PDA

View Full Version : Royal heading to the slot?



broncofaninfla
02-24-2009, 08:03 AM
Copy and paste from the Denver Post:

It's easy to look at the offensive system Broncos coach Josh McDaniels coordinated in New England the past two seasons and see Eddie Royal playing the slot role of the Patriots' Wes Welker.
If Royal moves inside, veteran Brandon Stokley could become a No. 4/swing receiver while the Broncos seek an outside receiver. The trick is finding an affordable veteran who will rebound from a disappointing season.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 08:06 AM
Why not Darrell Jackson in the 2

Northman
02-24-2009, 08:18 AM
Why not Darrell Jackson in the 2


Yea, i thought about that too.

claymore
02-24-2009, 08:20 AM
Michael Clayton if he is cheap. He is an URFA, and wants out of tampa. Never lived up to his full potential here, but living here, Ireally blame that on Gruden and QB injuries.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 08:48 AM
Jackson is a possibility, but he also may be at point in his career where he'll keep breaking down the way he did this past year. Why not draft a receiver in middle rounds?

Fan in Exile
02-24-2009, 08:59 AM
This seems to me like people are going overboard trying to make our roster look like New England's. Was there anything wrong with Royal's production last year that shows that he should be moved?

I mean seriously 91 catches for 980 yards. Do you really think moving him to the slot and bumping Stockley to the number four is going to produce more for the team?

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 09:02 AM
Yeah, but the guy did produce for us when he actually got playing time.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 09:03 AM
This seems to me like people are going overboard trying to make our roster look like New England's. Was there anything wrong with Royal's production last year that shows that he should be moved?

I mean seriously 91 catches for 980 yards. Do you really think moving him to the slot and bumping Stockley to the number four is going to produce more for the team?

Absolutely. I would love to see Eddie in a spot where he could utilize his speed and stretch the field. Imagine Welker with Royal's speed.

Northman
02-24-2009, 09:04 AM
Absolutely. I would love to see Eddie in a spot where he could utilize his speed and stretch the field. Imagine Welker with Royal's speed.

Yea, putting Eddie in a position where Welker flourishes is a great thing if you ask me. Last year we didnt really have a choice but if we can find a solid #2 possession guy or if Jackson can fill that role than i can only see good things from something like this.

Cheez Whiz
02-24-2009, 09:12 AM
Eddie Royal in a Wes Welker role would be amazing. Welker over the past 2 seasons has been pretty spectacular. Royal will still be #2, he will just be positioned where he will work the best.

2008: 111 receptions, 1165 yards, 3 touchdowns
2007: 112 receptions, 1175 yards, 8 touchdowns

and for those who are wondering why Jackson won't be on the outside? HE SUCKS. We're in big trouble if he's on the field. We need a deep threat receiver on the outside to compliment Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal.

The problem is finding a deep threat in FA. There really isn't any.

D. Henderson maybe?

Northman
02-24-2009, 09:14 AM
Eddie Royal in a Wes Welker role would be amazing. Welker over the past 2 seasons has been pretty spectacular. Royal will still be #2, he will just be positioned where he will work the best.

2008: 111 receptions, 1165 yards, 3 touchdowns
2007: 112 receptions, 1175 yards, 8 touchdowns

and for those who are wondering why Jackson won't be on the outside? HE SUCKS. We're in big trouble if he's on the field. We need a deep threat receiver on the outside to compliment Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal.

The problem is finding a deep threat in FA. There really isn't any.

D. Henderson maybe?


Henderson is an option or maybe taking a chance and drafting a guy like Williams or Wallace later in the draft. I think there is also guys like Nate Washington or Lance Moore out there.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 09:29 AM
This seems to me like people are going overboard trying to make our roster look like New England's. Was there anything wrong with Royal's production last year that shows that he should be moved?

I mean seriously 91 catches for 980 yards. Do you really think moving him to the slot and bumping Stockley to the number four is going to produce more for the team?

That's very true Royal was very productive as the number two receiver, but he was moved to slot New England's style of offense I don't think it would be a demotion.

Fan in Exile
02-24-2009, 09:36 AM
Guys I get that you're obsessed with Royal's speed and think he will do well in the slot. So do I. But I think you're missing the trade off that we would need to make to do that, and I don't think I was clear in my post about it.

So I'm going to try again. It's really the talk about pushing Stockley off of the field for some unnamed receiver, that blows my mind. I don't think unless we go out and spend a lot to get some stud, that you're going to get more production from Brandon #1 Xreciever #2 and Royal #3 than you would from Brandon #1, Royal #2, and Stockley #3.

To back that up look at the numbers Welker only averaged 10.5 yards per catch to Royal's 10.8 yards per catch. I get that he would still be the number two option in the slot but I really don't see us being able to stretch the field better.

Now maybe you could argue that Eddie is a tons better WR than Welker and he would put up an 11 Y/R in the slot to Welker's 10.5. I would totally buy into that because I'm a homer, but for just a minute can we go with if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I also don't agree that our problem last year was a lack of possession receiver. We've got tons of passing threats who can move the chains. Our running Backs kept getting injured which put us in too many obvious passing situations.

Max Power
02-24-2009, 09:37 AM
Why not Darrell Jackson in the 2

Because he drops too many passes.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 09:59 AM
Because he drops too many passes.

When our #1 guy stops doing that at a HIGHER rate than our potential #2 guy...I'll consider that a reason.

Max Power
02-24-2009, 10:06 AM
When our #1 guy stops doing that at a HIGHER rate than our potential #2 guy...I'll consider that a reason.

Marshall might drop balls at higher rate, but he also catches a lot more balls and is just a better player. I can somewhat tolerate 15 drops if the guy catches 100+.

Jackson is just not very good. If he's our only option for #2 besides Royal, I'll stick with Royal.

Northman
02-24-2009, 10:06 AM
Guys I get that you're obsessed with Royal's speed and think he will do well in the slot. So do I. But I think you're missing the trade off that we would need to make to do that, and I don't think I was clear in my post about it.

So I'm going to try again. It's really the talk about pushing Stockley off of the field for some unnamed receiver, that blows my mind. I don't think unless we go out and spend a lot to get some stud, that you're going to get more production from Brandon #1 Xreciever #2 and Royal #3 than you would from Brandon #1, Royal #2, and Stockley #3.

To back that up look at the numbers Welker only averaged 10.5 yards per catch to Royal's 10.8 yards per catch. I get that he would still be the number two option in the slot but I really don't see us being able to stretch the field better.

Now maybe you could argue that Eddie is a tons better WR than Welker and he would put up an 11 Y/R in the slot to Welker's 10.5. I would totally buy into that because I'm a homer, but for just a minute can we go with if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I also don't agree that our problem last year was a lack of possession receiver. We've got tons of passing threats who can move the chains. Our running Backs kept getting injured which put us in too many obvious passing situations.

You make some valid points but at the same time the offense struggled down the stretch. Now, some of that was due to a lack of running game, playcalling, weather, and the maturation of Jay not seeing the entire field. However, if you look at the offense that NE has compared to ours it isnt that much different.

Moss - Marshall
Royal - Welker
Stokely - Gaffney

New England really doesnt have a 2nd goto guy that is any better than what we got and yet they make it work. Yes, we had success with Royal in the #2 position but if you were to match him up against the 3rd DB like they do with Welker? He would be that more effective. I have no idea what McD plans to do in regards to how he is running the offense this year but on the surface our offense isnt that much different than NE's aside from veteran experience.

Northman
02-24-2009, 10:10 AM
Marshall might drop balls at higher rate, but he also catches a lot more balls and is just a better player. I can somewhat tolerate 15 drops if the guy catches 100+.

Jackson is just not very good. If he's our only option for #2 besides Royal, I'll stick with Royal.

Well, to be fair Jackson doesnt see the field as much either. As i pointed out in my last post towards the end of the season Jay started to zone in on Marshall too much again and Royal got lost in the shuffle. Yet, we saw on opening day against Oakland that if Jackson is in there Jay can find him as long as he is looking in more than one spot. Im not saying Jackson is a world beater but with so much attention put to Marshall and probably now Royal it could work well for Jackson so as long as Jay scans the field like he should. Remember, its not always the receiver's fault if the QB never sees you.

Requiem / The Dagda
02-24-2009, 10:40 AM
I'm not against drafting a young receiver either -- there are some great juniors in this draft and there could be a bunch of nice prospects at that #42 selection we have. Obviously, we have bigger needs than wide receiver -- but if the team wants to continue to have success on the offensive side of the ball, aligning Cutler with more weapons is never a bad thing. It doesn't have to even be that early. There are some great receivers in this draft.

omac
02-24-2009, 10:46 AM
You make some valid points but at the same time the offense struggled down the stretch. Now, some of that was due to a lack of running game, playcalling, weather, and the maturation of Jay not seeing the entire field. However, if you look at the offense that NE has compared to ours it isnt that much different.

Moss - Marshall
Royal - Welker
Stokely - Gaffney

New England really doesnt have a 2nd goto guy that is any better than what we got and yet they make it work. Yes, we had success with Royal in the #2 position but if you were to match him up against the 3rd DB like they do with Welker? He would be that more effective. I have no idea what McD plans to do in regards to how he is running the offense this year but on the surface our offense isnt that much different than NE's aside from veteran experience.

Stokley - Gaffney?

Stokley thrives in the slot more than as the #2. He's so good at the slot, they nicknamed him the slot machine.

I agree with Fan in Exile, we should keep Royal as the #2, and Stokley as the slot guy. Stokley, like Marshall and Eddie, is a clutch receiver, and we'd want to keep him in the game. Jackson is at best our 4th best receiver, and as a pass catcher, maybe 6th best behind Scheffler and Hillis (and maybe even Graham).

Eddie's got plenty enough speed to stretch the field.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 10:57 AM
Stokley - Gaffney?

Stokley thrives in the slot more than as the #2. He's so good at the slot, they nicknamed him the slot machine.

I agree with Fan in Exile, we should keep Royal as the #2, and Stokley as the slot guy. Stokley, like Marshall and Eddie, is a clutch receiver, and we'd want to keep him in the game. Jackson is at best our 4th best receiver, and as a pass catcher, maybe 6th best behind Scheffler and Hillis (and maybe even Graham).

Eddie's got plenty enough speed to stretch the field.

The way I see it, if Royal was moved to the slot it wouldn't e a demotion with kind of passing attack that McDaniels is going implement. I don't want to throw Stokley under a bus but at the same time he's get up there in years.

Northman
02-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Stokley - Gaffney?

Stokley thrives in the slot more than as the #2. He's so good at the slot, they nicknamed him the slot machine.

I agree with Fan in Exile, we should keep Royal as the #2, and Stokley as the slot guy. Stokley, like Marshall and Eddie, is a clutch receiver, and we'd want to keep him in the game. Jackson is at best our 4th best receiver, and as a pass catcher, maybe 6th best behind Scheffler and Hillis (and maybe even Graham).

Eddie's got plenty enough speed to stretch the field.

My point with that comparison is that neither one are world burners. Both are products of the Qb's throwing to them. But i wouldnt say that one is better than the other. Because of the system that NE uses Stokley would not go to waste. But at the same time it isnt like Brandon is a great receiver either so i think people are putting way too much stock into Stokely than he deserves. He can be easily replaced.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 11:12 AM
While it's been rare Dream and I are in agreement here. :shocked:

Drafting a wide receiver is an option.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 11:18 AM
If we're drafting a guy, we likely draft him a little later. then we expect him to be the #2? Sorry, but I like Jackson as the #2 as opposed to a 4th or 5th round rookie.

omac
02-24-2009, 11:22 AM
My point with that comparison is that neither one are world burners. Both are products of the Qb's throwing to them. But i wouldnt say that one is better than the other. Because of the system that NE uses Stokley would not got to waste. But at the same time it isnt like Brandon is a great receiver either so i think people are putting way too much stock into Stokely than he deserves. He can be easily replaced.

I disagree with that; he is really good, and not easily replaced. He's one of the best in the league in the slot, and the only thing that might slow him down is age. Our opinions of him are very different, but that's cool. :cheers:

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 11:23 AM
If we're drafting a guy, we likely draft him a little later. then we expect him to be the #2? Sorry, but I like Jackson as the #2 as opposed to a 4th or 5th round rookie.

I wasn't necessarily meaning that a rookie would start this year. However, we weren't expecting Royal to be starter this past season either.

Northman
02-24-2009, 11:24 AM
I disagree with that; he is really good, and not easily replaced. He's one of the best in the league in the slot, and the only thing that might slow him down is age. Our opinions of him are very different, but that's cool. :cheers:

Yea, i guess we will just have to agree to disagree with that one. :beer:

omac
02-24-2009, 11:35 AM
The way I see it, if Royal was moved to the slot it wouldn't e a demotion with kind of passing attack that McDaniels is going implement. I don't want to throw Stokley under a bus but at the same time he's get up there in years.

Royal can definitely play the slot, but if he does that a lot, he will get banged up more often. Why not keep Stokley in the slot, where he's excels, and have a deadly #2 who can take it all the way to go with Marshall.

NE didn't have as good a #2 as we have, so maybe that's why their #2 wasn't used as much. If their offense really is amoeba-like, who's to say how their offense would've looked if they had Eddie as their #2? :cheers:

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 11:39 AM
Royal can definitely play the slot, but if he does that a lot, he will get banged up more often. Why not keep Stokley in the slot, where he's excels, and have a deadly #2 who can take it all the way to go with Marshall.

NE didn't have as good a #2 as we have, so maybe that's why their #2 wasn't used as much. If their offense really is amoeba-like, who's to say how their offense would've looked if they had Eddie as their #2? :cheers:

Fair enough. :salute:

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 11:45 AM
I wasn't necessarily meaning that a rookie would start this year. However, we weren't expecting Royal to be starter this past season either.

No, but the odds of a 2nd rounder stepping up and starting are more likely than a 2nd day pick. Marques Colston's dont come along with every draft.

underrated29
02-24-2009, 11:53 AM
I would be extremely disappointed if we do this. Why is everyone so dam intent on making ed a slot guy?

He is sickness. If some of you remember i had in my sig after we drafted him, before he ever stepped on the field that he was going to be a badass.

My sig stated- "if wes welker and lee evans had a kid it would be eddie royal, he might make a mark as a return man, but his main thing will be as a WR."

Lee evans isnt much bigger than him, neither is wes. Yet lee evans is of superior talent on a shitty team... Eddie is of the same thing, but not on a crappy team....

If we signed lee evans- would you put him in the slot, djax out wide with brandon-(assuming we dont have royal.?) of course not...


Yes, ed will dominate in the slot, but we need a precise route runner, and a speed demon opposite brandon, to keep the defense on their heels.



I dont like the idea at all, i have no problem with adding talent, but dont move ed into the slot. We are not New England, we are the Broncos. Lets take what we can from NE to make us better, lets not turn our selves into New England #2.

Northman
02-24-2009, 11:55 AM
Dont panic, nothing is in stone yet. Its just the "idea" of it.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 11:56 AM
Even if it happened, no one is saying that a slot guy in a McD offense will only see the ball 2 or 3 times a game. The slot is more of a 2nd option than the typical #2, so I think he'd benefit from it.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 11:59 AM
As Northman said it's just an idea.

Fan in Exile
02-24-2009, 12:00 PM
I can certainly see the reasons that you guys have for moving Eddie in and getting another guy. However it takes awhile for wrs to come in and play. So I wouldn't expect a draft pick to come in and take over the outside spot and make up for the loss of Stockley.

If we went out to get one in FA I think the money it would cost would get a higher return if we spend it on defense.

With that being said, I do think that we need to start preparing for losing stockley and drafting a guy is a good idea. If he works out as well as Royal or Brandon did and can step in and play at a high level I'm not going to complain. But I think the most likely scenario is drafting a later round guy and letting him develop, not moving Royal into the slot.

underrated29
02-24-2009, 12:02 PM
solution: Keep royal where he is and draft Sammie Stroughter! FTW.



-ok flame away on me and my man love for straughter. ( i still havent even seen him play yet either).

:elefant::elefant:

Northman
02-24-2009, 12:04 PM
solution: Keep royal where he is and draft Sammie Stroughter! FTW.



-ok flame away on me and my man love for straughter. ( i still havent even seen him play yet either).

:elefant::elefant:

Yea, im going to flame you for that. Where's that stick i need to beat you with? :tsk::lol:

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 12:05 PM
I can certainly see the reasons that you guys have for moving Eddie in and getting another guy. However it takes awhile for wrs to come in and play. So I wouldn't expect a draft pick to come in and take over the outside spot and make up for the loss of Stockley.

If we went out to get one in FA I think the money it would cost would get a higher return if we spend it on defense.

With that being said, I do think that we need to start preparing for losing stockley and drafting a guy is a good idea. If he works out as well as Royal or Brandon did and can step in and play at a high level I'm not going to complain. But I think the most likely scenario is drafting a later round guy and letting him develop, not moving Royal into the slot.

If we did what Chaz suggest there is no extra cost because Darrell Jackson is still under contract.

What I've suggested is that draft a receiver who could legititmate number 2 maybe not right away and maybe not even this year but it could have more a long term effect.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 12:06 PM
solution: Keep royal where he is and draft Sammie Stroughter! FTW.



-ok flame away on me and my man love for straughter. ( i still havent even seen him play yet either).

:elefant::elefant:

Nothing wrong with that idea.

Northman
02-24-2009, 12:07 PM
If we did what Chaz suggest there is no extra cost because Darrell Jackson is still under contract.

What I've suggested is that draft a receiver who could legititmate number 2 maybe not right away and maybe not even this year but it could have more a long term effect.

Yea, like a Mike Wallace. :D

Traveler
02-24-2009, 12:10 PM
Replace Darrell Jackson with Chad Jackson. Maybe We can can make something of him here that NE couldn't.

turftoad
02-24-2009, 12:12 PM
Moving Royal to the slot would be fine by me. That said, I don't believe Jackson or a rookie is the answer for next season.
Jacksons time has run out and rookies take a few years to develope IMO.

Lets not talk about exceptions (Royal) to the rookie rule.

Superchop 7
02-24-2009, 12:20 PM
As a #2, Royal was open on most plays.

I think we would lose more than we gained by moving him.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Replace Darrell Jackson with Chad Jackson. Maybe We can can make something of him here that NE couldn't.

I was just thinking the same thing...except...we are NE now. But, maybe a healthy Chad Jackson lives up to his potential. I just dont think there is a need to bring in another WR via FA or draft if we have possibilities available already.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 12:34 PM
Guys I get that you're obsessed with Royal's speed and think he will do well in the slot. So do I. But I think you're missing the trade off that we would need to make to do that, and I don't think I was clear in my post about it.

So I'm going to try again. It's really the talk about pushing Stockley off of the field for some unnamed receiver, that blows my mind. I don't think unless we go out and spend a lot to get some stud, that you're going to get more production from Brandon #1 Xreciever #2 and Royal #3 than you would from Brandon #1, Royal #2, and Stockley #3.

To back that up look at the numbers Welker only averaged 10.5 yards per catch to Royal's 10.8 yards per catch. I get that he would still be the number two option in the slot but I really don't see us being able to stretch the field better.

Now maybe you could argue that Eddie is a tons better WR than Welker and he would put up an 11 Y/R in the slot to Welker's 10.5. I would totally buy into that because I'm a homer, but for just a minute can we go with if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I also don't agree that our problem last year was a lack of possession receiver. We've got tons of passing threats who can move the chains. Our running Backs kept getting injured which put us in too many obvious passing situations.



This seems to me like people are going overboard trying to make our roster look like New England's. Was there anything wrong with Royal's production last year that shows that he should be moved?

I mean seriously 91 catches for 980 yards. Do you really think moving him to the slot and bumping Stockley to the number four is going to produce more for the team?


As a #2, Royal was open on most plays.

I think we would lose more than we gained by moving him.


My sentiments, exactly. If it ain't broke, why would one want to fix it?

-----

Fan in Exile
02-24-2009, 12:38 PM
If we did what Chaz suggest there is no extra cost because Darrell Jackson is still under contract.

What I've suggested is that draft a receiver who could legititmate number 2 maybe not right away and maybe not even this year but it could have more a long term effect.

Darrel Jackson is a free agent. At least both Rotoworld and Scouts.com have him listed that way. So it would still cost us to bring him in.

Traveler
02-24-2009, 12:50 PM
I was just thinking the same thing...except...we are NE now. But, maybe a healthy Chad Jackson lives up to his potential. I just dont think there is a need to bring in another WR via FA or draft if we have possibilities available already.

Thinking the same way also. Way to many needs to waste money on a FA WR or draftee unless it's a late rounder. Chad does have the ability to stretch field unlike Marshall or Royal. WR is a need that can be addressed next season if need be.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 12:52 PM
Darrel Jackson is a free agent. At least both Rotoworld and Scouts.com have him listed that way. So it would still cost us to bring him in.

My bad. :tsk:

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 01:04 PM
Thinking the same way also. Way to many needs to waste money on a FA WR or draftee unless it's a late rounder. Chad does have the ability to stretch field unlike Marshall or Royal. WR is a need that can be addressed next season if need be.

I'm not suggesting that we draft a receiver in the first or even the second round but later in the draft I don't think it's a bad idea.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 01:15 PM
I still think bringing DJax back at a similar contract for a more prominent role would be a better option than looking elsewhere for the unknown.

BroncoNut
02-24-2009, 01:19 PM
yeah, he had some clutch plays this year.

underrated29
02-24-2009, 01:35 PM
Im with coach about bringing in a WR through the draft, not really a need. But we do need someone to take over our PR/KR if eddie does stay as our #2......Thats why i like Straughter so much, he would be a good #3, plus he is very good on PR and KR and he can break tackles.....

But really there is not much need.

dogfish
02-24-2009, 01:36 PM
blech! he's way too productive to take him off the field unless you're replacing him with someone better, and we don't have anyone better-- nor can we afford to spend the resources to get someone better, not with the needs we have elsewhere. . . besides which, being the slot receiver doesn't have to equate to being the #3 WR-- there's no reason he can't be the #2 and just slide into the slot when we go three or four wide, which will probably be pretty often in mcdaniels' offense. . . the guy's well on his way to being one of the better #2's in the league, we need his playmaking ability on the field-- don't cut his playing time!


FTR, i agree with bringing jackson back-- but definitely not to replace royal in the starting lineup. . .

topscribe
02-24-2009, 01:45 PM
I'm not suggesting that we draft a receiver in the first or even the second round but later in the draft I don't think it's a bad idea.

The Broncos had the #2 passing offense in the league. Did you know they also
had the #3 rushing offense, in terms of YPC? In addition, they had something
like--what--12 sacks all year, in 600+ passing attempts?

I don't know how one would want to go tinkering with the personnel there.
Yes, they need to improve their red zone scoring percentage, and they need
to cut down on turnovers. But with the WRs and TEs they already have and
a healthy Hillis and Pittman coming back, personnel isn't the problem in either
case.

On defense, I think we'll all agree personnel is a big problem. Therefore, I would
all but ignore the offense in this entire draft. This team will not see a playoff
until it gets a decent defense.

Leave Royal where he is, where he came close to his 100 catches and 1,000
yards, and keep one of the best slot receivers in the game, Stokley, where
he is. Then put a real NT in front of the opposing center, and a real MLB
behind him. That would be a good start.

IMHO.

-----

Dreadnought
02-24-2009, 01:46 PM
blech! he's way too productive to take him off the field unless you're replacing him with someone better, and we don't have anyone better-- nor can we afford to spend the resources to get someone better, not with the needs we have elsewhere. . . besides which, being the slot receiver doesn't have to equate to being the #3 WR-- there's no reason he can't be the #2 and just slide into the slot when we go three or four wide, which will probably be pretty often in mcdaniels' offense. . . the guy's well on his way to being one of the better #2's in the league, we need his playmaking ability on the field-- don't cut his playing time!


FTR, i agree with bringing jackson back-- but definitely not to replace royal in the starting lineup. . .

Exactly, and if this is more than a load of off season Hot Air it would be an example of exactly what I feared - fixing stuff that ain't broke. We have plenty of stuff thats broke, Lord knows. The offense wasn't, apart from a dodgy RB situation. Eddie Royal was extremely productive as a number 2. Stokley isn't done yet, and maybe on;ly Welker is better in that role. So we're going to change all of that? Pfaugh!

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 01:56 PM
blech! he's way too productive to take him off the field unless you're replacing him with someone better, and we don't have anyone better-- nor can we afford to spend the resources to get someone better, not with the needs we have elsewhere. . . besides which, being the slot receiver doesn't have to equate to being the #3 WR-- there's no reason he can't be the #2 and just slide into the slot when we go three or four wide, which will probably be pretty often in mcdaniels' offense. . . the guy's well on his way to being one of the better #2's in the league, we need his playmaking ability on the field-- don't cut his playing time!


FTR, i agree with bringing jackson back-- but definitely not to replace royal in the starting lineup. . .

I wouldnt say DJaz would be "replacing" Eddie, just filling a different role so we can better utilize Eddie.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 01:57 PM
Im with coach about bringing in a WR through the draft, not really a need. But we do need someone to take over our PR/KR if eddie does stay as our #2......Thats why i like Straughter so much, he would be a good #3, plus he is very good on PR and KR and he can break tackles.....

But really there is not much need.

Odds are...Stroughter can be had as a UDFA.

underrated29
02-24-2009, 01:57 PM
Dont forget Eddie was a rookie last year. Normally it takes the "3" years for a WR to get to the stage he is at....Just think what heights he will reach in 2 more years....

He needs all the PT and balls he can get!

turftoad
02-24-2009, 01:57 PM
I wouldnt say DJaz would be "replacing" Eddie, just filling a different role so we can better utilize Eddie.

I think DJax did fine in the role he had. I just don't want to see him in a bigger role.
I think there are better options than that.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 02:04 PM
Dont forget Eddie was a rookie last year. Normally it takes the "3" years for a WR to get to the stage he is at....Just think what heights he will reach in 2 more years....

He needs all the PT and balls he can get!

Yeah...tell that to guys like Michael Clayton. There is no guarantee that Eddie is more than a one year wonder until he does it again.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 02:08 PM
I think DJax did fine in the role he had. I just don't want to see him in a bigger role.
I think there are better options than that.

Who? I mean...the only season DJax had that wasnt very productive was with SF. Cant imagine why he'd have an off year up there.

Give him 60 balls and he gets close to 1000 yards.

Northman
02-24-2009, 02:08 PM
I think people believe that if Eddie went to the slot that he would lose playing time. I dont see that considering the Pats use a 3 wide set quite a bit throughout any given game. Not too mention, since we (at this point) still dont have a playmaker on ST's Royal can also fill that role much like he did this past season. Putting Royal in the slot does not mean that he wont touch the ball often. I think people are fearful that this will be a Shanny ran offense still. I dont see it.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 02:20 PM
Who? I mean...the only season DJax had that wasnt very productive was with SF. Cant imagine why he'd have an off year up there.

Give him 60 balls and he gets close to 1000 yards.

I really can't disagree with you regarding DJax. The reason we never heard
much from him is because he wasn't used much. But you're right: take away
the year with SF, and he has been a very productive receiver. I don't know
why it would have to be so different now.

Nonetheless, he is NOT as good as Fast Eddie, and Stokley, as I opined earlier,
is one of the best in the league in the slot. Don't tinker with success. :noidea:

-----

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 02:32 PM
I really can't disagree with you regarding DJax. The reason we never heard
much from him is because he wasn't used much. But you're right: take away
the year with SF, and he has been a very productive receiver. I don't know
why it would have to be so different now.

Nonetheless, he is NOT as good as Fast Eddie, and Stokley, as I opined earlier,
is one of the best in the league in the slot. Don't tinker with success. :noidea:

-----

I wont argue that Stokely is gret in the slot, but we don't know how good Eddie could be there...especially in McDaniels system. And before we say DJax is not as good as Eddie, I think we REALLY need to see more out of Royal than one season of success. Look at some of his numbers.

In 4 games he had 9 receptions or more. We lost 3 of those 4 and he only eclipsed 100 yards in 2 of those games with 1 TD. He also averaged under 11 per catch. That occurs when you are catching quick outs and bubble screens. You cant begin to tell me that Jackson wouldnt have put up the exact same numbers if he was utilized in the exact same role Eddie was. Hell...Chad Jackson could have done that.

So let;s not pretend that Eddie set the world on fire. He took advantage of opportunities he was presented. he looks like he can be a very solid receiver for a long time...but he's not there yet.

Fan in Exile
02-24-2009, 03:34 PM
I wont argue that Stokely is gret in the slot, but we don't know how good Eddie could be there...especially in McDaniels system. And before we say DJax is not as good as Eddie, I think we REALLY need to see more out of Royal than one season of success. Look at some of his numbers.

In 4 games he had 9 receptions or more. We lost 3 of those 4 and he only eclipsed 100 yards in 2 of those games with 1 TD. He also averaged under 11 per catch. That occurs when you are catching quick outs and bubble screens. You cant begin to tell me that Jackson wouldnt have put up the exact same numbers if he was utilized in the exact same role Eddie was. Hell...Chad Jackson could have done that.

So let;s not pretend that Eddie set the world on fire. He took advantage of opportunities he was presented. he looks like he can be a very solid receiver for a long time...but he's not there yet.

But Welker averaged less at the role you want to put Eddie into. It just doesn't make any sense to me to change things around by following an example where the guy didn't do as well as Royal.

Let's wait and see how Royal gets used this year and see what he can do with better play calling.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 03:39 PM
Who? I mean...the only season DJax had that wasnt very productive was with SF. Cant imagine why he'd have an off year up there.

Give him 60 balls and he gets close to 1000 yards.

Can he do that without breaking down? He missed a lot of games due to injury this past season.

omac
02-24-2009, 03:53 PM
My sentiments, exactly. If it ain't broke, why would one want to fix it?

-----


The Broncos had the #2 passing offense in the league. Did you know they also
had the #3 rushing offense, in terms of YPC? In addition, they had something
like--what--12 sacks all year, in 600+ passing attempts?

I don't know how one would want to go tinkering with the personnel there.
Yes, they need to improve their red zone scoring percentage, and they need
to cut down on turnovers. But with the WRs and TEs they already have and
a healthy Hillis and Pittman coming back, personnel isn't the problem in either
case.

On defense, I think we'll all agree personnel is a big problem. Therefore, I would
all but ignore the offense in this entire draft. This team will not see a playoff
until it gets a decent defense.

Leave Royal where he is, where he came close to his 100 catches and 1,000
yards, and keep one of the best slot receivers in the game, Stokley, where
he is. Then put a real NT in front of the opposing center, and a real MLB
behind him. That would be a good start.

IMHO.

-----

Can't agree with you more! :salute:

Doogie's added pressure on himself by implementing a total system change on an offense that would have only needed a consistent, healthy RB and a few tweaks; that, when he already has a herculean task of fixing one of the worst defenses in the league. Good thing for him, he's definitely got all the pieces any coach in the league would want on offense. Player for player, we have way more offensive threats than even NE does, with Eddie as the superior #2, and the combo of Scheffler and Graham easily more deadly than Watson. I'd also take the versatility and tenacity of Hillis over Morris, Maroney, and Faulk.

omac
02-24-2009, 03:56 PM
I really can't disagree with you regarding DJax. The reason we never heard
much from him is because he wasn't used much. But you're right: take away
the year with SF, and he has been a very productive receiver. I don't know
why it would have to be so different now.

Nonetheless, he is NOT as good as Fast Eddie, and Stokley, as I opined earlier,
is one of the best in the league in the slot. Don't tinker with success. :noidea:

-----

Bottom line is a rookie who's never played a game in the NFL flat out outplayed him in practice. That could be a big factor in why he didn't play much. If he was good enough in practice, then he would've taken the field more.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 03:58 PM
I wont argue that Stokely is gret in the slot, but we don't know how good Eddie could be there...especially in McDaniels system. And before we say DJax is not as good as Eddie, I think we REALLY need to see more out of Royal than one season of success. Look at some of his numbers.

In 4 games he had 9 receptions or more. We lost 3 of those 4 and he only eclipsed 100 yards in 2 of those games with 1 TD. He also averaged under 11 per catch. That occurs when you are catching quick outs and bubble screens. You cant begin to tell me that Jackson wouldnt have put up the exact same numbers if he was utilized in the exact same role Eddie was. Hell...Chad Jackson could have done that.

So let;s not pretend that Eddie set the world on fire. He took advantage of opportunities he was presented. he looks like he can be a very solid receiver for a long time...but he's not there yet.

Of course Eddie isn't, Coach. He was a rookie . . . a rookie with 91 receptions
for 980 yards. I don't know that DJax could have done better than that. All
I know is what Eddie did already. That is the only constant here . . . the rest
is pure speculation. What the Broncos did worked, to the tune of #2 in the
league.

If I am coaching, the only way I mess with that is if it ceases to work as I
feel it should. But we have Cutler, BMarsh, Eddie, and Scheffler with another
year's experience. Do I now want to tear down what has been so successfully
built, to implement what I think might be better?

I don't think so.

-----

bcbronc
02-24-2009, 04:02 PM
blech! he's way too productive to take him off the field unless you're replacing him with someone better, and we don't have anyone better-- nor can we afford to spend the resources to get someone better, not with the needs we have elsewhere. . . besides which, being the slot receiver doesn't have to equate to being the #3 WR-- there's no reason he can't be the #2 and just slide into the slot when we go three or four wide, which will probably be pretty often in mcdaniels' offense. . . the guy's well on his way to being one of the better #2's in the league, we need his playmaking ability on the field-- don't cut his playing time!


FTR, i agree with bringing jackson back-- but definitely not to replace royal in the starting lineup. . .

you can be a #2 and still line up in the slot on three wide-out sets. In McD's offense, his slot guy is getting 100+ catches a season. I don't want that many balls thrown to Stokely. I DO want that many balls thrown to Royal.

one key difference between how our offense will play versus NE is that Moss is the #1 and the guy that stretches the field. here I see Royal being the slot machine but still using his speed to keep defenses honest. I think Marshall will see more underneath stuff than Moss does, and Royal will see the ball downfield more than Welker did.

couple those two with Scheffler and Graham, and who cares who's line up out wide? depending on the scenerio guys like DJack, CJack, and Stokely could all see plays in that slot. and there is always a lot of decent second-tier UFA WRs available if the new regime has no confidence in those guys.

bottom line, when there is a two wide-out set, Royal will still be on the field. when there is a 3 wide-out set, considering the success of Welker, why wouldn't you want Royal moved inside? he's got the perfect skill set for it.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 04:09 PM
Guys, the way understanding our offense is we're see three receiver sets more than we will two receiver sets. If that is the case and Royal moves to the slot I don't think that means anything is getting screwed up nor does it mean that Royal would come off the field when we run a conventional package. I think it would mean that Royal would run more of his routes out of the slot rather than as wide out. That's not bad thing if can come up with 100 plus catches and over 1100 yards receiving.

I'm pushing for this to happen but I think it's a possibility considering what McDaniels did in New England.

omac
02-24-2009, 04:11 PM
I wont argue that Stokely is gret in the slot, but we don't know how good Eddie could be there...especially in McDaniels system. And before we say DJax is not as good as Eddie, I think we REALLY need to see more out of Royal than one season of success. Look at some of his numbers.

In 4 games he had 9 receptions or more. We lost 3 of those 4 and he only eclipsed 100 yards in 2 of those games with 1 TD. He also averaged under 11 per catch. That occurs when you are catching quick outs and bubble screens. You cant begin to tell me that Jackson wouldnt have put up the exact same numbers if he was utilized in the exact same role Eddie was. Hell...Chad Jackson could have done that.

So let;s not pretend that Eddie set the world on fire. He took advantage of opportunities he was presented. he looks like he can be a very solid receiver for a long time...but he's not there yet.

Eddie already is a solid receiver, easily a solid #2. He runs great routes, has great hands, and makes big plays. Throughout the season, he's been pretty consistent. All that as a a rookie. He's already better than most teams #2s.

In all games this season where Marshall played, Eddie was the #2. When Marshall was out the 1st game, he showed what he can do as a #1, and that's without any NFL experience, and coming from a college that didn't fully utilize his potential as a receiver.

Maybe either Jackson could've produced the same, but more than likely, neither would've been as successful, as they couldn't wrestle time away from Royal. With as talented a corps of pass catchers that we have, you'd have to be really good to get on the field and get your share of already spread out catches, and obviously, neither Jackson could muster much of that.

DenBronx
02-24-2009, 04:14 PM
Yea, putting Eddie in a position where Welker flourishes is a great thing if you ask me. Last year we didnt really have a choice but if we can find a solid #2 possession guy or if Jackson can fill that role than i can only see good things from something like this.

royal already flourishes where he is at. royal caught 91 passes as a rookie with 980 yards (10.8 average) and 5 touchdowns. welker only had 3 tds in his 6th year and yeah he got 1165 yards recieving (10.5 average) but he also caught the ball 20 more times to with 111 catches. royal over time is going to a much better wr than welker. i say leave him as a pure #2 where he belongs.

unless we draft crabtree or sign housh im against it.

stokely is doing just fine in the slot. he still managed to put up decent numbers last year and now cutler is spreading the ball around alot more. i look at total offense and points scored, not just one mans stats. i want to see what the whole offense can do. we were what #2 in total offense last year? taking away stokely from his natural position and then taking away our starting #2 to bring in way past his prime scrub would be a mistake.

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 04:23 PM
Eddie already is a solid receiver, easily a solid #2. He runs great routes, has great hands, and makes big plays. Throughout the season, he's been pretty consistent. All that as a a rookie. He's already better than most teams #2s.

In all games this season where Marshall played, Eddie was the #2. When Marshall was out the 1st game, he showed what he can do as a #1, and that's without any NFL experience, and coming from a college that didn't fully utilize his potential as a receiver.

Maybe either Jackson could've produced the same, but more than likely, neither would've been as successful, as they couldn't wrestle time away from Royal. With as talented a corps of pass catchers that we have, you'd have to be really good to get on the field and get your share of already spread out catches, and obviously, neither Jackson could muster much of that.

I think maybe where we're missing each other is do this mean Eddie comes off the field in conventional sets. I don't think it does. Looking at what the Patriots have done, the three receiver set is base offense and as BC pointed out the thrid receiver is more like the second option. I think that means Royal would see more work rather than less. Also, when the offense would go to a two receiver set I think he would remain on the field as the second receiver.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 04:24 PM
Jackson has caught 53, 70, 62, 68, 87, 63. All that in offenses that were far less efficient than Denver's, but suddenly he's completely incapable of ever doing it again? Seriously?

As far as losing time to Eddie...that could have simply been a personal choice on the part of Shanny. I can see where it's nice to have that speed threat out there all the time, but to suggest that Eddie is worlds above Jackson when it comes to PROVEN capabilities is a completely blind statement.

I want Eddie on the field...and if we are going to have 3 on the field regularly...I am more than okay with DJax being that "other" guy. If he fails, then we move to another plan, but the immediate hatred for a guy simply because his name isnt Brandon or Eddie is just ridiculous.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 04:25 PM
royal already flourishes where he is at. royal caught 91 passes as a rookie with 980 yards (10.8 average) and 5 touchdowns. welker only had 3 tds in his 6th year and yeah he got 1165 yards recieving (10.5 average) but he also caught the ball 20 more times to with 111 catches. royal over time is going to a much better wr than welker. i say leave him as a pure #2 where he belongs.

unless we draft crabtree or sign housh im against it.

stokely is doing just fine in the slot. he still managed to put up decent numbers last year and now cutler is spreading the ball around alot more. i look at total offense and points scored, not just one mans stats. i want to see what the whole offense can do. we were what #2 in total offense last year? taking away stokely from his natural position and then taking away our starting #2 to bring in way past his prime scrub would be a mistake.

Please give me a basis for this staement

omac
02-24-2009, 04:28 PM
Guys, the way understanding our offense is we're see three receiver sets more than we will two receiver sets. If that is the case and Royal moves to the slot I don't think that means anything is getting screwed up nor does it mean that Royal would come off the field when we run a conventional package. I think it would mean that Royal would run more of his routes out of the slot rather than as wide out. That's not bad thing if can come up with 100 plus catches and over 1100 yards receiving.

I'm pushing for this to happen but I think it's a possibility considering what McDaniels did in New England.

I agree with you that he'll still play about as much, but I still think putting him in the slot can greatly shorten his career, when he can be equally (or more) productive as the #2 for a very long time. Some of the hits Stokley's taken have been vicious. He even had a concussion last season.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 04:34 PM
Please give me a basis for this staement

Well, in his first year, Welker got 29 receptions for 434 yards. In his second
year, he got 67 for 687. He was three years into the league before he
exceeded 90 receptions and 1,000 yards, which Eddie has already done (well,
he was 20 yards short of 1,000).

That's a pretty good basis . . . not a prediction, but a basis for projection.

-----

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 04:37 PM
I'm not going to assume it will happen and I'm not going to preach it wont happen, but before we put Eddie on that pedastal...remember Mike Clayton.

As a rookie caught 80 balls for 1170 and 7 TD's. he hasnt hit half of those total in any season since.

underrated29
02-24-2009, 04:37 PM
Thats also receiving yards too. I believe eddie had over 1k all purpose yards.

Rec/rush.


i think he had about 300 or so return yards as well....I dont know what wes compares to for rushing, but i cant imagine its more than eddie.....He might have done better on returns though, i dont know....I cant look up the numbers either.

omac
02-24-2009, 04:41 PM
Please give me a basis for this staement

He's probably basing it on potential.

Welker couldn't get on the field as a WR in his first season, while Royal immediately becomes the #1 in his first game in the NFL, and proceeds to lock down the #2 spot all season long, beating out veterans in the process.

If you can speculate that an old Jackson who hasn't performed well in quite some time can regain his old form to become a productive #2, then DenBronx can also speculate that Royal can over time be better than Welker.

CoachChaz
02-24-2009, 04:46 PM
He's probably basing it on potential.

Welker couldn't get on the field as a WR in his first season, while Royal immediately becomes the #1 in his first game in the NFL, and proceeds to lock down the #2 spot all season long, beating out veterans in the process.

If you can speculate that an old Jackson who hasn't performed well in quite some time can regain his old form to become a productive #2, then DenBronx can also speculate that Royal can over time be better than Welker.

The simple point is that Jackson did it...many times.

turftoad
02-24-2009, 04:47 PM
He's probably basing it on potential.

Welker couldn't get on the field as a WR in his first season, while Royal immediately becomes the #1 in his first game in the NFL, and proceeds to lock down the #2 spot all season long, beating out veterans in the process.

If you can speculate that an old Jackson who hasn't performed well in quite some time can regain his old form to become a productive #2, then DenBronx can also speculate that Royal can over time be better than Welker.

Exactly. Jackson has not played at a high level for years. He's older now also.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 04:49 PM
Exactly. Jackson has not played at a high level for years. He's older now also.

Well, he's 30. That's still a productive age in most cases.

-----

turftoad
02-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Well, he's 30. That's still a productive age in most cases.

-----

But........... he hasn't been productive for over 3 years.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 04:57 PM
But........... he hasn't been productive for over 3 years.

As previously pointed out, Jackson's year with SF was an anomaly. He has had
a productive career outside of that. Last year, the reason he could not get on
the field was not because of DJax, IMO, but because of BMarsh, Stokley, and
Fast Eddie, and the added threat from TE.

I don't agree with taking one of them off the field to get DJax onto it, but
that is not a reflection of DJax. How many receivers in the league could crack
those three, really?

-----

omac
02-24-2009, 04:58 PM
I'm not going to assume it will happen and I'm not going to preach it wont happen, but before we put Eddie on that pedastal...remember Mike Clayton.

As a rookie caught 80 balls for 1170 and 7 TD's. he hasnt hit half of those total in any season since.

Mark Clayton had 3 QBs throwing to him in 2005, a 33 year old McNair throwing to him in 2006, 3 QBs throwing to him in 2007, then again a new, rookie QB throwing to him in 2008. Also, the Ravens were more of a run first team in 2008.

Wes Welker had Gus Frerotte, then Joey Harrington and Daunte Culpepper throwing to him in Miami.

Not coincidentally, they've had similar production as wideouts in teams with uncertainty at QB.

That's a very different situation from what Denver has. We not only have Cutler, but we also had Shanahan, and now have Doogie, who are some of the best offensive minds in the game.

OOOPPSSSS, MY BAD! I thought you said Mark Clayton. Sorry about that.

omac
02-24-2009, 04:59 PM
The simple point is that Jackson did it...many times.

Before. Heck, why not take Shaun Alexander, since he's done it many, many times before?

turftoad
02-24-2009, 05:02 PM
As previously pointed out, Jackson's year with SF was an anomaly. He has had
a productive career outside of that. Last year, the reason he could not get on
the field was not because of DJax, IMO, but because of BMarsh, Stokley, and
Fast Eddie, and the added threat from TE.

I don't agree with taking one of them off the field to get DJax onto it, but
that is not a reflection of DJax. How many receivers in the league could crack
those three, really?

-----

I agree Top. That said, when Seattle released him there was really no one else on their roster.
He dropped balls and was hurt all the time. Thus, Seattle not re signing him. He didn't really bring big bucks when that happened either.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 05:05 PM
I agree Top. That said, when Seattle released him there was really no one else on their roster.
He dropped balls and was hurt all the time. Thus, Seattle not re signing him. He didn't really bring big bucks when that happened either.

Aren't you glad, then, the Broncos have whom they do? http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

turftoad
02-24-2009, 05:11 PM
Aren't you glad, then, the Broncos have whom they do? http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh256/AZDynamics/Smilies/thdrink.gif

-----

Yes I am. I wouldn't mind having one more stud though.

omac
02-24-2009, 05:11 PM
Hah, I checked out who was throwing to Michael Clayton and the argument about Mark Clayton is still basically the same.

Michael Clayton has had to play with a revolving door of QBs throughout his 5 seasons in Tampa. 2 QBs in 2005, 3 QBs in 2006, 2 QBs in 2007, and 2 QBs in 2008. Add to that in each season, the main QB was a different guy, except for 2008 where Garcia from the previous season was demoted then promoted back to starter.

Again, very different situation from the Broncos.

(added) Also, he was playing in a very non-explosive Jon Gruden offense.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 05:13 PM
Yes I am. I wouldn't mind having one more stud though.

Yeah, Toad . . . you remind me of the poker player who has four aces and a
deuce, and he wishes deuces were wild. :laugh:

-----

dogfish
02-24-2009, 05:45 PM
you can be a #2 and still line up in the slot on three wide-out sets. In McD's offense, his slot guy is getting 100+ catches a season. I don't want that many balls thrown to Stokely. I DO want that many balls thrown to Royal.

one key difference between how our offense will play versus NE is that Moss is the #1 and the guy that stretches the field. here I see Royal being the slot machine but still using his speed to keep defenses honest. I think Marshall will see more underneath stuff than Moss does, and Royal will see the ball downfield more than Welker did.

couple those two with Scheffler and Graham, and who cares who's line up out wide? depending on the scenerio guys like DJack, CJack, and Stokely could all see plays in that slot. and there is always a lot of decent second-tier UFA WRs available if the new regime has no confidence in those guys.

bottom line, when there is a two wide-out set, Royal will still be on the field. when there is a 3 wide-out set, considering the success of Welker, why wouldn't you want Royal moved inside? he's got the perfect skill set for it.


now i'm confused :D. . . . were you agreeing with me, or did you miss this part of my post?


there's no reason he can't be the #2 and just slide into the slot when we go three or four wide

when i say #2, i mean the second starter (the guy that's on the field with marshall in most 2-wide sets), not necessarily the guy that lines up at split end. . . i'm alllll for moving royal around to get the best matchups-- i just don't want to see him lose snaps to a guy like jackson that looks to be well past his prime IMO. . . .




Please give me a basis for this statement

okay, i'll play devil's advocate just for the hell of it-- but remember that it was den bronx's statement, not mine. . .

the basis is skillset. . . welker's game is based on these things-- quickness, precise route running and timing, reliable hands, concentration, intelligence, work ethic, and the willingness to work in traffic and take a hit. . . royal has every one of those assets, in comparable measure to welker, but he combines far superior athletic gifts with them. . . he's just as quick, but he's also much stronger and much faster. . . royal set the record (already broken) for WR bench press reps at the combine with 24, and reports from VA tech were that the rest of his weight room numbers were just as impressive-- dude is pure muscle. . . combined with excellent hand usage, this helps him get off press coverage better than welker will ever be able to-- as i pointed out in another thread, shanahan said they thought he was the best WR in last year's class at getting off the jam. . .

and he has much greater straightline speed. . . the combine 40 time i find for welker is 4.61-- royal's was 4.39. . . and he plays to it with his pads on. . . welker, as good as he is at it, will never be more than an underneath receiver. . . royal has the speed to stretch the field as well as working the short stuff, as he showed last year with TD catches of 59 and 93 yards-- welker only has four 40+ catches in five years. . .

besides which, welker looks pretty much maxed out entering his 7th year in the league, while royal still has tons of upside. . . royal came close to welker's best season as a rookie, where it took welker two years before he even made an impact, and four before he had a 1,000 yard season. . . royal can do everything that welker can, but he also has skills that welker can't match. . .


of course, i undeerstand that he still has to go out and do it on the field-- but as for why someone would think that he can be, or will be a better WR than welker, i can definitely see it. . . and the guy handles himself like a pro, he's driven and competitive-- combine that with a surprisingly good set of tools for a first-year wideout, and i think the odds of him continuing to grow and succeed are quite good. . . .

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 05:52 PM
now i'm confused :D. . . . were you agreeing with me, or did you miss this part of my post?



when i say #2, i mean the second starter (the guy that's on the field with marshall in most 2-wide sets), not necessarily the guy that lines up at split end. . . i'm alllll for moving royal around to get the best matchups-- i just don't want to see him lose snaps to a guy like jackson that looks to be well past his prime IMO. . . .

That's what I've been trying to say. Given that our passing game is more than likely going resemble that of Patriots I could see Royal moving to the slot in three receiver sets which will probably happen quite often. Of course if we're in two receiver set then Royal is the guy that is out there opposite Marshall.

DenBronx
02-24-2009, 06:17 PM
Well, in his first year, Welker got 29 receptions for 434 yards. In his second
year, he got 67 for 687. He was three years into the league before he
exceeded 90 receptions and 1,000 yards, which Eddie has already done (well,
he was 20 yards short of 1,000).

That's a pretty good basis . . . not a prediction, but a basis for projection.

-----


well said.

DenBronx
02-24-2009, 06:20 PM
okay, i'll play devil's advocate just for the hell of it-- but remember that it was den bronx's statement, not mine. . .

the basis is skillset. . . welker's game is based on these things-- quickness, precise route running and timing, reliable hands, concentration, intelligence, work ethic, and the willingness to work in traffic and take a hit. . . royal has every one of those assets, in comparable measure to welker, but he combines far superior athletic gifts with them. . . he's just as quick, but he's also much stronger and much faster. . . royal set the record (already broken) for WR bench press reps at the combine with 24, and reports from VA tech were that the rest of his weight room numbers were just as impressive-- dude is pure muscle. . . combined with excellent hand usage, this helps him get off press coverage better than welker will ever be able to-- as i pointed out in another thread, shanahan said they thought he was the best WR in last year's class at getting off the jam. . .

and he has much greater straightline speed. . . the combine 40 time i find for welker is 4.61-- royal's was 4.39. . . and he plays to it with his pads on. . . welker, as good as he is at it, will never be more than an underneath receiver. . . royal has the speed to stretch the field as well as working the short stuff, as he showed last year with TD catches of 59 and 93 yards-- welker only has four 40+ catches in five years. . .

besides which, welker looks pretty much maxed out entering his 7th year in the league, while royal still has tons of upside. . . royal came close to welker's best season as a rookie, where it took welker two years before he even made an impact, and four before he had a 1,000 yard season. . . royal can do everything that welker can, but he also has skills that welker can't match. . .


of course, i undeerstand that he still has to go out and do it on the field-- but as for why someone would think that he can be, or will be a better WR than welker, i can definitely see it. . . and the guy handles himself like a pro, he's driven and competitive-- combine that with a surprisingly good set of tools for a first-year wideout, and i think the odds of him continuing to grow and succeed are quite good. . . .


also very well said. i like welker but it took him till his 5th pro year to even put up numbers that royal did as a rookie. like i said over time royal will be the better of the two. id rather have royal over welker. just my homer opinion i guess.

CPS22
02-24-2009, 06:30 PM
If we move Eddie Royal to the slot position I would like to see us try and get Tj Housmanzadah. Having him and Brandon Marshall On The Outside Then Eddie in the slot position we'll have the best recieveing core in the league!

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 06:42 PM
If we move Eddie Royal to the slot position I would like to see us try and get Tj Housmanzadah. Having him and Brandon Marshall On The Outside Then Eddie in the slot position we'll have the best recieveing core in the league!

First off welcome. :welcome:

The way I think this slot thing with Royal would work is that in three receiver sets he would move over to the slot. Bringing in Housmanzadah isn't what I would advocate because I wouldn't want take Royal off the field when we are in two receiver sets.

topscribe
02-24-2009, 07:07 PM
First off welcome. :welcome:

The way I think this slot thing with Royal would work is that in three receiver sets he would move over to the slot. Bringing in Housmanzadah isn't what I would advocate because I wouldn't want take Royal off the field when we are in two receiver sets.

Okay, now you are talking about something that might work occasionally.


And let me add my welcome to CPS22! :welcome:


-----

TXBRONC
02-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Okay, now you are talking about something that might work occasionally.

And let me add my welcome to CPS22! :welcome:


-----

Dude that's pretty much what I have been saying all along. :D

SmilinAssasSin27
02-24-2009, 09:56 PM
Isn't Bryant Johnson a FA again? If McD feels Royal is best in the slot, I'd love another beast like Johnson as the other WR.

BRONCOSFREAK765
02-24-2009, 10:01 PM
I'd like to see torry holt here if the rams cut him.

SmilinAssasSin27
02-24-2009, 10:04 PM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y26/27atwater/bj-1.jpg

broncofaninfla
02-25-2009, 10:15 AM
Royal was used in the slot a lot last year and I'm guessing will be used there even more so this year. I still expect him to be the #2 WR though and expect his stats to be even better this year.

bcbronc
02-25-2009, 01:32 PM
[QUOTE=dogfish;562867]now i'm confused :D. . . . were you agreeing with me, or did you miss this part of my post?



when i say #2, i mean the second starter (the guy that's on the field with marshall in most 2-wide sets), not necessarily the guy that lines up at split end. . . i'm alllll for moving royal around to get the best matchups-- i just don't want to see him lose snaps to a guy like jackson that looks to be well past his prime IMO. . .

I was just conversing and using your post as a spring board. basically I'm trying to ride your coat tails to popularity. :beer:






okay, i'll play devil's advocate just for the hell of it-- but remember that it was den bronx's statement, not mine. . .

the basis is skillset. . . welker's game is based on these things-- quickness, precise route running and timing, reliable hands, concentration, intelligence, work ethic, and the willingness to work in traffic and take a hit. . . royal has every one of those assets, in comparable measure to welker, but he combines far superior athletic gifts with them. . . he's just as quick, but he's also much stronger and much faster. . . royal set the record (already broken) for WR bench press reps at the combine with 24, and reports from VA tech were that the rest of his weight room numbers were just as impressive-- dude is pure muscle. . . combined with excellent hand usage, this helps him get off press coverage better than welker will ever be able to-- as i pointed out in another thread, shanahan said they thought he was the best WR in last year's class at getting off the jam. . .

and he has much greater straightline speed. . . the combine 40 time i find for welker is 4.61-- royal's was 4.39. . . and he plays to it with his pads on. . . welker, as good as he is at it, will never be more than an underneath receiver. . . royal has the speed to stretch the field as well as working the short stuff, as he showed last year with TD catches of 59 and 93 yards-- welker only has four 40+ catches in five years. . .

besides which, welker looks pretty much maxed out entering his 7th year in the league, while royal still has tons of upside. . . royal came close to welker's best season as a rookie, where it took welker two years before he even made an impact, and four before he had a 1,000 yard season. . . royal can do everything that welker can, but he also has skills that welker can't match. . .


of course, i undeerstand that he still has to go out and do it on the field-- but as for why someone would think that he can be, or will be a better WR than welker, i can definitely see it. . . and the guy handles himself like a pro, he's driven and competitive-- combine that with a surprisingly good set of tools for a first-year wideout, and i think the odds of him continuing to grow and succeed are quite good. . .


well said. and if Welker can have the success he has in McD's offense while lining up in the slot, Royal--if he continues to develop--has the skill set to take that role to a whole 'nother level.

Lonestar
02-25-2009, 03:28 PM
Royal was used in the slot a lot last year and I'm guessing will be used there even more so this year. I still expect him to be the #2 WR though and expect his stats to be even better this year.

initially he was drafted as a KR specialist and then was talked about as a replacement for Stokely when he retired and then they found out he was a hell of a good WR so he became a great #2..

I think they are correct about him being a slot guy as he would almost be uncoverable with all the picks and movement that can be run from the slot.. and since he is pretty good with moves after the catch that makes him even more valuable..

Jackson can be a pretty good #2 and his % of catches thrown to him is actually higher than Marshall were although it was a smaller sample..

I would have no issues in bringing in other WR's as long as the DL and assorted other defensive decencies are taken care of first..

ikillz0mbies
02-25-2009, 03:36 PM
What are you guys thoughts on getting Bryant Johnson or the recently released DJ Hackett? There were a few guys on here that wanted either of those receivers.

CoachChaz
02-25-2009, 03:41 PM
What are you guys thoughts on getting Bryant Johnson or the recently released DJ Hackett? There were a few guys on here that wanted either of those receivers.

Johnson was over-hyped last year and will be again this year. Hackett would be a welcome addition

SmilinAssasSin27
02-25-2009, 05:52 PM
I love Johnson. He's not a #1, but in our system, w/ our weapons, his size will present mismatches. He can't be great in San Fran, but he can be great in Arizona, New England, Denver, etc.

Astrass
02-26-2009, 03:09 AM
I think Royal will be great as a #2. Keep "the best slot receiver in the game" in the slot for god sakes lol. Assuming Stokley is healthy I don't think anyon could do better then him in that spot. Royal was a rookie last season....let him grow into the #2 slot and let Marshall do his thing. You keep changing things arund Cutler and it's just going to take that uch longer for him to grow.

TXBRONC
02-26-2009, 09:31 AM
I think Royal will be great as a #2. Keep "the best slot receiver in the game" in the slot for god sakes lol. Assuming Stokley is healthy I don't think anyon could do better then him in that spot. Royal was a rookie last season....let him grow into the #2 slot and let Marshall do his thing. You keep changing things arund Cutler and it's just going to take that uch longer for him to grow.

What I think is going to happen is that we're going to be in three receiver sets more than we are two receiver sets so by no means do I think this would be a demotion nor do I see it hurting the development of Royal or Cutler. Also when we are in two receiver sets I think Royal would still be on the field.

As much as I like Stokely agree and full heartily that he is a great slot receiver I have a concern about Stokely staying healthy. If we're in three receiver sets as much as I think we well be I'm concerned that Stokely might start breaking down. The reason I say this is because two years ago when he had start do injury he end up missing three full games and parts of two or three other games due to injury. And over the last three seasons he has missed 16 games due to injury most of which was with Indianapolis year before he came Denver. Let me reiterate that I like Stokely but we are talking about a receiver that will be 33 years of age by the start of the season.