had changed direction he was almost by him..

At least that is how I saw it develop and since I could only tape the game today as it was local... The replay on it leaves alot to be desired..

As for WW I was glad to see him out there.. I note from the box scores he manged to have as many of more tackles than..

W. Woodyard 1-1
M. Manuel 1-1
K. Peterson 1-1
E. Ekuban 1-0
V. Fox 1-1
D. Robertson 1-0
M. Thomas 1-0

Now I did not see him on the field all that much so do not know how much he played.. I know he got locked out of the D. Hall big run was buried like almost everyone else was by a OLINE guy..


From what I saw considering slowiks game plan I do not feel that the safeties today were the issue..

I didnt see Hall anywhere. And I also didnt see Barrett run to that side. Watch the replay that they showed from the network.

roomemp
12-15-2008, 08:32 AM
I didn't like Woodyard at safety. I never liked the idea when some people suggested it. They should have kept Woodyard at WLB....move DJ to MLB and keep Fox in there.

CoachChaz
12-15-2008, 09:55 AM
Hard to assess WW's play at SS after one game, but I think he's the type of player that can adjust and simply having him on the field is a bonus. I just dont think he'll ever be able to gain the weight to be successful at LB long term.

But considering we played a VERY good team with a great running game and one fo the better WR's, I cant say that I'm too displeased with the play of the rookies back there. Give them another game or two...let them finish out the season and get the experience and then see what happens. If they can prove that they can be relied on back there, it just eliminates one more thing we have to worry about in the off-season.

And quite frankly...what can it hurt to try at this point

LRtagger
12-15-2008, 10:39 AM
I actually dont think Barrett misread the play. I think he did exactly what he was supposed to do. He came up to make the tackle to his left. Since everyone was overpursuing to his right, he took the correct angle. That way if he missed the tackle, the only way Deangelo could cut back was to Barrett's right which is where he was supposed to have help (since all 10 other defenders were on that side of the field OVERPURSUING).

If Barrett had closed in to his right, then Deangelo would have just cut back to his left and scored anyways. The problem with the play was all 4 DLmen and all 3 LBs crashed down to their right and left the cutback WIDE open. There was no containment by the left DE or Winborn on the left side. Barrett did overrun the play...he probably should have broken down about 10 yards off the LOS, but chances are he wouldnt have made the openfield tackle anyways.

GEM
12-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Hard to assess WW's play at SS after one game, but I think he's the type of player that can adjust and simply having him on the field is a bonus. I just dont think he'll ever be able to gain the weight to be successful at LB long term.

But considering we played a VERY good team with a great running game and one fo the better WR's, I cant say that I'm too displeased with the play of the rookies back there. Give them another game or two...let them finish out the season and get the experience and then see what happens. If they can prove that they can be relied on back there, it just eliminates one more thing we have to worry about in the off-season.

And quite frankly...what can it hurt to try at this point


Now if Shanny can keep his trigger finger off of old, overpaid not necessary FA's in the offseason, we have something to look forward to next season.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 11:43 AM
I didnt see Hall anywhere. And I also didnt see Barrett run to that side. Watch the replay that they showed from the network.

the play as I saw it was designed to go to the RB's left side, not where he ultimately went, he cut back to his right after the left side got jammed up..

When he did, I can see how Barrett may lost him in the traffic behind the LOS. lots of big bodies shielding him from view, then all of a sudden he popped out the right side and was gone..

I also do not think he should be playing in downtown Charlotte, but that was where he was supposed to be according to the game plan..

Folks about 50% of the issues are in the design of the scheme IF there is even any coherent thought process there.. If the scheme is so screwed up even superman could not fix it.

If the fundamental coaching is bad only the athleticism of the player can overcome it I think alot of what DJ and Woodyard are doing are helping to overcome dumb design.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 11:55 AM
Now if Shanny can keep his trigger finger off of old, overpaid not necessary FA's in the offseason, we have something to look forward to next season.

About the only area we may need to go after FA help is DL but only for quality and then draft a couple more and let them learn playing next to an old pro that knows what he is doing.. Since it supposed to take a couple three years to become good to great on the DL.

The positions of weakness on this team start at the DL and because of that everyone else may be good but we can never tell..

But I think MLB needs to be addressed big time day one and perhaps safety, but we may both of those positions filled with Barrett, woodyard and larsen if mikey will play them the rest of the season we may have it here already.. As Coach just said we really do not have anything to lose, what can it hurt..

Even IF we were to get into the playoffs right now playing the old hacks webster manual and perhaps fox will be a ticket o one and done..

GEM
12-15-2008, 11:59 AM
About the only area we may need to go after FA help is DL but only for quality and then draft a couple more and let them learn playing next to an old pro that knows what he is doing.. Since it supposed to take a couple three years to become good to great on the DL.

The positions of weakness on this team start at the DL and because of that everyone else may be good but we can never tell..

But I think MLB needs to be addressed big time day one and perhaps safety, but we may both of those positions filled with Barrett, woodyard and larsen if mikey will play them the rest of the season we may have it here already.. As Coach just said we really do not have anything to lose, what can it hurt..

Even IF we were to get into the playoffs right now playing the old hacks webster manual and perhaps fox will be a ticket o one and done..

This may be where my inexperience comes in but what is the knock against Larsen at MLB?

I want Webster gone. PERIOD. Larsen has shown to be a player. I know if there is a monster available to us as some of you draft guys have said, but if there isn't, is there a future for Larsen at MLB?

MOtorboat
12-15-2008, 12:10 PM
This may be where my inexperience comes in but what is the knock against Larsen at MLB?

I want Webster gone. PERIOD. Larsen has shown to be a player. I know if there is a monster available to us as some of you draft guys have said, but if there isn't, is there a future for Larsen at MLB?

His knock is speed. It might change the way we scheme some. That's why Shanahan has drafted so much speed at linebacker in the past.

GEM
12-15-2008, 12:17 PM
His knock is speed. It might change the way we scheme some. That's why Shanahan has drafted so much speed at linebacker in the past.

Thanks Mo. :D

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 12:32 PM
This may be where my inexperience comes in but what is the knock against Larsen at MLB?

I want Webster gone. PERIOD. Larsen has shown to be a player. I know if there is a monster available to us as some of you draft guys have said, but if there isn't, is there a future for Larsen at MLB?

As MO said part of it is speed but I doubt he is that much slower than webster is.. There is track speed and playing speed and IF you can tackle and wrap up and be in the right spot the difference in a few tenths is not earth shattering..

So far I have not seen him beat to the edges of the field in the playing time I have seen him and woodyard when in together got a lot of tackles together and we all know that woodyard was the fastest LB at the combine last year..

I suspect that mikey made up his mind in TC that Niko was a bust and webster was better and that his conversion of Larsen to FB was the way it was going to be.. and we all know that mikey is the mastermind and can never be wrong.. therefore unless webster had not been hurt larsen would have never seen the field as a MLB..

Not sure why it takes this FO so long to see what most of the fans see up front.. Woodyard, Barrett, Hillis, Larsen and most of the other rookies would have never seen playing time had it not been for injuries to the skells in front of them on the depth chart.. I suspect it is CYA run amuck..

LRtagger
12-15-2008, 12:44 PM
the play as I saw it was designed to go to the RB's left side, not where he ultimately went, he cut back to his right after the left side got jammed up..

When he did, I can see how Barrett may lost him in the traffic behind the LOS. lots of big bodies shielding him from view, then all of a sudden he popped out the right side and was gone..

I also do not think he should be playing in downtown Charlotte, but that was where he was supposed to be according to the game plan..

Folks about 50% of the issues are in the design of the scheme IF there is even any coherent thought process there.. If the scheme is so screwed up even superman could not fix it.

If the fundamental coaching is bad only the athleticism of the player can overcome it I think alot of what DJ and Woodyard are doing are helping to overcome dumb design.


The problem was Barrett having to run 30 yards full speed, find Williams in traffic, stop on a dime, break down, and make an open field tackle. He was running full speed and didnt realize he had run too far until it was too late. Having him 30 yards back off the ball was the problem. You can't expect a rookie starting only his second NFL game ever to make plays at the LOS when he is 30 yards off the ball. It's never going to happen.

Barrett did the best he could by trying to force Williams back to the inside to where the rest of the defenders were. Unfortunately, they all overpursued so much they couldnt recover.

GEM
12-15-2008, 12:48 PM
As MO said part of it is speed but I doubt he is that much slower than webster is.. There is track speed and playing speed and IF you can tackle and wrap up and be in the right spot the difference in a few tenths is not earth shattering..

So far I have not seen him beat to the edges of the field in the playing time I have seen him and woodyard when in together got a lot of tackles together and we all know that woodyard was the fastest LB at the combine last year..

I suspect that mikey made up his mind in TC that Niko was a bust and webster was better and that his conversion of Larsen to FB was the way it was going to be.. and we all know that mikey is the mastermind and can never be wrong.. therefore unless webster had not been hurt larsen would have never seen the field as a MLB..

Not sure why it takes this FO so long to see what most of the fans see up front.. Woodyard, Barrett, Hillis, Larsen and most of the other rookies would have never seen playing time had it not been for injuries to the skells in front of them on the depth chart.. I suspect it is CYA run amuck..

That is pretty scary beings that the rookies have looked far better than some of our starters. :tsk: I'm impressed with what we have this year. I'm impressed that we have a shot at the playoffs, it's more than I expected. I'm more impressed with what our youngsters have done so far. Getting younger is better.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 01:07 PM
That is pretty scary beings that the rookies have looked far better than some of our starters. :tsk: I'm impressed with what we have this year. I'm impressed that we have a shot at the playoffs, it's more than I expected. I'm more impressed with what our youngsters have done so far. Getting younger is better.

IF they play them after Barrett's first playing an few games ago mikey was very critical of him.. considering he was a rookie thrown into the fire I do not think it helped his confidence whatsoever..

I like what I see in Barrett and Woodyard as Safeties of the future..

But IF they do not get to play we will never know for sure what we have to do in the draft..

If a super stud MLB or safety falls to where ever we draft then I have no issues taking on But I'd rather get the DL fixed before taking some good S or MLB..

having a couple of stud DTs and one Stud De can fix alot of the issues not cause by slowicks stupidity..

G_Money
12-15-2008, 01:35 PM
My first choice for Woodyard would be at the Will. He's just a demon there. He would have his weaknesses, but Ray freakin' Lewis has his weaknesses (see his crying about getting big DTs to get the annoying linemen off of him).

Woodyard's strengths would far surpass those weaknesses.

But since we put a 30 million dollar roadblock in Wesley's way, we'll have to find somewhere else to play him - or else move DJ back to the middle where he made a billion tackles, all of them 5+yards past the LOS.

I leave that call to the next DC. If he thinks DJ can play the middle well for him, then put Woodyard at the Will. If his scheme needs bigger backers, then draft a MLB, leave DJ at the Will and put Wesley at SS. He didn't really play SS in this game, just a roving LB, so it's hard to get a good gauge of his ability there, but I like his chances.

And I'm glad I like them, because the chances of us trading DJ a few months after giving him a huge contract are slim-to-none, and the odds of us moving him back to Mike to make room for the rookie aren't great either IMO.

Draft day should be fun, though, since who we draft should tell us what we're doing. :D

~G

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 03:05 PM
Hard to assess WW's play at SS after one game, but I think he's the type of player that can adjust and simply having him on the field is a bonus. I just dont think he'll ever be able to gain the weight to be successful at LB long term.

But considering we played a VERY good team with a great running game and one fo the better WR's, I cant say that I'm too displeased with the play of the rookies back there. Give them another game or two...let them finish out the season and get the experience and then see what happens. If they can prove that they can be relied on back there, it just eliminates one more thing we have to worry about in the off-season.

And quite frankly...what can it hurt to try at this point

egg..........ZACTLY. :salute:

topscribe
12-15-2008, 03:05 PM
My first choice for Woodyard would be at the Will. He's just a demon there. He would have his weaknesses, but Ray freakin' Lewis has his weaknesses (see his crying about getting big DTs to get the annoying linemen off of him).

Woodyard's strengths would far surpass those weaknesses.

But since we put a 30 million dollar roadblock in Wesley's way, we'll have to find somewhere else to play him - or else move DJ back to the middle where he made a billion tackles, all of them 5+yards past the LOS.

I leave that call to the next DC. If he thinks DJ can play the middle well for him, then put Woodyard at the Will. If his scheme needs bigger backers, then draft a MLB, leave DJ at the Will and put Wesley at SS. He didn't really play SS in this game, just a roving LB, so it's hard to get a good gauge of his ability there, but I like his chances.

And I'm glad I like them, because the chances of us trading DJ a few months after giving him a huge contract are slim-to-none, and the odds of us moving him back to Mike to make room for the rookie aren't great either IMO.

Draft day should be fun, though, since who we draft should tell us what we're doing. :D

~G

That makes sense as one answer, G. However, that would make D.J. become
mediocre again, which is what he was at MLB. He is a very good Will, so we
have two good Wills with one slot to fill.

My answer is what we saw this week: put Woodyard at SS. As Shanny implied
in his postgame presser, Woodyard is probably the best tackler on the defense,
and he is faster than most SS's. He can be very dynamic for the team
(remember Lynch? Atwater? Thompson?). Actually, SS would give Woodyard
even more freedom: Will plays essentially the weak side, whereas the safety
plays anywhere.

I really like the idea of Woodyard back here with Barrett and with D.J. at Will.
The increase in speed on the defense is dramatic, and Woodyard's tackling
ability will be on whatever part of the field the ball carrier is. In addition, with
D.J. in there, the need at WLB is fulfilled, so Woodyard can fill the need at SS.

I had leaned against it before, but the more I consider that idea, the better
I like it.

-----

OMorange&blue
12-15-2008, 03:12 PM
On the long run, Doom had back side contain and gave it up. Thats where the blame belongs on that one.

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 03:16 PM
My first choice for Woodyard would be at the Will. He's just a demon there. He would have his weaknesses, but Ray freakin' Lewis has his weaknesses (see his crying about getting big DTs to get the annoying linemen off of him).

Woodyard's strengths would far surpass those weaknesses.

But since we put a 30 million dollar roadblock in Wesley's way, we'll have to find somewhere else to play him - or else move DJ back to the middle where he made a billion tackles, all of them 5+yards past the LOS.

I leave that call to the next DC. If he thinks DJ can play the middle well for him, then put Woodyard at the Will. If his scheme needs bigger backers, then draft a MLB, leave DJ at the Will and put Wesley at SS. He didn't really play SS in this game, just a roving LB, so it's hard to get a good gauge of his ability there, but I like his chances.

And I'm glad I like them, because the chances of us trading DJ a few months after giving him a huge contract are slim-to-none, and the odds of us moving him back to Mike to make room for the rookie aren't great either IMO.

Draft day should be fun, though, since who we draft should tell us what we're doing. :D

~G

The other way around that is to get some huge run cloggers to keep the linemen off of DJ in the middle. That makes every MLB better.

Honestly though, whatever is the best combo, thats where everyone needs to go. That includes moving DJ if we need to.

Dean
12-15-2008, 03:19 PM
That makes sense as one answer, G. However, that would make D.J. become
mediocre again, which is what he was at MLB. He is a very good Will, so we
have two good Wills with one slot to fill.

My answer is what we saw this week: put Woodyard at SS. As Shanny implied
in his postgame presser, Woodyard is probably the best tackler on the defense,
and he is faster than most SS's. He can be very dynamic for the team
(remember Lynch? Atwater? Thompson?). Actually, SS would give Woodyard
even more freedom: Will plays essentially the weak side, whereas the safety
plays anywhere.

I really like the idea of Woodyard back here with Barrett and with D.J. at Will.
The increase in speed on the defense is dramatic, and Woodyard's tackling
ability will be on whatever part of the field the ball carrier is. In addition, with
D.J. in there, the need at WLB is fulfilled, so Woodyard can fill the need at SS.

I had leaned against it before, but the more I consider that idea, the better
I like it.

-----


I see your point but to get Woodyard a SS Denver had to change their coverages and I think that we can all agree it was not very successful.

CoachChaz
12-15-2008, 03:19 PM
At the end of the day I still have the same question. Why do we draft these kids to fill positions of need and then never give them much of a chance, only to have to draft the same positions a year later and start the routine all over again?

Is anyone 100% confident in Larsen, Barett or Woodyard? I'd have to say there is no way we can be. If we feel that way, then the staff undoubtedly feels that way and guess what happens on draft day. We end up looking at MLB, SS, FS as positions of need.

It's a good possibility that 2, if not all 3 could be VERY solid NFL players, but when will we find that out? What happens to Larsen if we draft Spikes? How about Barrett if we grab Moore or Mays? Where does Wes fit in if we go both ways?

I think it's almost a foregone conclusion that we draft a MLB, S and DL and it could be a complete waste until we actually see what becomes of the current youngsters. I guess we can add our player development staff to the list of organizational moves that we have to take a long look at.

frauschieze
12-15-2008, 03:25 PM
His knock is speed. It might change the way we scheme some. That's why Shanahan has drafted so much speed at linebacker in the past.

To describe the way we 'scheme' currently, I need to use a plethora of words unacceptable for this forum. If we had to change it to allow Larsen to play MLB and we ended up with an honest to goodness real NFL defense, I wouldn't complain. Not one little bit. :D

Cutler6MVP
12-15-2008, 03:32 PM
Broncos coach Mike Shanahan says rookie LB Wesley Woodyard could see playing time at strong safety in the last few games.
With WLB D.J. Williams back in Week 15, Woodyard played some safety in a four-linebacker package. Woodyard made only two tackles, however, and is more of a threat to Marquand Manuel's stats than an IDP option himself.
Source: Rocky Mountain News

For some of you theres your wish.

CoachChaz
12-15-2008, 03:34 PM
To describe the way we 'scheme' currently, I need to use a plethora of words unacceptable for this forum. If we had to change it to allow Larsen to play MLB and we ended up with an honest to goodness real NFL defense, I wouldn't complain. Not one little bit. :D

I just dont see Larsen as an honest to goodness NFL Mike. He's just way too slow to play that spot and a guy like Spikes or Laurinitis would be too much of an immediate upgrade to overlook them in the draft.

Superchop 7
12-15-2008, 03:41 PM
That makes sense as one answer, G. However, that would make D.J. become
mediocre again, which is what he was at MLB. He is a very good Will, so we
have two good Wills with one slot to fill.

My answer is what we saw this week: put Woodyard at SS. As Shanny implied
in his postgame presser, Woodyard is probably the best tackler on the defense,
and he is faster than most SS's. He can be very dynamic for the team
(remember Lynch? Atwater? Thompson?). Actually, SS would give Woodyard
even more freedom: Will plays essentially the weak side, whereas the safety
plays anywhere.

I really like the idea of Woodyard back here with Barrett and with D.J. at Will.
The increase in speed on the defense is dramatic, and Woodyard's tackling
ability will be on whatever part of the field the ball carrier is. In addition, with
D.J. in there, the need at WLB is fulfilled, so Woodyard can fill the need at SS.

I had leaned against it before, but the more I consider that idea, the better
I like it.

-----

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

I agree.

It is a recipe for success, sure there will be growing pains, but the final product should be impressive once they all get on the same page.

Cover 1 is designed for a deep center field safety, personally, I think he is about 5 yards too deep, especially with his speed but thats something that I'm sure the coaches will look at and adjust.

I think once Champ is back and our new safeties start clicking, we will be much more effective against the pass. The fact that we can stop the run now is huge.

Larsen at MLB ? It's a no brainer to me. I keep thinking about Williams, Larsen, and Curry next year.......that would be sick. WW at SS starting to get in the groove and backing up WLB.....very nice (and opens up a roster spot for a guy like Art Carmody to handle the shorter field goals and Prater the longer ones).....Nic Harris behind him at SS.....rock solid combination.

The answer at free safety is playing time, (ie experience) I see a combination of Barett and Nate Ness filling the position for years.

For the DL, we need a beast and we are going to have to open up the checkbook.

Very few will agree with me, but I think Slowik is doing a very good job right now, he is getting the best players on the field, shutting down the run and it is only a matter of time before this defense begins to gel.

And when it does........it's gonna be good.

frauschieze
12-15-2008, 03:43 PM
I just dont see Larsen as an honest to goodness NFL Mike. He's just way too slow to play that spot and a guy like Spikes or Laurinitis would be too much of an immediate upgrade to overlook them in the draft.

If you go back to the original question, if a monster is available at MLB, then we go for them. Period. But from what he's shown, I don't think Larsen plays too slow. He plays smart and he's hands down better than Webster (not saying much there). My comment was really more of a knock on Slowick than anything else, which is why :D was stuck at the end. ;)

broncofaninfla
12-15-2008, 03:43 PM
I just dont see Larsen as an honest to goodness NFL Mike. He's just way too slow to play that spot and a guy like Spikes or Laurinitis would be too much of an immediate upgrade to overlook them in the draft.

I keep hearing the speed knock on Larsen and I'm not buying it. In the limited time he has been on the field I haven't seen once instance in which he missed a play or tackle because of his speed. In fact against Atlanta he was sideline to sideline and seemed quicker than the running backs. Larsen might not be a all pro but he is the best option on our roster right now.

MOtorboat
12-15-2008, 03:43 PM
Larsen at MLB ? It's a no brainer to me. I keep thinking about Williams, Larsen, and Curry next year.......that would be sick.

Wait a minute.

Three days ago you were drooling all over moving Williams to the middle and putting Woodyard at WLB...

G_Money
12-15-2008, 03:49 PM
The Eagles ran just fine with Jeremiah Trotter as a 2-down backer, Coach.

I don’t have much of a problem going with Larsen at Mike. He’s not as big as Trotter but he’s a thumper in his own right and even our pathetic D functioned better with him in the middle.

I’d prefer he be a GREAT backup option to a Pro Bowl MLB, but we do have a lot of needs.

If we drafted Peria Jerry or somebody in the first, I could see going with Larsen at Mike over a 2nd or 3rd round MLB (McKillop, etc). They’re just not enough of an improvement over him to make a huge difference, and may be no improvement at all.

Adding Curry, Spikes, or Laurinaitis would be an improvement at the position worthy of making Larsen the great backup and ST player he can be IMO. Drafting Maualuga is going for a 2-down thumper you hope can get better against the pass, which is Larsen already.

He’s got more physical skills than Larsen, but if that fits our new scheme I probably wouldn’t spend a first round pick to get a better Larsen.

Here’s hoping Woodyard can show enough for us to be confident at SS. Though I have to say, I’d feel more confident with Laurinaitis and Chung in the first two rounds than with a couple more DL that may or may not pan out 2+ seasons down the line.

Even if that pushes Woodyard and Larsen to the back-burner.

~G

CoachChaz
12-15-2008, 04:02 PM
The Eagles ran just fine with Jeremiah Trotter as a 2-down backer, Coach.

I don’t have much of a problem going with Larsen at Mike. He’s not as big as Trotter but he’s a thumper in his own right and even our pathetic D functioned better with him in the middle.

I’d prefer he be a GREAT backup option to a Pro Bowl MLB, but we do have a lot of needs.

If we drafted Peria Jerry or somebody in the first, I could see going with Larsen at Mike over a 2nd or 3rd round MLB (McKillop, etc). They’re just not enough of an improvement over him to make a huge difference, and may be no improvement at all.

Adding Curry, Spikes, or Laurinaitis would be an improvement at the position worthy of making Larsen the great backup and ST player he can be IMO. Drafting Maualuga is going for a 2-down thumper you hope can get better against the pass, which is Larsen already.

He’s got more physical skills than Larsen, but if that fits our new scheme I probably wouldn’t spend a first round pick to get a better Larsen.

Here’s hoping Woodyard can show enough for us to be confident at SS. Though I have to say, I’d feel more confident with Laurinaitis and Chung in the first two rounds than with a couple more DL that may or may not pan out 2+ seasons down the line.

Even if that pushes Woodyard and Larsen to the back-burner.

~G

The Eagles also has a pretty solid D-line at the time. Until we can say that our d-line is at least better than average, can we risk Larsen at MLB?

I dont completely have a problem with Laren as a 2 down Mike when we could run WW out there in nickel and dime packages, but I'd feel alot more confident with a solid answer in the middle that has fewer question marks than Larsen.

broncofaninfla
12-15-2008, 04:11 PM
THE FOURTH LINEBACKER
Many had wondered how the Broncos would utilize rookie Wesley Woodyard (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=8678) with defensive captain D.J. Williams (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=2425) returning from injury and regaining his starting weakside linebacker spot.
Head Coach Mike Shanahan (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=357&contentID=415) decided to utilize Woodyard as a fourth linebacker and line him up at the strong safety position.
"He's a guy that can play both," Shanahan said of Woodyard playing linebacker and safety. "It wasn't really a 4-4 - he's a guy that can play safety in this scheme, and he's obviously a good tackler. We'll use him at that position. I'm not going to say how many times, but he's got great speed - probably faster than most strong safeties in the league."
Part of the reason the Broncos decided to go with Woodyard at safety was his ability to contribute to run support.

Carolina's running back duo of Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams showed what they were capable of last Monday night running for nearly 300 combined yards and two touchdowns each. On Sunday the Broncos defense was able to limited them to 140 rushing yards combined and two touchdowns.
Woodyard said the strong safety position wasn't too much of an adjustment for him and that it is a position he is willing to play if it helps the team and allows him to stay out on the field.
"It was something we had practiced during the week," he said. "I felt pretty good out there. With a little work on my technique, I think I can stay there a little bit more often if the team needs me to."
Woodyard's performance on Sunday was enough to prove to his coach that he is capable of being utilized at two different defensive positions.
"He's starting to feel better about the coverage with that scheme as well," Shanahan said. "Look for him playing some strong safety as well as at the linebacker position."

WARHORSE
12-15-2008, 04:29 PM
The problem was Barrett having to run 30 yards full speed, find Williams in traffic, stop on a dime, break down, and make an open field tackle. He was running full speed and didnt realize he had run too far until it was too late. Having him 30 yards back off the ball was the problem. You can't expect a rookie starting only his second NFL game ever to make plays at the LOS when he is 30 yards off the ball. It's never going to happen.

Barrett did the best he could by trying to force Williams back to the inside to where the rest of the defenders were. Unfortunately, they all overpursued so much they couldnt recover.


Thats just it, and exactly what Im talkin about. Hes running full speed at the line of scrimmage blind. Hes not supposed to make the tackle at the lOS. When you line up the safety that deep, what do you think the purpose is? It definitely is not 'if its a run play, run as fast as you can and make the stop at the LOS'.

He was there to keep everything in front of him and stop the touchdown, cause we basically were playing 8 in the box with WW and taking away the run. If you put eight in the box and the opposing RB breaks through, its clear sailing save the FS. Whether pass play or run, DO NOT ALLOW A TOUCHDOWN.

Had he waited, he could have easily made the tackle on Williams. If he cant make an openfield tackle on Williams when he has proper positioning, hes not the safety we want anyways. He simply blindly ran himself out of the play.........full speed.

30 yard gains dont hurt us. Touchdowns hurt us.

That play hurt us, and lets hope he learns from it.
Thats all.

Superchop 7
12-15-2008, 04:31 PM
Wait a minute.

Three days ago you were drooling all over moving Williams to the middle and putting Woodyard at WLB...

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Compared to Nate, who wouldn't want DJ at Mike ? (for now).

Larsen was banged up.

WW was doing a good job at Wil.

IMO, it would have been a definate upgrade........... and the hints coming down the line weren't directed at WW switching to SS (although I love the move) they were hinting DJ to Mike.

"Now" we could have a Williams, Larsen, Winborn lineup with WW still in the box.

I like it, I like it alot.

And next year we could have a Williams, Larsen, Curry lineup with WW still in the box.

It wouldn't be fair.

And I really like that.

Superchop 7
12-15-2008, 04:43 PM
THE FOURTH LINEBACKER

"He's a guy that can play both," Shanahan said of Woodyard playing linebacker and safety.
Woodyard's performance on Sunday was enough to prove to his coach that he is capable of being utilized at two different defensive positions.
"He's starting to feel better about the coverage with that scheme as well," Shanahan said. "Look for him playing some strong safety as well as at the linebacker position."

__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________

"Many had wondered ?"

Yeah, you could say that.

Nice move Shanny.

Now coach him up !!!

We've got a division to win.

LRtagger
12-15-2008, 04:48 PM
Thats just it, and exactly what Im talkin about. Hes running full speed at the line of scrimmage blind. Hes not supposed to make the tackle at the lOS. When you line up the safety that deep, what do you think the purpose is? It definitely is not 'if its a run play, run as fast as you can and make the stop at the LOS'.

He was there to keep everything in front of him and stop the touchdown, cause we basically were playing 8 in the box with WW and taking away the run. If you put eight in the box and the opposing RB breaks through, its clear sailing save the FS. Whether pass play or run, DO NOT ALLOW A TOUCHDOWN.

Had he waited, he could have easily made the tackle on Williams. If he cant make an openfield tackle on Williams when he has proper positioning, hes not the safety we want anyways. He simply blindly ran himself out of the play.........full speed.

30 yard gains dont hurt us. Touchdowns hurt us.

That play hurt us, and lets hope he learns from it.
Thats all.


Watch the play again...if you are ready to place the blame on Barrett, then I dont know what to tell you.

All 3 LBs overpursued. Bly stood there with his thumb up his butt, and Doom looked like he containment then RAN INTO the tackle and got lost. You cant expect Barrett to run 30 yards upfield and make that play...could he have done a better job? Sure. But he was hardly at fault for what resulted in a TD. The only reason Barrett missed anyways is because Doom got juked out of his shoes.

I made a clip of the play. Watch Doom and Bly in particular. Also watch DJ run from the weakside LB position all the way across the field before the play even develops.

http://replay-re-cutter.nfl.com/clip.aspx?key=A2921CC716DC8E42

Barrett could have been more under control, but if he were only 10-15 yards off the ball, he would have been.

Woodyard wasnt on the field for that play. Manuel was on the LOS on the strong side which is where the play was designed to go. Manuel got lost in the traffic.

Nature Boy
12-15-2008, 04:51 PM
What is John Lynch doing right this moment? I bet he is ready to play this weekend if asked to.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 05:31 PM
At the end of the day I still have the same question. Why do we draft these kids to fill positions of need and then never give them much of a chance, only to have to draft the same positions a year later and start the routine all over again?

Is anyone 100% confident in Larsen, Barett or Woodyard? I'd have to say there is no way we can be. If we feel that way, then the staff undoubtedly feels that way and guess what happens on draft day. We end up looking at MLB, SS, FS as positions of need.

It's a good possibility that 2, if not all 3 could be VERY solid NFL players, but when will we find that out? What happens to Larsen if we draft Spikes? How about Barrett if we grab Moore or Mays? Where does Wes fit in if we go both ways?

I think it's almost a foregone conclusion that we draft a MLB, S and DL and it could be a complete waste until we actually see what becomes of the current youngsters. I guess we can add our player development staff to the list of organizational moves that we have to take a long look at.


I agree 100% time to see what we have in these kids a real solid draft last year in all the positions of need....

Mikey job is secure play them all and evaluate them cause 2 games from now the season is over and we just get back to who is a back up or starter for next year and what holes do we need to fill..

I think Larsen could be the answer with out spending a #1 on one.. does he have to be Ray Lewis absolutely not he has to be better than webster and I do not se how he can't fill that bill..

Same thing applies to Barret and Woodyard..

Woodyard is not going to replace DJ they can't trade him because of his contract to expensive to cut... so Woodyard is a ST demon and an insurance policy for DJ again or he becomes a SS ala John Lynch..

Barrett has the makings of a great FS IF we can get someone in here to coach him..

And the bottom line is IF we do not get DC with a great rep in here and allow him to do the job we will be asking these same questions again 365 days from now..

Priority should be DC, DL coach and autonomy for them from mikey.. and then let them draft a couple of DL types which will automatically make everyone behind them better..

Do we need a top 5 Defense to win? NO we need one that can force three and outs 60% of the time..

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 05:41 PM
I just dont see Larsen as an honest to goodness NFL Mike. He's just way too slow to play that spot and a guy like Spikes or Laurinitis would be too much of an immediate upgrade to overlook them in the draft.

but are these guys going to be available at 18-26


and how slow is Larsen seems to me I have seen him sideline to sideline making tackles on RB's.. I know that at least one he was there with WW in the red zone a few games a ago.. I think he was on the bottom and WW was hitting the guy high..

I know when he and WW were in a few games ago they were playing solid and the defense was much better than this past week..

could these guys (draft choices) be beast probably but do we really have to spend a ton of money at MLB when Larsen could do a damned fine job..

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 05:50 PM
Watch the play again...if you are ready to place the blame on Barrett, then I dont know what to tell you.

All 3 LBs overpursued. Bly stood there with his thumb up his butt, and Doom looked like he containment then RAN INTO the tackle and got lost. You cant expect Barrett to run 30 yards upfield and make that play...could he have done a better job? Sure. But he was hardly at fault for what resulted in a TD. The only reason Barrett missed anyways is because Doom got juked out of his shoes.

I made a clip of the play. Watch Doom and Bly in particular. Also watch DJ run from the weakside LB position all the way across the field before the play even develops.

http://replay-re-cutter.nfl.com/clip.aspx?key=A2921CC716DC8E42

Barrett could have been more under control, but if he were only 10-15 yards off the ball, he would have been.

Woodyard wasnt on the field for that play. Manuel was on the LOS on the strong side which is where the play was designed to go. Manuel got lost in the traffic.

basically what I saw game day.. but the link does not work..

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 05:51 PM
THE FOURTH LINEBACKER
Many had wondered how the Broncos would utilize rookie Wesley Woodyard (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=8678) with defensive captain D.J. Williams (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=498&contentID=2425) returning from injury and regaining his starting weakside linebacker spot.
Head Coach Mike Shanahan (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=357&contentID=415) decided to utilize Woodyard as a fourth linebacker and line him up at the strong safety position.
"He's a guy that can play both," Shanahan said of Woodyard playing linebacker and safety. "It wasn't really a 4-4 - he's a guy that can play safety in this scheme, and he's obviously a good tackler. We'll use him at that position. I'm not going to say how many times, but he's got great speed - probably faster than most strong safeties in the league."
Part of the reason the Broncos decided to go with Woodyard at safety was his ability to contribute to run support.

Carolina's running back duo of Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams showed what they were capable of last Monday night running for nearly 300 combined yards and two touchdowns each. On Sunday the Broncos defense was able to limited them to 140 rushing yards combined and two touchdowns.
Woodyard said the strong safety position wasn't too much of an adjustment for him and that it is a position he is willing to play if it helps the team and allows him to stay out on the field .
"It was something we had practiced during the week," he said. "I felt pretty good out there. With a little work on my technique, I think I can stay there a little bit more often if the team needs me to."
Woodyard's performance on Sunday was enough to prove to his coach that he is capable of being utilized at two different defensive positions.
"He's starting to feel better about the coverage with that scheme as well," Shanahan said. "Look for him playing some strong safety as well as at the linebacker position."

good post have a link to it?


Let hope it happens..

G_Money
12-15-2008, 06:44 PM
The Eagles also has a pretty solid D-line at the time. Until we can say that our d-line is at least better than average, can we risk Larsen at MLB?

I dont completely have a problem with Laren as a 2 down Mike when we could run WW out there in nickel and dime packages, but I'd feel alot more confident with a solid answer in the middle that has fewer question marks than Larsen.

Since I dunno that we'll EVER have the DL that will be great by itself, I agree I'd be more confident with a blue-chip MLB stud.

We miss Al Wilson terribly. Even non-tackling Wilson, nevermind pre-injuries-badass Wilson.

I still say Laurinaitis is our best bet both as a leader and player, and as a likely candidate to still be there in the 20s...but if we go another way in the first, I could live with Larsen there while we work out the kinks on D.

I can't live with Webster or Niko there.

As long as the choices are New-and-awesome-MLB with Larsen as his backup and ST leader, or Larsen-as-stopgap-MLB with new-and-awesome DL/S/OLB then I'm okay.

If it's Webster in the middle and some hack in the first, I'm gonna have to shank someone.

Probably Webster.

~G

MOtorboat
12-15-2008, 06:46 PM
Wilson was an unbelievable middle linebacker...

:sigh:

G_Money
12-15-2008, 06:56 PM
Barrett could have been more under control, but if he were only 10-15 yards off the ball, he would have been.

Woodyard wasnt on the field for that play. Manuel was on the LOS on the strong side which is where the play was designed to go. Manuel got lost in the traffic.

Manuel gets lost in his own house.

Please God, strike him down for me.

Plague or pestilence or frogs or something.

I hope Woodyard just stays out there the rest of the season. Can he really be ANY worse than the safeties who have come before him this year? :tsk:

Shanahan's worried about him not knowing the coverages.

Memo to Shanny: We don't have any. Even if we did, the guys who do know them fail miserably at executing them.

If Woodyard just ran around in circles between the hash marks he'd probably make more plays by accident than Manuel, McCree, Lowry, Rogers and those boneheads have.

~G

topscribe
12-15-2008, 07:00 PM
I see your point but to get Woodyard a SS Denver had to change their coverages and I think that we can all agree it was not very successful.

Well, keep in mind, my friend, that this was Woodyard's first game at that
position as a pro, and the first since his freshman year in college. Still, it is
my understanding that he earned freshman of the year, or something like that,
at the safety position. We're not going to witness Pro Bowl performances
from Woodyard or Barrett back there at first, but that doesn't mean they are
not going to be good.

-----

Dean
12-15-2008, 07:10 PM
I keep hearing the speed knock on Larsen and I'm not buying it. In the limited time he has been on the field I haven't seen once instance in which he missed a play or tackle because of his speed. In fact against Atlanta he was sideline to sideline and seemed quicker than the running backs. Larsen might not be a all pro but he is the best option on our roster right now.

I don't see speed as a problem unless we play a Tampa 2 where the Mike has to read pass and drop 20 to 25 yards deep in the middle of the field or if we are in man cover and they throw a flair pass to the #3 receiver on the strong side.

It is my opinion that other than DJ he is better than any ILB we have on the roster.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 07:11 PM
Manuel gets lost in his own house.

Please God, strike him down for me.

Plague or pestilence or frogs or something.

I hope Woodyard just stays out there the rest of the season. Can he really be ANY worse than the safeties who have come before him this year? :tsk:

Shanahan's worried about him not knowing the coverages.

Memo to Shanny: We don't have any. Even if we did, the guys who do know them fail miserably at executing them.

If Woodyard just ran around in circles between the hash marks he'd probably make more plays by accident than Manuel, McCree, Lowry, Rogers and those boneheads have.~G

Absolutely the post of the year..:salute:

broncohead
12-15-2008, 08:20 PM
It sounds like Woodyard will get a shot at SS. For the record I have stated in the past that I don't think the transition would work out in our advantage but since he will most likely be getting a shot I hope it works out for the best. We need a starting safety more then any other position so if he works out thats one less high draft pick we have to use.

fcspikeit
12-15-2008, 08:31 PM
At the end of the day I still have the same question. Why do we draft these kids to fill positions of need and then never give them much of a chance, only to have to draft the same positions a year later and start the routine all over again?

Is anyone 100% confident in Larsen, Barett or Woodyard? I'd have to say there is no way we can be. If we feel that way, then the staff undoubtedly feels that way and guess what happens on draft day. We end up looking at MLB, SS, FS as positions of need.

It's a good possibility that 2, if not all 3 could be VERY solid NFL players, but when will we find that out? What happens to Larsen if we draft Spikes? How about Barrett if we grab Moore or Mays? Where does Wes fit in if we go both ways?

I think it's almost a foregone conclusion that we draft a MLB, S and DL and it could be a complete waste until we actually see what becomes of the current youngsters. I guess we can add our player development staff to the list of organizational moves that we have to take a long look at.

Coach I couldn't agree more..

It's bluntly obvious the guys we had/have starting there are not the answer. So why waist any more time playing them? There is no way of knowing what we have if we don't give the young guys a chance..

Some still fall back on, well they never seen the field so they must not have been good enough. IMO our FO has lost all respect in that regards, There just has been to many upgrades coming from players who were supposedly not good enough to see the field.

I want to see it before I can believe it....

The ridicules thing about all this is that they are playing better then the veterans. There is absolutely no reason not to play them! NONE

Superchop 7
12-15-2008, 08:32 PM
Manuel gets lost in his own house.

Please God, strike him down for me.

Plague or pestilence or frogs or something.

I hope Woodyard just stays out there the rest of the season. Can he really be ANY worse than the safeties who have come before him this year? :tsk:

Shanahan's worried about him not knowing the coverages.

Memo to Shanny: We don't have any. Even if we did, the guys who do know them fail miserably at executing them.

If Woodyard just ran around in circles between the hash marks he'd probably make more plays by accident than Manuel, McCree, Lowry, Rogers and those boneheads have.

~G

__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________


Priceless....

Dean
12-15-2008, 08:34 PM
Well, keep in mind, my friend, that this was Woodyard's first game at that
position as a pro, and the first since his freshman year in college. Still, it is
my understanding that he earned freshman of the year, or something like that,
at the safety position. We're not going to witness Pro Bowl performances
from Woodyard or Barrett back there at first, but that doesn't mean they are
not going to be good.

-----


It also doesn't mean that they will be good safeties. I am hoping that they will be but as a safety you have to be able to read, take correct angles, provide coverage, and tackle.

That means they must be both a LB and corner hybrid. I didn't see that last week. Now, if the bar is set at exceeding the level of their predecessors
then I would have to say yes they did that. However, is that going to be enough?

IMO they are going to have to learn a lot. They have a long way to go and a short time to get there.

fcspikeit
12-15-2008, 08:36 PM
Manuel gets lost in his own house.

Please God, strike him down for me.

Plague or pestilence or frogs or something.

I hope Woodyard just stays out there the rest of the season. Can he really be ANY worse than the safeties who have come before him this year? :tsk:

Shanahan's worried about him not knowing the coverages.

Memo to Shanny: We don't have any. Even if we did, the guys who do know them fail miserably at executing them.

If Woodyard just ran around in circles between the hash marks he'd probably make more plays by accident than Manuel, McCree, Lowry, Rogers and those boneheads have.

~G

G that's one of the funniest post's I have ever read :salute:

To bad it's all 100% true :sad:

topscribe
12-15-2008, 08:44 PM
It also doesn't mean that they will be good safeties. I am hoping that they will be but as a safety you have to be able to read, take correct angles, provide coverage, and tackle.

That means they must be both a LB and corner hybrid. I didn't see that last week. Now, if the bar is set at exceeding the level of their predecessors
then I would have to say yes they did that. However, is that going to be enough?

IMO they are going to have to learn a lot. They have a long way to go and a short time to get there.

First, you hit the proverbial nail on the head by implying that they wouldn't be
any worse than some of the poor excuses for safeties that we have had.

But there is only one way to find out whether they will be good safeties:
play them there. You know that better than I. And don't forget that
Woodyard apparently excelled at safety as a freshman in college. Moreover,
who of any great quality will be moved out of there in lieu of those two?
At least we know the tackling will be better . . .

-----

Dean
12-15-2008, 08:48 PM
Point made.

Lonestar
12-15-2008, 08:55 PM
First, you hit the proverbial nail on the head by implying that they wouldn't be
any worse than some of the poor excuses for safeties that we have had.

But there is only one way to find out whether they will be good safeties:
play them there. You know that better than I. And don't forget that
Woodyard apparently excelled at safety as a freshman in college. Moreover,
who of any great quality will be moved out of there in lieu of those two?
At least we know the tackling will be better . . .

-----

He was great in college and they thought he could move to LB where they needed big time help.. became an all league LB..

I see not downside to playing him at SS and seeing if he has the ability to stick.. If he does not he goes back to LB nd plays there.. If not we see if he can hack it as a SS which is probably better suited for his weight.. I he does not then we know we HAVE to draft, trade or Fa ONE..

broncofaninfla
12-16-2008, 09:03 AM
I'm all for keeping Woodyard on the field but not if it means we run the 4-4-3 defense.

LRtagger
12-16-2008, 10:15 AM
I'm all for keeping Woodyard on the field but not if it means we run the 4-4-3 defense.

why not? It is basically what we run with Manuel on the field on 1st and 2nd down...wouldnt you rather have WW out there over Manuel?

WW would be a roaming LB which is essentially what a SS is anyways

broncofaninfla
12-16-2008, 10:28 AM
why not? It is basically what we run with Manuel on the field on 1st and 2nd down...wouldnt you rather have WW out there over Manuel?

WW would be a roaming LB which is essentially what a SS is anyways


Teams would eat us alive just as Carolina did last week. Face it, our DL sucks. No pressure and man coverage = us giving up huge plays.

LRtagger
12-16-2008, 10:56 AM
Teams would eat us alive just as Carolina did last week. Face it, our DL sucks. No pressure and man coverage = us giving up huge plays.

Carolina eats a lot of teams alive including Tampa Bay which has one of the better, more consistant defenses in the NFL. Woodyard is still a better option than Manuel. You can blame what Carolina did to us on Dre Bly and Bob Slowik...not on WW.


Carolina is one of the better teams in the NFL and we had no running game and no Champ Bailey to cover Steve Smith. Us losing to them had little to do with what WW was doing in his first game at SS. It had more to do with Bly getting worked over and Barrett taking a flight back to Denver to play defense from Invesco.

broncofaninfla
12-16-2008, 11:25 AM
Carolina eats a lot of teams alive including Tampa Bay which has one of the better, more consistant defenses in the NFL. Woodyard is still a better option than Manuel. You can blame what Carolina did to us on Dre Bly and Bob Slowik...not on WW.


Carolina is one of the better teams in the NFL and we had no running game and no Champ Bailey to cover Steve Smith. Us losing to them had little to do with what WW was doing in his first game at SS. It had more to do with Bly getting worked over and Barrett taking a flight back to Denver to play defense from Invesco.

I'm not blaming WW at all. I think the guy is a stud and would make a solid SS. I'm just not in love with a formation that puts our current DB's one on one and hopes our DL puts some sort of pressure on the QB. We simply don't have the talen there to pull that off.

Lonestar
12-16-2008, 02:02 PM
I'm not blaming WW at all. I think the guy is a stud and would make a solid SS. I'm just not in love with a formation that puts our current DB's one on one and hopes our DL puts some sort of pressure on the QB. We simply don't have the talen there to pull that off.

we, simply do not have the talent in Manuel either, that is the issue.. 3 players accounted for 317 yards of their offense smith hall and moose..

WW was not play but against hall and everyone stepped on their crank on that one.. was not just his fault in fact I'm not so sure he was in the game on that play..

Manuel is not going to cover deep on smith or moose either so what is the big deal..

Let the rookie play and see if he fits the bill, if he does not get it or can't be taught, then we know we HAVE to draft another safety, as we already know that manuel should not be resign after his contract expires this year..

bcbronc
12-16-2008, 05:01 PM
the way I see it, WW is the only player on this roster with any chance of playing SS as a Bronco next season. he's now on his second week of practising the position, so let's ride him and see what he's got.

he'll miss some coverages and bite on a few play actions but I can live with that. it's probably a bit much to expect him to get the entire defensive playbook down (we do actually have a defensive playbook, right?) so we'll still see some Manuel. but give WW more reps each week and see if he has potential to take the reigns for next season.

my one concern is that he looks "okay" and we pass on getting a stud SS in the draft, only to come back next season and find that "okay" is his ceiling.