PDA

View Full Version : A Healthy Hillis



TXBRONC
02-07-2009, 09:04 PM
I know many of us on this board have said that Hillis being injuried had a direct impact on how Denver's season ended but now Mike Klis is getting into the act.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11653387

mike klis
Healthy Hillis would have changed everything
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post

Posted: 02/07/2009 04:39:00 PM MST

There were injuries to all three starting linebackers.

There were injuries to both receiving tight ends.

There were season-ending injuries to seven tailbacks.

The one injury that hurt the Broncos more than any other in 2008?

"I still think if Peyton stays healthy we make the playoffs," said Broncos center Casey Weigmann.

As in Peyton Hillis, the Broncos' fullback turned tailback who played inspiringly until he tore a hamstring while making a sensational catch against the Kansas City Chiefs in the season's 13th game. It was no coincidence, Wiegmann said, that Chiefs' game was the Broncos final win of the season.

"He just ran so hard," Wiegmann said. "Ran people over. It was just a mentality. He gets everybody else fired up. There's no way Buffalo should have beaten us."

Up 13-0 against the Bills in Game 15, the Broncos did not have the power running game required to secure leads. The Broncos eventually lost to Buffalo, lost the AFC West title, and lost Mike Shanahan.

Den21vsBal19
02-07-2009, 09:17 PM
I don't think you'll find many disagreements with that assessment.

I wouldn't be too upset if he went into TC as the #1 back.......................the kid just makes things happen

TXBRONC
02-07-2009, 09:21 PM
I don't think you'll find many disagreements with that assessment.

I wouldn't be too upset if he went into TC as the #1 back.......................the kid just makes things happen

A power runner with terrific receiving skill should fit nicely into the new offense. At least that's what I think.

Den21vsBal19
02-07-2009, 09:29 PM
A power runner with terrific receiving skill should fit nicely into the new offense. At least that's what I think.
Spot on IMO...........

OK, he may be lacking true break-away speed, but I'd rather a back that can pick up 4, 5, 6 yards a time, everytime with the odd 20-30 yard rumble than a guy who fluctuates between -2 & 5 yards and breaks a 40+ yarder twice a year

Magnificent Seven
02-07-2009, 09:31 PM
what is IMO????

TXBRONC
02-07-2009, 09:31 PM
what is IMO????

In my opinion.

TXBRONC
02-07-2009, 09:36 PM
Spot on IMO...........

OK, he may be lacking true break-away speed, but I'd rather a back that can pick up 4, 5, 6 yards a time, everytime with the odd 20-30 yard rumble than a guy who fluctuates between -2 & 5 yards and breaks a 40+ yarder twice a year

I think for the nearby future our running backs will not be putting up 1000 yards seasons but I can live with that as long we have some we can depend on in crunch time and we win games.

fcspikeit
02-07-2009, 10:13 PM
I know many of us on this board have said that Hillis being injuried had a direct impact on how Denver's season ended but now Mike Klis is getting into the act.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11653387

mike klis
Healthy Hillis would have changed everything
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post

Posted: 02/07/2009 04:39:00 PM MST

There were injuries to all three starting linebackers.

There were injuries to both receiving tight ends.

There were season-ending injuries to seven tailbacks.

The one injury that hurt the Broncos more than any other in 2008?

"I still think if Peyton stays healthy we make the playoffs," said Broncos center Casey Weigmann.

As in Peyton Hillis, the Broncos' fullback turned tailback who played inspiringly until he tore a hamstring while making a sensational catch against the Kansas City Chiefs in the season's 13th game. It was no coincidence, Wiegmann said, that Chiefs' game was the Broncos final win of the season.

"He just ran so hard," Wiegmann said. "Ran people over. It was just a mentality. He gets everybody else fired up. There's no way Buffalo should have beaten us."

Up 13-0 against the Bills in Game 15, the Broncos did not have the power running game required to secure leads. The Broncos eventually lost to Buffalo, lost the AFC West title, and lost Mike Shanahan.

That's great to hear :elefant:

Someone please make sure McDaniels sees this :coffee:

TXBRONC
02-07-2009, 10:20 PM
That's great to hear :elefant:

Someone please make sure McDaniels sees this :coffee:

If only it were that easy.

WARHORSE
02-07-2009, 10:41 PM
Peyton is a PLAYMAKER.

Playmakers find their way on the field.

G_Money
02-07-2009, 10:45 PM
He's also a ridiculously hard worker with a team-first attitude.

So he should be able to convince the new coaches to put him on the field somehow - especially once they see the footage of what he was able to do in just a few games with the old coaches.

~G

horsepig
02-07-2009, 10:47 PM
One thing about coming from Belichik's system, I think they always play the best guys. The only way players like Hillis and Woodyard ever saw the field was due to injuries to less able starters.

TXBRONC
02-07-2009, 10:52 PM
One thing about coming from Belichik's system, I think they always play the best guys. The only way players like Hillis and Woodyard ever saw the field was due to injuries to less able starters.

Hillis was the starting fullback at the beginning of the year.

Italianmobstr7
02-07-2009, 11:02 PM
Hillis was the starting fullback at the beginning of the year.

Yea but at times got replaced by Spencer Larsen. It made no sense. Keep Larsen at LB, and keep Hillis on the field. He needed to be on the offense in some fashion. TE, FB, RB. He was doing great for us. It sucked that he got hurt the way he did.

Broncospsycho77
02-08-2009, 12:14 AM
I love Hillis. Hopefully he doesn't develop Mike Bell Syndrome and fizzle out after one good year.

TXBRONC
02-08-2009, 12:16 AM
Yea but at times got replaced by Spencer Larsen. It made no sense. Keep Larsen at LB, and keep Hillis on the field. He needed to be on the offense in some fashion. TE, FB, RB. He was doing great for us. It sucked that he got hurt the way he did.

FWIW Larsen made two starts at fullback and one of those was after Hillis was moved to tailback. I also agree with you that Larsen should be put at linebacker and kept there.

Italianmobstr7
02-08-2009, 12:22 AM
FWIW Larsen made two starts at fullback and one of those was after Hillis was moved to tailback. I also agree with you that Larsen should be put at linebacker and kept there.

Thanks for the correction. I should've know that. I haven't missed a play in 12 years. :tsk:

Magnificent Seven
02-08-2009, 12:27 AM
In my opinion.

Thanks!

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 12:35 AM
Peyton is a PLAYMAKER.

Playmakers find their way on the field.

it took 6-7 RB's for mikey to figure it out.. Hopefully Mc Kid will realize that Rb are not cookie cutter types, that only fit into the scheme if they are small and fast.. in some cases no heart and all mouth..

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 12:38 AM
I love Hillis. Hopefully he doesn't develop Mike Bell Syndrome and fizzle out after one good year.


I suspect that it was the doghouse syndrome that got Mike Bell more than fizzle..

ktrain
02-08-2009, 01:14 AM
I suspect that it was the doghouse syndrome that got Mike Bell more than fizzle..

....and how many guys that got into shanny's doghouse ever did shit after leaving here?

Hixon (headcase from the buffalo injury - needed a wake-up call)
Trevor Price (more of a cap move than dog house)
Deltha O'neill (still pretty much sucked, but had a couple good years)

Am I missing anyone? It seems to me, most the players in Shanny's doghouse are their because they suck like dogs

dogfish
02-08-2009, 01:38 AM
One thing about coming from Belichik's system, I think they always play the best guys. The only way players like Hillis and Woodyard ever saw the field was due to injuries to less able starters.




exactly what i was thinking. . . new england hasn't been afraid to let guys like sammy morris and heath evans tote the rock, and maroney is really the only true speed back they've had there in quite some time. . . if mcdaniels replicates what they did there, i don't think he'll be afraid to let a straight-ahead bruiser type like hillis carry the ball. . .

and i absolutely expect mcD to get hillis seriously involved in the passing game, which has the potential to be frickin' awesome. . . i think he'll run more designed plays to take advantage of peyton's receiving skills, and i also expect more checkdowns to him when things aren't open down the field, especially if we can field a defense that's better than the worst in the league. . .

i'm picturing cutler's completion percentage going up and his interception numbers going down-- and then i picture hillis rumbling out of the flats with a head of steam and dragging DBs five and six yards, or planting LBs into the turf. . . and DAMN, i can't wait for the season to get here. . . . :lol:

i fully expect hillis to have fifty or more receptions next year. . . last year NE had 81 combined catches between their backs, with 58 of them going to kevin faulk. . . in contrast, we had a whopping total of 43 combined receptions from all of our backs-- FAR too low a number IMO when you have a guy like hillis. . . we saw just how effective he could be when he caught 7-116 and a TD against miami. . . this after being thrown all of ONE pass in six previous games, and he got all of six in the next five games. . .

made no damn sense to me. . . the guy can be a weapon, use him! i've complained for years that shenanigans didn't get the RBs involved enough in the passing game, especially with a group of O-Linemen born to get out and run on screens-- i really hope we see that change with mcdaniels in charge. . .

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 02:51 AM
....and how many guys that got into shanny's doghouse ever did shit after leaving here?

Hixon (headcase from the buffalo injury - needed a wake-up call)
Trevor Price (more of a cap move than dog house)
Deltha O'neill (still pretty much sucked, but had a couple good years)

Am I missing anyone? It seems to me, most the players in Shanny's doghouse are their because they suck like dogs

most of them sucked donkey balls because mikey fell in love with them.. and DAFTED them in the first place.

Only after goodmans showed up have the DRAFTS not been DAFTS..

Price was pretty good until he got a fat contract a nd then took more plays off than he played.. He needed constant ragging by Rod and Mikey to get motivated..

dealt never had the mentality to play CB a superb athlete but did not have CB/QB ram.. meaning he could not forget about a great play or a bad one.. for every great one he made he gave up one.. because he was to busy in his mind patting himself on the back.. Of course we would have known that if we had scouted him more than a few games.. he had just been a CB a short time and when he made mistake they wrote it off to inexperience.. once again IMO mikey thought he could change and create another TD type wonder man.. the only thing mike did right with him was trying to make him into a WR. where EGO counts..

The there was mikey and his one handed WR Watts great story but who wastes a #2 on some kid with one real hand..

omac
02-08-2009, 05:01 AM
I thought this was news that Peyton Hillis was fully healthy. Oh well, hope he makes a full recovery.

A vote of confidence from a vetran pro like Wiegmann is a big compliment. :cheers:

Den21vsBal19
02-08-2009, 07:20 AM
I thought this was news that Peyton Hillis was fully healthy. Oh well, hope he makes a full recovery.

A vote of confidence from a vetran pro like Wiegmann is a big compliment. :cheers:
And let's be honest, Casey know of what he speaks, he's blocked for a couple of pretty decent backs over the years

TXBRONC
02-08-2009, 08:28 AM
And let's be honest, Casey know of what he speaks, he's blocked for a couple of pretty decent backs over the years

:nod:

G_Money
02-08-2009, 11:45 AM
made no damn sense to me. . . the guy can be a weapon, use him! i've complained for years that shenanigans didn't get the RBs involved enough in the passing game, especially with a group of O-Linemen born to get out and run on screens-- i really hope we see that change with mcdaniels in charge. . .

Clady is one of the most agile and ferocious screen blockers I've seen in a long time.

He can get to multiple guys on the screen or the end-around and seal them off with ease. It's impressive.

With Peyton's disdain for being tackled by any one man and Clady's casual brilliance at blocking downfield, it's definitely a part of the game we should make sure to utilize more often.

~G

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 11:54 AM
Clady is one of the most agile and ferocious screen blockers I've seen in a long time.

He can get to multiple guys on the screen or the end-around and seal them off with ease. It's impressive.

With Peyton's disdain for being tackled by any one man and Clady's casual brilliance at blocking downfield, it's definitely a part of the game we should make sure to utilize more often.

~G

Many say he should not be the feature back because his running style assures him a of a short career.. SO WHAT as long as he is getting the yards and being productive it is his choice on whether he has a brilliant 3 year career and a healthy paycheck instead of a smaller one as a blocking back only..

I'll take 4-5 whack and the hope of a few 20 yarders each game over the crap we have seen the past almost decade now.. (excepting poorti$$$)

Tired of hearing we need a take to the house guy in the backfield.. When they rarely produce anything but trips to IR.. I'll take Bettis types any day of the week.. Sooner or later the opposing DB are all on the sidelines or developing short arms when faced with getting in front of a freight train or trying to bring him down from behind..

Cugel
02-08-2009, 12:06 PM
One thing about coming from Belichik's system, I think they always play the best guys. The only way players like Hillis and Woodyard ever saw the field was due to injuries to less able starters.

That's an important point. The key to the Patriots success is always having quality guys behind the starters; drafting solid players who can fill in and even start if a guy goes down to injury or leaves in FA.

So, getting Hillis in the 7th round is great. He probably isn't your starter, but he could easily be your short-yardage back because he's a good pass-receiver, good blocker, and tough runner. He can step in if there's an injury, and he's a good change of pace back, like many successful teams have. One guy with speed, one bruiser. Keep the defense off balance.

All in all he does the job.

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 12:13 PM
That's an important point. The key to the Patriots success is always having quality guys behind the starters; drafting solid players who can fill in and even start if a guy goes down to injury or leaves in FA.
So, getting Hillis in the 7th round is great. He probably isn't your starter, but he could easily be your short-yardage back because he's a good pass-receiver, good blocker, and tough runner. He can step in if there's an injury, and he's a good change of pace back, like many successful teams have. One guy with speed, one bruiser. Keep the defense off balance.

All in all he does the job.


something they have developed over the years (almost a decade) with solid drafting and "key" FA acquisitions.. something OUR past FO sucked at..

It will take 2-3 MORE years before we have that solid core of front line starters and start to build some depth behind them..

Right now if one of the OLINE went down we would spiral like we did when Lepsis went down.. outside of WR we have almost ZERO Quality depth and we are not real deep here either....

Fan in Exile
02-08-2009, 12:16 PM
Many say he should not be the feature back because his running style assures him a of a short career.. SO WHAT as long as he is getting the yards and being productive it is his choice on whether he has a brilliant 3 year career and a healthy paycheck instead of a smaller one as a blocking back only..

I'll take 4-5 whack and the hope of a few 20 yarders each game over the crap we have seen the past almost decade now.. (excepting poorti$$$)

Tired of hearing we need a take to the house guy in the backfield.. When they rarely produce anything but trips to IR.. I'll take Bettis types any day of the week.. Sooner or later the opposing DB are all on the sidelines or developing short arms when faced with getting in front of a freight train or trying to bring him down from behind..

I would agree with you about Hillis being the feature back, if he weren't such a threat in the passing game. I think he can be the kind of weapon that we really need long term. He's also the reason why I don't think we need to take a TE in this draft. I wouldn't mind it if we did but I really don't see the need to go after another receiving threat the way some want us to when we've got Hillis. I would like a RB so that Hillis doesn't get overused, that's where I think the need is.

If the FO decides that our RB of the future is already on the team I'm okay with that, but I think we should look at drafting one. (For what that's worth. :D)

Fan in Exile
02-08-2009, 12:22 PM
something they have developed over the years (almost a decade) with solid drafting and "key" FA acquisitions.. something OUR past FO sucked at..

It will take 2-3 MORE years before we have that solid core of front line starters and start to build some depth behind them..

Right now if one of the OLINE went down we would spiral like we did when Lepsis went down.. outside of WR we have almost ZERO Quality depth and we are not real deep here either....

This man love for the Pats drafting is more than a little out of place. Take a look at their recent drafts (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/nwe.htm) and you'll see that they haven't been all that spectacular. There are a lot of busts, which is why their defense is aging, they had to bring in a ton of WR's and they don't utilize the running game like they could.

Belichek makes that team a lot better than it is.

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 01:07 PM
This man love for the Pats drafting is more than a little out of place. Take a look at their recent drafts (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/nwe.htm) and you'll see that they haven't been all that spectacular. There are a lot of busts, which is why their defense is aging, they had to bring in a ton of WR's and they don't utilize the running game like they could.

Belichek makes that team a lot better than it is.


So who says they do not utilize their running game like they could? IIRC they are one of the best offensive teams in the league.. why run if you can throw?

I'll take their front office over what we have had prior to goodmans arrival any day..

many of those picks are on D and are not listed in the stats area much the the same as Lichtensteiger as not stats.. I'd guess some of those folks are on the shelf waiting to be used..

I'll agree that Belichick is a hell of a coach as mikey used to be.. and that a great coach can conjure up some wins that a Romeo crenell will not..

turftoad
02-08-2009, 01:57 PM
I like Hillis, however, I like him as a RBBC back.
I'd like to see him split time with a quicker back to kinda mix things up a bit. Keep defenses from keying in.

Ziggy
02-08-2009, 04:05 PM
I suspect that it was the doghouse syndrome that got Mike Bell more than fizzle..


most of them sucked donkey balls because mikey fell in love with them.. and DAFTED them in the first place.

Only after goodmans showed up have the DRAFTS not been DAFTS..

Price was pretty good until he got a fat contract a nd then took more plays off than he played.. He needed constant ragging by Rod and Mikey to get motivated..

dealt never had the mentality to play CB a superb athlete but did not have CB/QB ram.. meaning he could not forget about a great play or a bad one.. for every great one he made he gave up one.. because he was to busy in his mind patting himself on the back.. Of course we would have known that if we had scouted him more than a few games.. he had just been a CB a short time and when he made mistake they wrote it off to inexperience.. once again IMO mikey thought he could change and create another TD type wonder man.. the only thing mike did right with him was trying to make him into a WR. where EGO counts..

The there was mikey and his one handed WR Watts great story but who wastes a #2 on some kid with one real hand..



And yet another thread gets hijacked into a bash Shanahan thread.

topscribe
02-08-2009, 04:25 PM
I like Hillis, however, I like him as a RBBC back.
I'd like to see him split time with a quicker back to kinda mix things up a bit. Keep defenses from keying in.

I don't know how defenses will key on Hillis or any other back while the
Broncos have the QB and receivers that they do. Moreover, as long as Hillis
maintains a 5+ YPC, I don't care if we don't see another RB in there.

I really don't see why some people are playing down Hillis as a RB. Did they
see him play last year at all? What is it? That he's white? That he weighs 250
pounds? That he is only slightly faster than Terrell Davis in the 40? I really
don't understand. :confused:

I mean, Hillis took over at RB, and all the sudden the Broncos had a running
game! Moreover, they became a force in the red zone. Isn't that what RBs
are supposed to do? I know that some people (not directed at you, Turf)
are always looking over the fence at the grass, but sometimes we need to
check out what we're already standing on . . .

-----

Requiem / The Dagda
02-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Because we can do a Hell of a lot better.

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 05:03 PM
And yet another thread gets hijacked into a bash Shanahan thread.

Please tell me why you can't see the reasoning for the comment about mikey.. Who was our Rushing leader last year? any one mikeys picks for RB or was it his pick for FB .. Goodman's presented the guy with a viable RB and he chose to ignore and pigeon hole him and then larsen in front of him a LB till he had not other option..

A scary concept "can't see the forest from the trees" that if given the option in the first place could well have had a huge season and perhaps even saved the HC job..

Who knows?..

Please feel free to ignore any on my posts...

BTW mikey was canned for not doing his job.. time to get over it..

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 05:07 PM
I don't know how defenses will key on Hillis or any other back while the
Broncos have the QB and receivers that they do. Moreover, as long as Hillis
maintains a 5+ YPC, I don't care if we don't see another RB in there.

I really don't see why some people are playing down Hillis as a RB. Did they
see him play last year at all? What is it? That he's white? That he weighs 250
pounds? That he is only slightly faster than Terrell Davis in the 40? I really
don't understand. :confused:

I mean, Hillis took over at RB, and all the sudden the Broncos had a running
game! Moreover, they became a force in the red zone. Isn't that what RBs
are supposed to do? I know that some people (not directed at you, Turf)
are always looking over the fence at the grass, but sometimes we need to
check out what we're already standing on . . .

-----

On top of that he became while on the field as a RB a dangerous receiving weapon..

I just do not see how much more some folks seem to need. 5.0+ YPC, put many DB's on the sideline. made a few 20+ yard runs, was a real threat inside the red zone..

For Gods sake, the only thing he lacked was Red Cape ..

turftoad
02-08-2009, 06:44 PM
I don't know how defenses will key on Hillis or any other back while the
Broncos have the QB and receivers that they do. Moreover, as long as Hillis
maintains a 5+ YPC, I don't care if we don't see another RB in there.

I really don't see why some people are playing down Hillis as a RB. Did they
see him play last year at all? What is it? That he's white? That he weighs 250
pounds? That he is only slightly faster than Terrell Davis in the 40? I really
don't understand. :confused:

I mean, Hillis took over at RB, and all the sudden the Broncos had a running
game! Moreover, they became a force in the red zone. Isn't that what RBs
are supposed to do? I know that some people (not directed at you, Turf)
are always looking over the fence at the grass, but sometimes we need to
check out what we're already standing on . . .

-----

I don't discount him at all. Fact is, he runs hard and dish's out punishment. Problem with that is, he gets punished too.

I'd rather see him get 15 touch's plus short yardage. I just think we need someone else so he last's a whole year. I'd rather see him healthy and productive rather than banged and bruised. I'd rather see him at 100% or close to it.

So........... why not mix in a smaller quicker back to keep defenses on thier toes?

G_Money
02-08-2009, 07:51 PM
I really don't see why some people are playing down Hillis as a RB. Did they
see him play last year at all? What is it? That he's white? That he weighs 250
pounds? That he is only slightly faster than Terrell Davis in the 40? I really
don't understand. :confused:

I mean, Hillis took over at RB, and all the sudden the Broncos had a running
game! Moreover, they became a force in the red zone. Isn't that what RBs
are supposed to do? I know that some people (not directed at you, Turf)
are always looking over the fence at the grass, but sometimes we need to
check out what we're already standing on . . .

-----

There's nothing wrong with letting Hillis carry the ball.

There's also nothing wrong with trying to add a player who would make Hillis the 2nd best ball-carrier on the team.

Running backs get injured. Especially for us, but for every team. We saw how much our 3rd-down and short-yardage scenarios suffered both before and after Hillis and Pittman.

I don't think Pittman plays again.

So why go into a season with only one reliable back for critical yardage? :confused:

I mean, if you can help it you'd like to have more than one. TD didn't need more than one, but once TD blew his knee out our critical yardage running game suffered again and we had to draft Portis.

There's also no guarantee that Hillis comes back from ripping up his hamstring with no ill effects. Hamstring injuries are among the trickiest in sports.

Let's not bet the farm that Hillis can hold up to the pounding of being a 25 carry back every game, nor that he won't have recurring injury issues from this.

Look at it this way: if we best-case scenario it and Hillis is some mutant hick version of TD, then what's the worst thing that happens from adding a Portis to the team? Having both of them around?

Wow, that would be awful. :rolleyes:

The Chargers found out how much they missed Turner once he got out from under LT's shadow. The Steelers have Parker but drafted Mendenhall anyway, because backs only have so many carries in em. RB tandems are the status quo league-wide, even with great backs like Adrian Peterson. He's not the only RB Minnesota has. Miami has a coupla decent backs that helped them to the playoffs. Dallas has some runners. The G-men as well.

Why put it all on Hillis? Or if you prefer, on Hillis and the undrafted guys with health issues and the cell phone salesman?

Add another back who can legitimately challenge for the starting RB spot, who can do some things Hillis can't, and see what happens. That also happens to free up Hillis to do things like run pass patterns and take advantage of his ridiculous pass-catching skills without totally wearing him down in the run game.

Could we just back him up with Tatum and Andre and Quick? Sure.

Would I? No. They can all stay, but I want a better back than all of em added to the depth chart in front of them.

And that's not a slam on Hillis as much as it is an acknowledgement that he's a brutal runner who gives - and takes - a lot of punishment. I'd rather have 2 thousand-yard backs in the backfield than none. Hillis will get his through the air and on the ground, and the other runner can move the chains between the 20s.

It's really not a crazy idea, you know.

~G

turftoad
02-08-2009, 08:06 PM
There's nothing wrong with letting Hillis carry the ball.

There's also nothing wrong with trying to add a player who would make Hillis the 2nd best ball-carrier on the team.

Running backs get injured. Especially for us, but for every team. We saw how much our 3rd-down and short-yardage scenarios suffered both before and after Hillis and Pittman.

I don't think Pittman plays again.

So why go into a season with only one reliable back for critical yardage? :confused:

I mean, if you can help it you'd like to have more than one. TD didn't need more than one, but once TD blew his knee out our critical yardage running game suffered again and we had to draft Portis.

There's also no guarantee that Hillis comes back from ripping up his hamstring with no ill effects. Hamstring injuries are among the trickiest in sports.

Let's not bet the farm that Hillis can hold up to the pounding of being a 25 carry back every game, nor that he won't have recurring injury issues from this.

Look at it this way: if we best-case scenario it and Hillis is some mutant hick version of TD, then what's the worst thing that happens from adding a Portis to the team? Having both of them around?

Wow, that would be awful. :rolleyes:

The Chargers found out how much they missed Turner once he got out from under LT's shadow. The Steelers have Parker but drafted Mendenhall anyway, because backs only have so many carries in em. RB tandems are the status quo league-wide, even with great backs like Adrian Peterson. He's not the only RB Minnesota has. Miami has a coupla decent backs that helped them to the playoffs. Dallas has some runners. The G-men as well.

Why put it all on Hillis? Or if you prefer, on Hillis and the undrafted guys with health issues and the cell phone salesman?

Add another back who can legitimately challenge for the starting RB spot, who can do some things Hillis can't, and see what happens. That also happens to free up Hillis to do things like run pass patterns and take advantage of his ridiculous pass-catching skills without totally wearing him down in the run game.

Could we just back him up with Tatum and Andre and Quick? Sure.

Would I? No. They can all stay, but I want a better back than all of em added to the depth chart in front of them.

And that's not a slam on Hillis as much as it is an acknowledgement that he's a brutal runner who gives - and takes - a lot of punishment. I'd rather have 2 thousand-yard backs in the backfield than none. Hillis will get his through the air and on the ground, and the other runner can move the chains between the 20s.

It's really not a crazy idea, you know.

~G

Great post again "G". I totally agree, that said, lets just not address it to early in the draft when we have some much need at "D".

G_Money
02-08-2009, 08:12 PM
It depends who's there.

I keep telling people, for our offense I haven't seen a better runner than Donald Brown since TD.

Now, our offense is changing, but if the running stays the same - and with the OL coach and RB coach intact it very well may - then Brown is a 1500 yard back in this system. Do you turn down a 1500 yard back because you want to take a pass rusher that may not work out?

Brown may not work out either, but I'd have the odds weighted to his side. And if we add a pass-rusher or two in FA then we don't have to use draft slots on em.

Lemme see who we add in free agency, and then I'll tell you how I feel about our RB situation and where we can feel free to address it in the draft. ;)

~G

topscribe
02-08-2009, 08:22 PM
There's nothing wrong with letting Hillis carry the ball.

There's also nothing wrong with trying to add a player who would make Hillis the 2nd best ball-carrier on the team.

Running backs get injured. Especially for us, but for every team. We saw how much our 3rd-down and short-yardage scenarios suffered both before and after Hillis and Pittman.

I don't think Pittman plays again.

So why go into a season with only one reliable back for critical yardage? :confused:

I mean, if you can help it you'd like to have more than one. TD didn't need more than one, but once TD blew his knee out our critical yardage running game suffered again and we had to draft Portis.

There's also no guarantee that Hillis comes back from ripping up his hamstring with no ill effects. Hamstring injuries are among the trickiest in sports.

Let's not bet the farm that Hillis can hold up to the pounding of being a 25 carry back every game, nor that he won't have recurring injury issues from this.

Look at it this way: if we best-case scenario it and Hillis is some mutant hick version of TD, then what's the worst thing that happens from adding a Portis to the team? Having both of them around?

Wow, that would be awful. :rolleyes:

The Chargers found out how much they missed Turner once he got out from under LT's shadow. The Steelers have Parker but drafted Mendenhall anyway, because backs only have so many carries in em. RB tandems are the status quo league-wide, even with great backs like Adrian Peterson. He's not the only RB Minnesota has. Miami has a coupla decent backs that helped them to the playoffs. Dallas has some runners. The G-men as well.

Why put it all on Hillis? Or if you prefer, on Hillis and the undrafted guys with health issues and the cell phone salesman?

Add another back who can legitimately challenge for the starting RB spot, who can do some things Hillis can't, and see what happens. That also happens to free up Hillis to do things like run pass patterns and take advantage of his ridiculous pass-catching skills without totally wearing him down in the run game.

Could we just back him up with Tatum and Andre and Quick? Sure.

Would I? No. They can all stay, but I want a better back than all of em added to the depth chart in front of them.

And that's not a slam on Hillis as much as it is an acknowledgement that he's a brutal runner who gives - and takes - a lot of punishment. I'd rather have 2 thousand-yard backs in the backfield than none. Hillis will get his through the air and on the ground, and the other runner can move the chains between the 20s.

It's really not a crazy idea, you know.

~G

G, of course, it depends on what it would cost to add that RB. I believe the
Broncos do have a very capable stable of backs. The object, we have to
remember, is winning, not racking up impressive rushing statistics. Would one
rather have the SB trophies of the Patriots, who never had one of the truly
outstanding rushing offenses, or a Gayle Sayers or Barry Sanders and no
championships?

The Broncos have Hillis with a 5.0 YPC, Selvin with a 5.0, and the "cell phone
salesman" to whom you alluded with an astounding 5.7 (so why keep
disparaging him on that?). I am not going to force myself to believe that the
freak number of injuries last year are going to be perennial. These are good
running backs, and according to the players, as I read, Torain might be the
best of the bunch.

I am all for ignoring the RB position in the draft and going after defense. As I
said, the object is winning, not tallying up great rushing statistics. You can
have Adrian Peterson and LT in his prime together back there, and you will not
win championships with that defense.

The Broncos have what they need for their committee with power in Hillis and
Pittman and speed in Tater and Selvin. The only possible offensive need I see
is at OG. On defense, they don't have good safeties, and they desperately
need more strength and power up front. And it wouldn't hurt to fortify the ILB
position.

But regarding Hillis, he was doing a marvelous job of moving chains between
the 20s, as well as in the red zone. And so was Tater, ever since he came
back, for that matter. Why say we need a tractor that can pull the plow when
we have a tractor that can pull the plow?

-----

G_Money
02-08-2009, 09:14 PM
Teams with Willie Parker, Marion Barber, Adrian Peterson, LT, Ronnie Brown, Brandon Jacobs, etc all have a guy that can "pull the plow."

And they all have another guy that can pull the plow.

And in some cases they even have a THIRD guy who can pull the plow.

Maybe Hillis can pull the plow. I think he can pull his share.

Maybe Bell can pull the plow. I don't mind him as the safety valve, but I'd rather not have him as the 2nd option, and his 250 yards on the year might be a nice indicator but sure aren't gold-bricked assurances as to his capabilities over the long haul. He's always been good for 10 or 12 plays.

But even though our defense should improve with better coaches and the theoretically better players we should be adding, it'd sure make it easier on em if they weren't on the field all the time.

The running game keeps the other defense on the field. The passing game doesn't do that, at least not without some serious effort. It'd let us have a chance in those few games a year where Jay can't hit the broad side of a barn, either.

I don't advocate adding a RB if we address none of our offseason needs in FA. But impact players are impact players wherever you add them. The Cardinals added Fitzgerald when they already had Boldin. Overkill? Looked like just right kill until the last couple minutes of the Super Bowl.

We don't need Eddie Mac, we already have Smith and Sharpe. We don't need Atwater, we already have Smith. We don't need Neil Smith, we already have Williams. We don't need Portis, we already have Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson.

*shrugs* Impact is impact. Would you rather have Jarvis Moss or Jon Beason? At the time we NEEDED a DE and were moving DJ to cover our need at MLB. We whiffed on the impact player because we determined we didn't need a MLB, only a DE. We were wrong.

If there's an Adrian Peterson/Larry Fitzgerald in the draft and he comes to you, do you pass him by because you don't feel like you desperately need him and draft Jarvis Moss - or Willie Middlebrooks, or Deltha O'Neal, or whoever - instead?

I'm with you in theory - I'd love to kill the draft with defensive impact player after defensive impact player.

But if the impact player available at the time is an offensive one, I would hate to say, "Eh, Bell's good enough" and let somebody else draft the 1500 yard runner we could have had because we absolutely refused to budge from forcing defensive draftpicks down the pike.

2007 was our "only draft linemen" draft, because that's all we NEEDED. Know who's worked out so far? The offensive guy.

Sometimes you can't get what you want in the draft, and you can't force it. Just take what's there.

~G

topscribe
02-08-2009, 09:16 PM
Teams with Willie Parker, Marion Barber, Adrian Peterson, LT, Ronnie Brown, Brandon Jacobs, etc all have a guy that can "pull the plow."

And they all have another guy that can pull the plow.

And in some cases they even have a THIRD guy who can pull the plow.

Maybe Hillis can pull the plow. I think he can pull his share.

Maybe Bell can pull the plow. I don't mind him as the safety valve, but I'd rather not have him as the 2nd option, and his 250 yards on the year might be a nice indicator but sure aren't gold-bricked assurances as to his capabilities over the long haul. He's always been good for 10 or 12 plays.

But even though our defense should improve with better coaches and the theoretically better players we should be adding, it'd sure make it easier on em if they weren't on the field all the time.

The running game keeps the other defense on the field. The passing game doesn't do that, at least not without some serious effort. It'd let us have a chance in those few games a year where Jay can't hit the broad side of a barn, either.

I don't advocate adding a RB if we address none of our offseason needs in FA. But impact players are impact players wherever you add them. The Cardinals added Fitzgerald when they already had Boldin. Overkill? Looked like just right kill until the last couple minutes of the Super Bowl.

We don't need Eddie Mac, we already have Smith and Sharpe. We don't need Atwater, we already have Smith. We don't need Neil Smith, we already have Williams. We don't need Portis, we already have Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson.

*shrugs* Impact is impact. Would you rather have Jarvis Moss or Jon Beason? At the time we NEEDED a DE and were moving DJ to cover our need at MLB. We whiffed on the impact player because we determined we didn't need a MLB, only a DE. We were wrong.

If there's an Adrian Peterson/Larry Fitzgerald in the draft and he comes to you, do you pass him by because you don't feel like you desperately need him and draft Jarvis Moss - or Willie Middlebrooks, or Deltha O'Neal, or whoever - instead?

I'm with you in theory - I'd love to kill the draft with defensive impact player after defensive impact player.

But if the impact player available at the time is an offensive one, I would hate to say, "Eh, Bell's good enough" and let somebody else draft the 1500 yard runner we could have had because we absolutely refused to budge from forcing defensive draftpicks down the pike.

2007 was our "only draft linemen" draft, because that's all we NEEDED. Know who's worked out so far? The offensive guy.

Sometimes you can't get what you want in the draft, and you can't force it. Just take what's there.

~G

I understand all that, but with Hillis and then Bell last year, the Broncos had a running game.

-----

omac
02-08-2009, 09:26 PM
Both good points by G_Money and topscribe; I can't disagree with the logic of either.

I tend to side with G_Money's assessment of our RB situation, though. Since the season before, when Young and Hall were playing for the Broncos, and Torain was in college, they were pretty injury prone. Tatum's an enigma; sometimes, he runs well, even between the tackles, and sometimes, he looks like he can be brought down with a gentle push. :D

I'd rather get one more solid RB, but not in the 1st round.

G_Money
02-08-2009, 09:29 PM
The Broncos had a running game with Gary and Anderson.

And with Anderson and Tatum.

And with both Bells.

And...

The Broncos, since Shanahan got here, have always had SOME kind of running game.

But it was still at its best with TD. We won championships with those teams.

And then next were the Portis teams.

We're a team that's always been able to move the ball on the ground at some point during the game.

We only moved it when it mattered last year with Hillis, and some of Pittman.

If we want to win playoff games, we'll have to be able to move the ball on the ground when it matters.

Bell has almost never done that, and until Hillis got in the game and carried some fools on his back I thought all Denver RBs had lost the knack.

You seem to think we have more than one back with that knack, or that the knack isn't that important. I disagree, that's all.

It's okay to disagree about that. ;) I'd just rather have knack redundancy than no knack at all. Having 2 guys who can get me a crucial 4th down conversion is a better problem to have than not having any.

~G

omac
02-08-2009, 09:33 PM
Teams with Willie Parker, Marion Barber, Adrian Peterson, LT, Ronnie Brown, Brandon Jacobs, etc all have a guy that can "pull the plow."

And they all have another guy that can pull the plow.

And in some cases they even have a THIRD guy who can pull the plow.

Maybe Hillis can pull the plow. I think he can pull his share.

Maybe Bell can pull the plow. I don't mind him as the safety valve, but I'd rather not have him as the 2nd option, and his 250 yards on the year might be a nice indicator but sure aren't gold-bricked assurances as to his capabilities over the long haul. He's always been good for 10 or 12 plays.

But even though our defense should improve with better coaches and the theoretically better players we should be adding, it'd sure make it easier on em if they weren't on the field all the time.

The running game keeps the other defense on the field. The passing game doesn't do that, at least not without some serious effort. It'd let us have a chance in those few games a year where Jay can't hit the broad side of a barn, either.

I don't advocate adding a RB if we address none of our offseason needs in FA. But impact players are impact players wherever you add them. The Cardinals added Fitzgerald when they already had Boldin. Overkill? Looked like just right kill until the last couple minutes of the Super Bowl.

We don't need Eddie Mac, we already have Smith and Sharpe. We don't need Atwater, we already have Smith. We don't need Neil Smith, we already have Williams. We don't need Portis, we already have Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson.

*shrugs* Impact is impact. Would you rather have Jarvis Moss or Jon Beason? At the time we NEEDED a DE and were moving DJ to cover our need at MLB. We whiffed on the impact player because we determined we didn't need a MLB, only a DE. We were wrong.

If there's an Adrian Peterson/Larry Fitzgerald in the draft and he comes to you, do you pass him by because you don't feel like you desperately need him and draft Jarvis Moss - or Willie Middlebrooks, or Deltha O'Neal, or whoever - instead?

I'm with you in theory - I'd love to kill the draft with defensive impact player after defensive impact player.

But if the impact player available at the time is an offensive one, I would hate to say, "Eh, Bell's good enough" and let somebody else draft the 1500 yard runner we could have had because we absolutely refused to budge from forcing defensive draftpicks down the pike.

2007 was our "only draft linemen" draft, because that's all we NEEDED. Know who's worked out so far? The offensive guy.

Sometimes you can't get what you want in the draft, and you can't force it. Just take what's there.

~G

Great post! :salute:

Great points about impact players, and great example with Moss versus Beason at need vs. impact. We might end up chucking Moss, while Beason went to the probowl.

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 09:52 PM
Please stop folks with the we have to add another RB routine..

Unless Mc Kid comes completely out of the NE scheme, no one RB is gonna become that 25 per carry guy we have seen in DEN..

Not going to happen.. they pretty much have been a pass first team.. do you think he is going to change that with all the passing firepower we have?

just since 2004 numbers..

attempts per game
year running passing there studbuffalo APG
2004 32 30 21
2005 27 35 19
2006 31 31 12
2007 28 36 14.2
2008 32 33 9.7



Please think about it there is a huge difference in style between NE and mikey.. I do not think Pat hired the guy to become mikey II..

there is a NEW guy in town and he was born into a pass first mentality

dogfish
02-08-2009, 10:21 PM
i'm with ya, G-- if we're dumb enough to rely on "crutch" torain and "band-aid" young, we'll most likely get what we deserve. . . most of the best teams have not one but two solid RBs-- it's time for us to join the party, instead of relying on guys that went undrafted, or quite possibly would have if we hadn't taken a late round flier on them. . . we've got one in hillis i believe-- it's time to get another, next year for sure if we don't this year. . .


and JR, who knows what mcdaniels would have done if he'd HAD a quality RB to work with? how do you know he wasn't just maximizing the available talent? when you have both a QB and a WR who can both make strong arguments to be ranked in the top 3-5 to ever play the positions, why would you try to run sammy morris and kevin faulk 400 times? cutler and marshall are talented, but they're hardly on that level yet-- and they'd both be all the more effective with a strong, reliable ground game to balance the offense. . . if mcdaniels can't see that he's got his head up his ass, but i for one won't accuse him before he's called a single play here-- leave that to lex. . .

IF hillis can stay healthy and handle 250+ carries next year i think our running game's in pretty decent shape, but if he goes down IMO we're back to thrwing all the time-- and i'd rather not see that happen. . .

and realistically, i just don't see us spending eight or nine draft picks on defense, especially if we add several players on that side of the ball in free agency. . . how many rooks are really going to make the team? not to mention, we still need to see if our shiny new coaching staff can make something out of the talent on hand-- i'm not ready to concede that guys like crowder, moss and barrett have no chance to contribute. . . if we bring in two solid defensive starters in FA, spend two of our top three picks and about six total on that side of the ball, there's absolutely no reason we can't grab a 2nd or 3rd round RB and a developmental interior OL and TE somewhere on the second day. . .

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 10:42 PM
i'm with ya, G-- if we're dumb enough to rely on "crutch" torain and "band-aid" young, we'll most likely get what we deserve. . . most of the best teams have not one but two solid RBs-- it's time for us to join the party, instead of relying on guys that went undrafted, or quite possibly would have if we hadn't taken a late round flier on them. . . we've got one in hillis i believe-- it's time to get another, next year for sure if we don't this year. . .


and JR, who knows what mcdaniels would have done if he'd HAD a quality RB to work with? how do you know he wasn't just maximizing the available talent? when you have both a QB and a WR who can both make strong arguments to be ranked in the top 3-5 to ever play the positions, why would you try to run sammy morris and kevin faulk 400 times? cutler and marshall are talented, but they're hardly on that level yet-- and they'd both be all the more effective with a strong, reliable ground game to balance the offense. . . if mcdaniels can't see that he's got his head up his ass, but i for one won't accuse him before he's called a single play here-- leave that to lex. . .

IF hillis can stay healthy and handle 250+ carries next year i think our running game's in pretty decent shape, but if he goes down IMO we're back to thrwing all the time-- and i'd rather not see that happen. . .

and realistically, i just don't see us spending eight or nine draft picks on defense, especially if we add several players on that side of the ball in free agency. . . how many rooks are really going to make the team? not to mention, we still need to see if our shiny new coaching staff can make something out of the talent on hand-- i'm not ready to concede that guys like crowder, moss and barrett have no chance to contribute. . . if we bring in two solid defensive starters in FA, spend two of our top three picks and about six total on that side of the ball, there's absolutely no reason we can't grab a 2nd or 3rd round RB and a developmental interior OL and TE somewhere on the second day. . .


but he had Corey Dillon in 2004 and he only got 21 carries a game with the next one Faulk with 4.9

I'll redo my numbers as I noticed in 2005 Dillon actually did not play in every game he had 19 carries a game played..

maroney in 2007 had 14.7 per game.

Even with having a stud buffalo for their system they flat did not run it like we did. They were a Pass first offense.. and unless this zebra changes his spots I see NO reason to believe we will be drafting a RB until later on day two..

dogfish
02-08-2009, 11:24 PM
but he had Corey Dillon in 2004 and he only got 21 carries a game with the next one Faulk with 4.9

charlie weiss was new england's OC in 2004, not mcdaniels. . .



I'll redo my numbers as I noticed in 2005 Dillon actually did not play in every game he had 19 carries a game played..

bellyache called the plays in 2005-- mcdaniels didn't take over the OC and playcalling duties until '06. . .



maroney in 2007 had 14.7 per game.

Even with having a stud buffalo for their system they flat did not run it like we did. They were a Pass first offense.. and unless this zebra changes his spots I see NO reason to believe we will be drafting a RB until later on day two..

maroney's NOT a stud buffalo-- he's a talented but injury prone flash in the pan who has never played 16 games in a season, has never exceeded 6 rushing TDs and has never had a thousand yard season. . .

fact is, we've never seen what mcdaniels would do with a quality back because he's never been the playcaller for a team that had one. . . more so, we can look at what he did in new england, but everything he did there was under bellyache's directions-- that's no guarantee that he WON'T do the same things here, but there's no proof that he will, either. . . this is his first time being the top dude, and until we actually SEE what he's going to do we're not doing more than guessing. . . my guess is that he may well want to play a bit more ball control than they have in NE the past few seasons once he gets a good look at our current seive of a _efense. . . . i'm also guessing that he may not be all that interested in stocking his roster with afterthought runnings backs that can't walk from the bench to the gatorade jug without seriously hurting themselves. . .


for me, that's one of the most exciting parts about having a new coach. . . not only do i hope that he'll look at guys like hillis and some others (larsen, crowder, barrett, woodyard) and see what they're cpable of, but i also hope that he'll clear out the dead weight that shenanigans was so strangely dedicated to-- starting with guys like john engelberger and nate jackson, and any and all RBs that can't stay on the field more than two quarters without limping off. . .

Lonestar
02-08-2009, 11:46 PM
charlie weiss was new england's OC in 2004, not mcdaniels. . .

I guess you missed my commetn about him growing up in teh NE system of pass first and run later..

bellyache called the plays in 2005-- mcdaniels didn't take over the OC and playcalling duties until '06. . .

maroney's NOT a stud buffalo-- he's a talented but injury prone flash in the pan who has never played 16 games in a season, has never exceeded 6 rushing TDs and has never had a thousand yard season. . .

fact is, we've never seen what mcdaniels would do with a quality back because he's never been the playcaller for a team that had one. . . more so, we can look at what he did in new england, but everything he did there was under bellyache's directions-- that's no guarantee that he WON'T do the same things here, but there's no proof that he will, either. . . this is his first time being the top dude, and until we actually SEE what he's going to do we're not doing more than guessing. . . my guess is that he may well want to play a bit more ball control than they have in NE the past few seasons once he gets a good look at our current seive of a _efense. . . . i'm also guessing that he may not be all that interested in stocking his roster with afterthought runnings backs that can't walk from the bench to the gatorade jug without seriously hurting themselves. . .


for me, that's one of the most exciting parts about having a new coach. . . not only do i hope that he'll look at guys like hillis and some others (larsen, crowder, barrett, woodyard) and see what they're cpable of, but i also hope that he'll clear out the dead weight that shenanigans was so strangely dedicated to-- starting with guys like john engelberger and nate jackson, and any and all RBs that can't stay on the field more than two quarters without limping off. . .


I am well aware of who was calling the plays.. and who set the tone for what was called..

I also think he is going to fix the D first and tinker with the offense later..

Right now we have all of the "NE type stud Buffalo's" we need on this team..

I think he will be content to pass first and run to keep the defense honest and near the goal line, using Hillis deep inside the red zone and also as the second coming of Faulk catching passes out of the backfield....


Lets hope he keeps those that can contribute and get rid of the dead wood.. And frankly we will not know that till training camp I think the only real house cleaning he will do is roster bonus folks that are not worth the chance they may work out in a 3-4..

cheaper players like engelberger will be kept until replaced IMO.. and I do like Nate and leach as they serve a useful function without breaking the bank.. but would expect them to be gone in a couple of years as Mc Kid replaces them with his own fodder..

broncofaninfla
02-09-2009, 09:00 AM
Hillis is by far the best RB we currently have andbrings more to the table than just running the ball. He has the power to bust through the line, the speed to make the big run and the hands to catch anythinhg thrown to him. The more Hillis is involved with the offense the better of we'll be and the more the oppossing defense will have to account for him which will open up others on our offense. McD will see that on tape and will game plan accordingly.

Requiem / The Dagda
02-09-2009, 10:26 AM
Denver needs more talent at RB. That is all.

LRtagger
02-09-2009, 11:03 AM
but he had Corey Dillon in 2004 and he only got 21 carries a game with the next one Faulk with 4.9

I'll redo my numbers as I noticed in 2005 Dillon actually did not play in every game he had 19 carries a game played..

maroney in 2007 had 14.7 per game.

Even with having a stud buffalo for their system they flat did not run it like we did. They were a Pass first offense.. and unless this zebra changes his spots I see NO reason to believe we will be drafting a RB until later on day two..

I posted this in another thread, but am too lazy to look it up :D

I posted running plays vs passing plays for Denver and NE over the past 3 seasons. Those are the seasons McD was the OC in NE.

NE had significantly more running plays than we did in Denver. Honestly, I think with McD in Denver we will run the ball more than we would have with Shanny and his staff here in 09. Not only that, but we could actually have a defense that can hold opponents from scoring on every posession and allow us to run the ball with a lead rather than playing catch-up through the air.

Lonestar
02-09-2009, 12:51 PM
I posted this in another thread, but am too lazy to look it up :D

I posted running plays vs passing plays for Denver and NE over the past 3 seasons. Those are the seasons McD was the OC in NE.

NE had significantly more running plays than we did in Denver. Honestly, I think with McD in Denver we will run the ball more than we would have with Shanny and his staff here in 09. Not only that, but we could actually have a defense that can hold opponents from scoring on every posession and allow us to run the ball with a lead rather than playing catch-up through the air.


I just do not see it NE only ran the ball more time once in the last 5 years than pass it.. and even then it was about 40 more time for the year..

Not in one of those other years did they have a studbuffalo that carried more than 19 times a game all the time it was under 15 times a game. and the number two person was for the most part under 10.. they really spread the ball around. for whatever reason and they were 80% of the time pass first for lack of a better term..

While we where decent last year running the ball this OLINE was developed to PASS Protect.. I did not think ANYONE can deny that and that is what they were best at..

Coupled with one of the most prolific passers three really good to great WR and couple of TE's folks I truly believe that run first is toast in Den.. yes Mc Kid was only the OC for two years but even last year when he had a totally inexperienced back up QB they still passed 21 more times than ran the ball.. He has been in the NE system his entire NFL career and it worked in NE I do not see him changing his spots for stripes now that he is in charge..

Therefore I think unless Hillis does not recover that he will be that 15 carry pass receiving RB that has been in their system the past 5 or more years..

I also think that other existing RBs will be used until such time as the gaping holes on Defense are filled and we have the luxury of going after a RB in 2010 or 11..

dogfish
02-09-2009, 01:22 PM
I just do not see it NE only ran the ball more time once in the last 5 years than pass it.. and even then it was about 40 more time for the year..

Not in one of those other years did they have a studbuffalo that carried more than 19 times a game all the time it was under 15 times a game. and the number two person was for the most part under 10.. they really spread the ball around. for whatever reason and they were 80% of the time pass first for lack of a better term..

While we where decent last year running the ball this OLINE was developed to PASS Protect.. I did not think ANYONE can deny that and that is what they were best at..

Coupled with one of the most prolific passers three really good to great WR and couple of TE's folks I truly believe that run first is toast in Den.. yes Mc Kid was only the OC for two years but even last year when he had a totally inexperienced back up QB they still passed 21 more times than ran the ball.. He has been in the NE system his entire NFL career and it worked in NE I do not see him changing his spots for stripes now that he is in charge..

Therefore I think unless Hillis does not recover that he will be that 15 carry pass receiving RB that has been in their system the past 5 or more years..

I also think that other existing RBs will be used until such time as the gaping holes on Defense are filled and we have the luxury of going after a RB in 2010 or 11..




all the more reason to get one here, right?


:laugh:



seriously though, i do tend to think you're right that his offense will be at least a little on the pass heavy side, although we won't know for sure until we actually get to watch some games. . . . and really, given the offensive personnel that we have, i'm fine with that-- i've said before, i don't so much care how we win as long as we win, and NE back in the charlie weiss era showed that they were capable of playing an efficient, ball-control offense using the short passing game out of spread formations instead of a lot of running plays. . . i have a personal preference towards a hardnosed, grind-it-out, punishing physical style, but whatever works i'm not going to complain about if it's getting results. . . i just hope he doesn't come in and want to go shotgun on first down all the time and be a pass-happy mike martz stupid kind of offense that gets the quarterback killed and leads to a bunch of turnovers. . .

but even if he wants to run a pass first offense, we'll still be running on probably 45% of the plays-- even philly is over 40%, and they run the ball less than any other team in the league. . . and that means we still need reliable backs, which IMO means we still need another, because we've only got one right now. . .

we can talk about this from now until the draft without really determining anything-- once we see who we draft, then we'll have a much clearer idea how mcdaniels and the FO feel about it, and in the end their opinions are the only ones that count. . .

Lonestar
02-09-2009, 01:32 PM
all the more reason to get one here, right?


:laugh:



seriously though, i do tend to think you're right that his offense will be at least a little on the pass heavy side, although we won't know for sure until we actually get to watch some games. . . . and really, given the offensive personnel that we have, i'm fine with that-- i've said before, i don't so much care how we win as long as we win, and NE back in the charlie weiss era showed that they were capable of playing an efficient, ball-control offense using the short passing game out of spread formations instead of a lot of running plays. . . i have a personal preference towards a hardnosed, grind-it-out, punishing physical style, but whatever works i'm not going to complain about if it's getting results. . . i just hope he doesn't come in and want to go shotgun on first down all the time and be a pass-happy mike martz stupid kind of offense that gets the quarterback killed and leads to a bunch of turnovers. . .

but even if he wants to run a pass first offense, we'll still be running on probably 45% of the plays-- even philly is over 40%, and they run the ball less than any other team in the league. . . and that means we still need reliable backs, which IMO means we still need another, because we've only got one right now. . .

we can talk about this from now until the draft without really determining anything-- once we see who we draft, then we'll have a much clearer idea how mcdaniels and the FO feel about it, and in the end their opinions are the only ones that count. . .


While I also like the heavy running game even hearkening back to Lombardi when they would come to the LOS and tell them we are coming over left guard try and stop us, type of hard nosed ball control...

But I do not see it in todays NFL we have built this OLINE for drop back Pass protect.. unless we redo the OLINE and add 10-15 pounds average per guy up front then running will be of less importance.. IMO..

I see it as run enough to keep the DL honest and spread the ball around to alot of different players.. just like they did in NE..

Again we may get another RB for insurance sake I just do not see this team doing anything but loading up the D side of the ledger.. As much as NE has liked old timers like Faulk, bruski Etal, I'd bet that unless Pittman just does not have it anymore or is jail :laugh: he will be around to back up Hillis..

LRtagger
02-09-2009, 01:56 PM
I just do not see it NE only ran the ball more time once in the last 5 years than pass it.. and even then it was about 40 more time for the year..

Not in one of those other years did they have a studbuffalo that carried more than 19 times a game all the time it was under 15 times a game. and the number two person was for the most part under 10.. they really spread the ball around. for whatever reason and they were 80% of the time pass first for lack of a better term..

While we where decent last year running the ball this OLINE was developed to PASS Protect.. I did not think ANYONE can deny that and that is what they were best at..

Coupled with one of the most prolific passers three really good to great WR and couple of TE's folks I truly believe that run first is toast in Den.. yes Mc Kid was only the OC for two years but even last year when he had a totally inexperienced back up QB they still passed 21 more times than ran the ball.. He has been in the NE system his entire NFL career and it worked in NE I do not see him changing his spots for stripes now that he is in charge..

Therefore I think unless Hillis does not recover that he will be that 15 carry pass receiving RB that has been in their system the past 5 or more years..

I also think that other existing RBs will be used until such time as the gaping holes on Defense are filled and we have the luxury of going after a RB in 2010 or 11..


Most teams throw the ball more than run, but NE was much more balanced than Shanahan's offense over the past couple seasons...I found the post I was talking about before


NFL.com says we ran the ball 387 times and threw the ball 620.

Last year it says we ran the ball 429 times.

In 2006 it was 488. In 2005, 542.

It also says the Pats ran the ball 513 times this season, 451 times in 2007, and 499 times in 2006. Those seasons under McD as OC.

Ever since Mike drafted Jay we have slowly gotten away from our balanced rushing offense and moved more towards a passing offense. IMO in 2009 even if Mike were still the coach we would have run it less than 450 times....maybe even less than 400. People are complaining that we will run the ball less under McD, but I disagree. Unless Mike would have taken a top back this year, we would have had a similar season to last year IMO.

On the contrary, McD ran he ball 159 more times over the last 3 seasons than Mike did in Denver. Not only that, but the most glaring stat IMO is they scored 58 rushing TDs under McD and we scored 37 rushing TDs under the Mastermind in the past three years....then consider all the success they have had passing the ball recently. I'm not sure why everyone is so worked up over McD's offense It has been much more consistant and much more productive than Mikes has in recent memory.

Not to mention with McD we get a competant defensive staff regardless of how much we run the ball. We would never have that under Mike.


If you look at the stats, we ran he ball less this year AND LAST YEAR than NE did...yes, they even ran the ball more than us last year in their record shattering season. I would say we are in good hands with McD regardless of who is in the backfield. We could have TD back in the backfield, but with Jay under center Mike still would have thrown the ball 600 times. It was stupid to put the running game on the backburner just because we have a QB with a good arm...not only that but I think it slowed down Jay's development making him throw the ball that many times.

Lonestar
02-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Most teams throw the ball more than run, but NE was much more balanced than Shanahan's offense over the past couple seasons...I found the post I was talking about before




If you look at the stats, we ran he ball less this year AND LAST YEAR than NE did...yes, they even ran the ball more than us last year in their record shattering season. I would say we are in good hands with McD regardless of who is in the backfield. We could have TD back in the backfield, but with Jay under center Mike still would have thrown the ball 600 times. It was stupid to put the running game on the backburner just because we have a QB with a good arm...not only that but I think it slowed down Jay's development making him throw the ball that many times.


While I see your point I still believe that the only reason they bumped their running plays by 10% more than years prior was the added comfort it gave the "rookie" QB.

I think mike panicked about having a lousy D and he had to know he was In a shit storm if he did not get to the playoffs as he promised everyone..

LRtagger
02-09-2009, 02:30 PM
While I see your point I still believe that the only reason they bumped their running plays by 10% more than years prior was the added comfort it gave the "rookie" QB.

Right about this year, but that doesn't explain why they ran the ball more than us even last year. Remember last year when Brady broke almost every passing record known to man? They still ran the ball more than Denver. It is pretty unbelievable.


I think mike panicked about having a lousy D and he had to know he was In a shit storm if he did not get to the playoffs as he promised everyone..

I agree completely, and that is what caused Shanny's demise. His unwillingness to fix the defense and fire Slowik and the fact that for whatever reason he felt the need to put the entire team on Jay's back. We actually won games when Hillis and Pittman were running the ball hard for us.

I hope to see vast improvements across the entire spectrum next year with McD in charge.

weazel
02-09-2009, 02:37 PM
IF Hillis stays healthy, we make the playoffs...

IF we had an entire different defense we would make the playoffs...

IF we had different coaches we would make the playoffs...

IF my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle.

This is rubbish

Lonestar
02-09-2009, 02:43 PM
Right about this year, but that doesn't explain why they ran the ball more than us even last year. Remember last year when Brady broke almost every passing record known to man? They still ran the ball more than Denver. It is pretty unbelievable.



I agree completely, and that is what caused Shanny's demise. His unwillingness to fix the defense and fire Slowik and the fact that for whatever reason he felt the need to put the entire team on Jay's back. We actually won games when Hillis and Pittman were running the ball hard for us.

I hope to see vast improvements across the entire spectrum next year with McD in charge.


can't answer for why they ran it more last 2007 year than we did could have been the weather I just know maroney only carried it 14.2 times a game.. and that is not much.. and he was their Studbuffalo that year..

I see no reason to believe Mc Kid will run more this coming year considering JAY, Brandon'S, Eddie, Scheffler, Graham, and Hillis are all prime time recievers.... and Hillis IF he healed is easliy able to carry it 12-15 times a game.. with left overs for the peanut gallery..

fcspikeit
02-09-2009, 02:52 PM
can't answer for why they ran it more last 2007 year than we did could have been the weather I just know maroney only carried it 14.2 times a game.. and that is not much.. and he was their Studbuffalo that year..

I see no reason to believe Mc Kid will run more this coming year considering JAY, Brandon'S, Eddie, Scheffler, Graham, and Hillis are all prime time recievers.... and Hillis IF he healed is easliy able to carry it 12-15 times a game.. with left overs for the peanut gallery..

Was the 14.2 the average from the total games he played in or the average bases on a 16 game season? IIRC, he missed games in both 2007 and 2008...

Lonestar
02-09-2009, 03:06 PM
Was the 14.2 the average from the total games he played in or the average bases on a 16 game season? IIRC, he missed games in both 2007 and 2008...

14.2 per game played.. not much
morris had 12 per game last year.. next was faulk at 5.5 still not much


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/stats/2007/patriots/

LRtagger
02-09-2009, 03:12 PM
14.2 per game played.. not much
morris had 12 per game last year.. next was faulk at 5.5 still not much


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/stats/2007/patriots/

To be fair, the Pats were 6th in the league in rushing this year and their leading rusher was Morris with 727 yards. They don't have a single guy that is a stud, but I will take 6th in the league all day in Denver...especially with the rushing TD production they have had in NE.

Sure I would love a stud back, but if McD can use the RBBC effectively, I wont complain. If we are 6th in the league in rushing I will be happy with that regardless of who is toting the rock.

Lonestar
02-09-2009, 03:47 PM
To be fair, the Pats were 6th in the league in rushing this year and their leading rusher was Morris with 727 yards. They don't have a single guy that is a stud, but I will take 6th in the league all day in Denver...especially with the rushing TD production they have had in NE.

Sure I would love a stud back, but if McD can use the RBBC effectively, I wont complain. If we are 6th in the league in rushing I will be happy with that regardless of who is toting the rock.

but the 4.4YPC for the team leaves alot to be desired.

Considering Cassell accounted for 270 yards I suspect that would drive down their #6 if that were taken out..

whereas Jay had 57 this year.. so let take 160 yards out and see where they might have been #7 still about 300 more yards than we had..

I still think pass first is in the future..

LRtagger
02-09-2009, 04:12 PM
but the 4.4YPC for the team leaves alot to be desired.

Considering Cassell accounted for 270 yards I suspect that would drive down their #6 if that were taken out..

whereas Jay had 57 this year.. so let take 160 yards out and see where they might have been #7 still about 300 more yards than we had..

I still think pass first is in the future..

Pass first is in the past. That's kind of my point. We have been a pass happy team since Jay was drafted, so I'm not really worried about the difference.

Also if you start taking out certain stats to get YPC, then we would have to take out Royal's long run, any WR bubble screens that were laterals, etc.

I think with our line, our RBs, and our RB/Line coaches, we could see a very good running game this year should people stay healthy. Couple that with a new offensive philosophy that the players are excited about and we could have a better offensive year than last year. I think we will.

CoachChaz
02-09-2009, 04:44 PM
Pass first is in the past. That's kind of my point. We have been a pass happy team since Jay was drafted, so I'm not really worried about the difference.

Also if you start taking out certain stats to get YPC, then we would have to take out Royal's long run, any WR bubble screens that were laterals, etc.

I think with our line, our RBs, and our RB/Line coaches, we could see a very good running game this year should people stay healthy. Couple that with a new offensive philosophy that the players are excited about and we could have a better offensive year than last year. I think we will.

I think we've figured out the running stats without the WR runs a few times. The running game still had very good numbers all around.

LRtagger
02-09-2009, 04:49 PM
I think we've figured out the running stats without the WR runs a few times. The running game still had very good numbers all around.

Good to know. I would contribute that more to defenses playing pass first...and the fact that we have a kickass line and blocking scheme. McD with our ZBS should produce good results IMO.

CoachChaz
02-09-2009, 04:52 PM
Good to know. I would contribute that more to defenses playing pass first...and the fact that we have a kickass line and blocking scheme. McD with our ZBS should produce good results IMO.

Agreed. A backfield with Hills and Bell or Hillis and a solid rookie should produce some really good numbers and open things up for Jay and eliminate his need to force plays in order to make something happen.

TXBRONC
02-10-2009, 11:55 AM
Please tell me why you can't see the reasoning for the comment about mikey.. Who was our Rushing leader last year? any one mikeys picks for RB or was it his pick for FB .. Goodman's presented the guy with a viable RB and he chose to ignore and pigeon hole him and then larsen in front of him a LB till he had not other option..

A scary concept "can't see the forest from the trees" that if given the option in the first place could well have had a huge season and perhaps even saved the HC job..

Who knows?..

Please feel free to ignore any on my posts...

BTW mikey was canned for not doing his job.. time to get over it..

You're right it is time to get over it so why don't you stop hijacking threads.

fcspikeit
02-10-2009, 06:49 PM
You're right it is time to get over it so why don't you stop hijacking threads.

Be nice TX, if you subtract Mike Jr would only have about half the post count :tongue:

TXBRONC
02-10-2009, 06:52 PM
Be nice TX, if you subtract Mike Jr would only have about half the post count :tongue:

This is true. :lol:

fcspikeit
02-10-2009, 06:54 PM
Pass first is in the past. That's kind of my point. We have been a pass happy team since Jay was drafted, so I'm not really worried about the difference.

Also if you start taking out certain stats to get YPC, then we would have to take out Royal's long run, any WR bubble screens that were laterals, etc.

I think with our line, our RBs, and our RB/Line coaches, we could see a very good running game this year should people stay healthy. Couple that with a new offensive philosophy that the players are excited about and we could have a better offensive year than last year. I think we will.

In his last one on one, McDaniels said he wants a balanced attach and he don't believe you can go far without having one.

We know Marony was hurt a lot, maybe that was the reason they didn't ask him to carry more then they did?

fcspikeit
02-10-2009, 06:56 PM
This is true. :lol:

And if we subtracted your replies to his Mikey post's, you would only have half the post count... What would you do with all that free time? :laugh:

TXBRONC
02-10-2009, 06:58 PM
And if we subtracted your replies to his Mikey post's, you would only have half the post count... What would you do with all that free time? :laugh:

Half? I would only have about 10 at the most. :D