PDA

View Full Version : McDaniels' RB Strategy ......



omac
03-26-2009, 05:28 AM
Here's something for us to appreciate McDaniels' football mind. It gives a reason for the question, "Why Arrington?", and it seems to make good sense.

*********************************************

http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_11999033

Third-down fun for Broncos' swing set
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/26/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT


DANA POINT, Calif. — Back home at Dove Valley, running backs signed up in Lawrence Welk rhythm.

A one (Correll Buckhalter), and a two (J.J. Arrington), and a three (LaMont Jordan).

Out in the Broncos' audience, head scratching intensified. What exactly were they doing at running back?

The Broncos went through seven running backs last season because of injuries. The number seemed high until it became evident the Broncos' new administration of Josh McDaniels and Brian Xanders never met a free-agent running back they didn't like.

Buckhalter, Arrington and Jordan, all situational-type backs last season and for most of their careers, were plucked from the market. And the Broncos would have signed another backup running back, Derrick Ward, had they not run out of money.

Why so many rotational-type backs, after a season in which the team went through too many backs? In this case, misdirection leads to comprehension. The tendency is to look first for a No. 1 tailback. The 20-25 carry workhorse.

The offense McDaniels brought with him from New England concentrates on the back end of a tailback committee, the role reserved for third down. Or put another way, the down where drives are either killed or sustained.

"One of the most difficult positions to play in this league anymore is the third-down back because of all the crazy looks you get from the defense and the blitzing that goes on," McDaniels said at the NFL owners meetings. "That's how you protect your quarterback against all these crazy looks that are going on, and they're just going to get crazier."

There is a noticeable intensity in McDaniels, an excitement in talking about something other than his unfortunate situation with quarterback Jay Cutler. McDaniels badly wants to resolve the friction with his quarterback, but an exchange of text messages the past two days had not produced a conversation as of Wednesday night.

Until then, the subject of running backs is a welcome diversion. In the Patriots' near-dynastic run, they have gone through a few No. 1 tailbacks. Antoine Smith, Corey Dillon, Laurence Maroney. The only constant in the Patriots' run was their swing guy, third-down specialist Kevin Faulk.

He doesn't pick up many yards — only, it seems, the important ones. And many times what Faulk picks up is not yards but pass rushers.

As McDaniels went about resetting the Broncos' backfield this season, his priority was not to find the next Terrell Davis or Clinton Portis but Faulk. McDaniels thinks he found him while watching Super Bowl XLIII between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Arizona Cardinals on Feb. 1.

The quarter started with the Cardinals down 20-7. They had to pass and the Steelers, who zone-blitz out of a 3-4 defense like no other, were going after stationary quarterback Kurt Warner. By the two-minute warning, the Steelers were gassed and trailing and needed a clutch scoring drive from their own quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to pull out a 27-23 victory.

In defeat, Arrington would win over a new team for a four-year, $10 million contract.

"J.J. Arrington was the only back who played in the fourth quarter for the Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl," McDaniels said. "That tells you all you need to know. They were trailing. Obviously, Pittsburgh is a blitzing team and they trusted him enough to be the only guy to play in the fourth quarter because he had to pick up the blitz against good linebackers and he caught a couple passes. And he did that all year."

And Arrington did all that in the Super Bowl with torn knee cartilage, since surgically repaired. As Arrington limped into Dove Valley last month, he fit in all too well with the stable of running backs. Holdovers Peyton Hillis, Selvin Young and Ryan Torain all suffered season-ending injuries last year.

Any back who comes off an injury one year is automatically labeled a question mark the next. This leads to another reason why the Broncos went back crazy in free agency.

"I think we're all finding out each year how important it is to have multiple backs," McDaniels said. "Denver found out last year. We found out the same year. We were playing with BenJarvus Green-Ellis for three, four games there in the middle of the year as our starter. Originally, he was on our practice squad. So we've all found out that at that position, you better have as many as you can because that position gets hit on every play."

Mike Klis: 303-954-1055 or mklis@denverpost.com

Third-down stars

With apologies to Marshall Faulk, Marcus Allen, Walter Payton, Roger Craig, LaDainian Tomlinson and Tiki Barber, who were great on every down, NFL reporter Mike Klis picks 10 of the top third-down prototypes who never had a 1,000-yard rushing season:

1. Larry Centers, Cardinals: The all-time leading RB receiver with 827 catches.

2. Keith Byars, Eagles: Had almost as many career receptions (610) as carries (865).

3. Ronnie Harmon, Bills, Chargers: Averaged 632 yards receiving and 253 yards rushing from 1990-96.

4. Kevin Faulk, Patriots: Has 14 TDs and 3,000-plus yards rushing, and 14 TDs and 3,000-plus yards receiving.

5. Reggie Bush, Saints: With health, he could be the best third-down back ever.

6. Dave Meggett, Giants: One of the game's most dangerous game breakers from 1989-92.

7. Joe Washington, Colts/Redskins: The NFL's leading receiver in 1979 with 82 catches.

8. Darren Sproles, Chargers: A return threat until last season, when he struck fear from the backfield.

9. John L. Williams, Seahawks: A rare fullback with good hands who in 1988 had 877 yards rushing, 651 yards receiving.

10. Rickey Young, Vikings: Averaged 75 receptions in three seasons from 1978-80.

Dirk
03-26-2009, 06:17 AM
Well, it's hard to understand why you go from broke-back to broke-back. But, I guess I don't know everything. :confused:

fcspikeit
03-26-2009, 07:11 AM
There is a noticeable intensity in McDaniels, an excitement in talking about something other than his unfortunate situation with quarterback Jay Cutler. McDaniels badly wants to resolve the friction with his quarterback, but an exchange of text messages the past two days had not produced a conversation as of Wednesday night.

So they didn't talk on the phone Tuesday night? :confused:

Sorry, back to topic.. :D

We don't need 3 3rd down backs... So we know why he brought in Arrington, his logic sounded fair enough but why did we need the other 2? I don't mind the competition but aren't we paying them to much to cut them after camp?

I don't thing there's a chance in hell all 3 of these guys can beat out Hillis if Hillis is given a fair chance.

We don't know about Torain, so maybe all 3 could beat him out.. It is looking like just about everyone from last year except Hillis will be cut.. Mainly because Hillis can at least play FB to make room for the new guys..

CoachChaz
03-26-2009, 08:10 AM
So they didn't talk on the phone Tuesday night? :confused:

Sorry, back to topic.. :D

We don't need 3 3rd down backs... So we know why he brought in Arrington, his logic sounded fair enough but why did we need the other 2? I don't mind the competition but aren't we paying them to much to cut them after camp?

I don't thing there's a chance in hell all 3 of these guys can beat out Hillis if Hillis is given a fair chance.

We don't know about Torain, so maybe all 3 could beat him out.. It is looking like just about everyone from last year except Hillis will be cut.. Mainly because Hillis can at least play FB to make room for the new guys..

So if Hillis ends up at the bottom of the depth chart it automatically means he wasnt given a chance? Get real

SOCALORADO.
03-26-2009, 09:28 AM
So they didn't talk on the phone Tuesday night? :confused:

Sorry, back to topic.. :D

We don't need 3 3rd down backs... So we know why he brought in Arrington, his logic sounded fair enough but why did we need the other 2? I don't mind the competition but aren't we paying them to much to cut them after camp?

I don't thing there's a chance in hell all 3 of these guys can beat out Hillis if Hillis is given a fair chance.

We don't know about Torain, so maybe all 3 could beat him out.. It is looking like just about everyone from last year except Hillis will be cut.. Mainly because Hillis can at least play FB to make room for the new guys..


Not sure if your aware of this, but the "Erhardt-Perkins" offense is the offense that McD is installing. Really doesnt use a FB. So Hillis is totally expendable. Which is why he is/was on the trading block.
Just FYI.

weazel
03-26-2009, 10:13 AM
Pittman is head and shoulders better than Jordan and Buckhalter. Arrington may be able to help, but paying the other two and letting Pittman walk is a huge mistake.

Out of the 7 backs we used last season, Pittman ran with the most intensity and showed ALOT of fight. The guy played very well for us and is not getting rewarded for it, it's too bad. ...Not to mention the fact that he was the only one that could get into the endzone for about 4 or 5 games.

omac
03-26-2009, 10:15 AM
Not sure if your aware of this, but the "Erhardt-Perkins" offense is the offense that McD is installing. Really doesnt use a FB. So Hillis is totally expendable. Which is why he is/was on the trading block.
Just FYI.

I guess that article about the offense being an amoeba, able to adapt depending on the players on the team, was all just marketing. No biggie, I figured as much when I read it. No knock on the offense, it's just not what it was advertised in the article to be.

Hillis' excellent pass catching skills and his determined rushing style actually makes him ideal as a 3rd down back. Because he can rush up the middle and take defenders with him, it also makes him viable in 1st and 2nd down situations too. The only weakness he had, since he was a rookie who initially didn't get much playing time, was understanding protection, but that can be learned. I hope Hillis at least gets a fair shot at competing for the starting role. Hillis was pretty clutch during games.

omac
03-26-2009, 10:15 AM
Well, it's hard to understand why you go from broke-back to broke-back. But, I guess I don't know everything. :confused:

:D nice.

omac
03-26-2009, 10:19 AM
Pittman is head and shoulders better than Jordan and Buckhalter. Arrington may be able to help, but paying the other two and letting Pittman walk is a huge mistake.

Out of the 7 backs we used last season, Pittman ran with the most intensity and showed ALOT of fight. The guy played very well for us and is not getting rewarded for it, it's too bad. ...Not to mention the fact that he was the only one that could get into the endzone for about 4 or 5 games.

Yep, Pittman and Hillis were our most productive TD/3rd-down backs. Hillis had 5 TDs in 4 games, weeks 11 to 14, then he got injured. Check out the games where Pittman scored a rushing TD, and most likely, we scored a lot. Same with Hillis. That's what some balance can do. :beer:

Dirk
03-26-2009, 10:25 AM
I agree on the point that Hillis is a keeper. As I mentioned before, his pass catching ability makes him a double threat with his power running.

If they get rid of Hillis I for one will be saddened. But hey..that's football.

omac
03-26-2009, 10:34 AM
I agree on the point that Hillis is a keeper. As I mentioned before, his pass catching ability makes him a double threat with his power running.

If they get rid of Hillis I for one will be saddened. But hey..that's football.

Yeah, me too, but if they do get rid of Hillis, all those 3 RBs McDaniels got had better be upgrades. If they can't find the endzone or convert 3rd downs at least as well as Hillis (and Pittman), I'd be pissed, specially since it wouldn't have cost us anything to keep them. :D

turftoad
03-26-2009, 10:38 AM
Yeah, me too, but if they do get rid of Hillis, all those 3 RBs McDaniels got had better be upgrades. If they can't find the endzone or convert 3rd downs at least as well as Hillis (and Pittman), I'd be pissed, specially since it wouldn't have cost us anything to keep them. :D

LaMont Jordan, 5'10", 230 LBS.

TXBRONC
03-26-2009, 10:43 AM
LaMont Jordan, 5'10", 230 LBS.

In my opinion Jordan has been at his best when he hasn't had to be the main guy.

turftoad
03-26-2009, 10:46 AM
In my opinion Jordan has been at his best when he hasn't had to be the main guy.

Agreed, just saying that he's probably our short yardage/goal line back.

Buff
03-26-2009, 10:51 AM
Pittman is head and shoulders better than Jordan and Buckhalter. Arrington may be able to help, but paying the other two and letting Pittman walk is a huge mistake.

Out of the 7 backs we used last season, Pittman ran with the most intensity and showed ALOT of fight. The guy played very well for us and is not getting rewarded for it, it's too bad. ...Not to mention the fact that he was the only one that could get into the endzone for about 4 or 5 games.

Michael Pittman is not head and shoulders better than anyone. He wasn't half the back that Hillis was last year.

omac
03-26-2009, 11:13 AM
In my opinion Jordan has been at his best when he hasn't had to be the main guy.

Also, Jordan's injury history recently doesn't look very promising. Didn't we already learn from the Travis Henry acquisition?

weazel
03-26-2009, 11:14 AM
Hillis was great for 4 or 5 games in the second half. Pittman was great for about the same amount of time in the first half. I really couldnt say one was better than the other, as they both did a great job. "Wasn't HALF the back"??? Youre telling me that Hillis was OVER TWICE as good? TWICE?

okay then...

Age G Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G YScm RRTD Fmb
Pittman33 8 76 320 4 20 4.2 40.0 9.5 10 112 11.2 0 40 1.3 14.0 432 4 0
Hillis 22 10 68 343 5 19 5.0 34.3 6.8 14 179 12.8 1 47 1.4 17.9 522 6 0


Looks pretty similar to me, but I guess you use different math than I do

TXBRONC
03-26-2009, 11:34 AM
Agreed, just saying that he's probably our short yardage/goal line back.

More than likely. The only reason I can think of that McDaniels would want to get rid of Hillis is because he's spooked by how bad Hillis injury was.

weazel
03-26-2009, 11:36 AM
I just think McDaniels wants to get rid of as many Shanahan players as possible. Anyone on the fringe that he can replace easily is on the move

omac
03-26-2009, 11:40 AM
I just think McDaniels wants to get rid of as many Shanahan players as possible. Anyone on the fringe that he can replace easily is on the move

Good theory; that happens a lot in regime changes, and not just in football.

honz
03-26-2009, 11:48 AM
Pittman's running last year is overrated by man IMO. He ran hard and hit holes hard, but if he got hit before the first down marker or before the endzone he wasn't going to get the yardage.

weazel
03-26-2009, 11:58 AM
we must have watched different games... I didnt miss any though

omac
03-26-2009, 12:05 PM
Pittman's running last year is overrated by man IMO. He ran hard and hit holes hard, but if he got hit before the first down marker or before the endzone he wasn't going to get the yardage.

He had pretty decent vision, though. He had a good sense of where the holes were.

TXBRONC
03-26-2009, 12:11 PM
Also, Jordan's injury history recently doesn't look very promising. Didn't we already learn from the Travis Henry acquisition?

Oh no does this guy have the habit of a rabbit? :shocked:

honz
03-26-2009, 12:11 PM
I'm not saying that he didn't do a very good job for us when healthy, but I wouldn't want to be counting on him to pick up first downs on 3rd and 1 or 2 all of next year.

weazel
03-26-2009, 12:40 PM
to be honest with you, I wouldn't want to be counting on anyone on our RB staff but its all we have.

underrated29
03-26-2009, 01:32 PM
Pittman is head and shoulders better than Jordan and Buckhalter. Arrington may be able to help, but paying the other two and letting Pittman walk is a huge mistake.

Out of the 7 backs we used last season, Pittman ran with the most intensity and showed ALOT of fight. The guy played very well for us and is not getting rewarded for it, it's too bad. ...Not to mention the fact that he was the only one that could get into the endzone for about 4 or 5 games.




I STRONGLY DISAGREE about pittman being better than jordan. For their roles maybe. Pittman could catch and would pass protect well. But he is not near the back that jordan is....I know most disagree with me, but i still say that come opening day Jordan will be our starting back unless we take one of the top 5 backs in the draft.

Everything else about pittman i do agree with and he did AWESOME for us, and would rather see him then bucky, but not jordan.

dogfish
03-26-2009, 02:17 PM
so he wants a back than can pass protect and catch the ball? hillis fits that role perfectly, but i guess since he's called a fullback instead of a tailback it just won't work. . . that, and why have a big guy to block linebackers when you can get a really little guy to do it? why have a young guy with a ton of potential that's playing for pretty close to the league minimum salary and is already under contract when you can pay considerably more to bring in a vet?

weazel
03-26-2009, 02:36 PM
so he wants a back than can pass protect and catch the ball? hillis fits that role perfectly, but i guess since he's called a fullback instead of a tailback it just won't work. . . that, and why have a big guy to block linebackers when you can get a really little guy to do it? why have a young guy with a ton of potential that's playing for pretty close to the league minimum salary and is already under contract when you can pay considerably more to bring in a vet?

makes sense to me! :laugh:

Lonestar
03-26-2009, 02:41 PM
If Hillis is healthy and given the chance I suspect he will surprise some folks..

I have said from day one on Josh coming to town that we will see to RB's that split time and carries at the EOY they barring injury will have 750-900 yards each and a third RB (like Faulk now Hillis) that will get about 400-500 yards and a lot of catches.. and most of the running TD's..

That is Modus Operandi of the NE team..

honz
03-26-2009, 03:20 PM
Hillis is still on the team is he not? We need more than one quality back as was evident last year.

Simple Jaded
03-26-2009, 04:18 PM
I like Arrington a lot, I thought he belonged in a ZBS from the beginning.......I'm not saying he's the Next Thomas Jones or Garrison Hearst, but like those guy's, I think he's a good RB stuck on a team that doesn't know how to run the ball.

LaMont Jordan I get, but Buckhalter I don't, that's a lot of money to throw at a RB that's missed as many games as he's played and has never been a starter in the NFL or College.

Aside from Hillis, they're all better than last years scrubs.......or the year before that.......or the year before that.......

underrated29
03-26-2009, 04:47 PM
I like Arrington a lot, I thought he belonged in a ZBS from the beginning.......I'm not saying he's the Next Thomas Jones or Garrison Hearst, but like those guy's, I think he's a good RB stuck on a team that doesn't know how to run the ball.

LaMont Jordan I get, but Buckhalter I don't, that's a lot of money to throw at a RB that's missed as many games as he's played and has never been a starter in the NFL or College.

Aside from Hillis, they're all better than last years scrubs.......or the year before that.......or the year before that.......



Yes- I also like arrington a lot for our sytem and he can catch. Buck has always run really well inplace of westy but i think jj and jordan are a great 1-2--assuming we dont draft anyone (we likely will) and hillis stays at FB.