PDA

View Full Version : Question about Mcdaniels offense



threefolddead
03-27-2009, 10:22 PM
I lurk around and read a lot but don't say much but I wanted to ask a question and read something else other than you know what. So I hear about this offense that Mcdaniels is going to implement and that some players don't fit in it like Shef. I was just wondering if someone could help me understand what this offense is suspected to be. I understand passing oriented and what not but what is the major difference from what we saw last year vs what we may see this year? Thanks guys!

bud
03-27-2009, 10:27 PM
I'm most interested in how the offensive line is going to perform. McDaniels made it clear that zone blocking is (mostly) going away...

Not that they were blowing people off the line in the short game last season... But, is this going to help?

MOtorboat
03-27-2009, 10:32 PM
I'm most interested in how the offensive line is going to perform. McDaniels made it clear that zone blocking is (mostly) going away...

Not that they were blowing people off the line in the short game last season... But, is this going to help?

So where exactly did you hear that?

McDaniels was implementing ZBS philosophies in New England the last two years, which has been documented, and he retained Dennison and Turner, ZBS students and teachers.

Lonestar
03-27-2009, 10:34 PM
Several (2) RB's that get 750 to 900 yards each. One recieving RB that gets about 400 yards runing and the majority of the TD's.

The passing game that forces thr QB's to read the defense while coming to the LOS. After the snap he must hit the open man and not force the ball.

It is based on high percenatge plays.

Shazam!
03-27-2009, 10:36 PM
A lot of the formations use 4 and 5 WRs and the TE becomes less of a priority. Backs must be good blockers due to one less man on the line.

bud
03-27-2009, 10:43 PM
Never mind the new set of running backs (Buckhalter, J.J. Arrington and LaMont Jordan) the Broncos acquired through free agency. Perhaps the most significant change to the Broncos' offense this year will be the diminished role of the zone-blocking scheme that had been a Denver staple since the Mike Shanahan era began in 1995.

"That was really their bread-and-butter," McDaniels said. "We did more gap schemes in New England, where we're going to pull a guard. I can't give that up. That's kind of my baby. But you're going to see both."

The new running scheme will showcase the agility of Broncos guards Ben Hamilton and Chris Kuper.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11991316

McDaniels is going to use a gap scheme and pull the guards.

EMB6903
03-27-2009, 10:47 PM
I actually think Scheffler would be very solid in Mcdaniels offense, esspecially in the slot.... he causes a lot of mismatches.

MOtorboat
03-27-2009, 10:48 PM
McDaniels is going to use a gap scheme and pull the guards.

Touche.

I'll believe it when I see it. There was apparently little reason to retain Dennison and Turner, then.

threefolddead
03-27-2009, 10:48 PM
So what kind of plays might we see a tight end on? Or is this receiving running back going to take that place? Also, what are the positives and negatives of having receivers take the place of a tight end threat?

red98
03-27-2009, 10:49 PM
A lot of the formations use 4 and 5 WRs and the TE becomes less of a priority. Backs must be good blockers due to one less man on the line.

True. Shanny's O used motion and various formations to get the D to reveal whats what. McD spreads them out more for the same reason.

I wouldn't pigeon hole him though. I've seen the Pats adjust in game and go to a short controlled passing game, run out of the shot-gun and go to a power run (against the Broncos last year), to open up the pass or just hold onto to the ball and run down the clock (chargers 2 seasons ago).

The Broncos actually used many elements of the Pats O last year.

As for Jay, he needs to be able to read thru his progressions to the 3rd or 4th guy instead of forcing it to 1 or 2.

I also think McD will be able to take advantage of shef and graham if he wants. I think he's more flexible than we've been led to believe.

honz
03-27-2009, 10:50 PM
I think it's hard to say. Their offense looked pretty different with Cassel in there than it did with Brady. Brady excelled throwing the ball downfield while Cassel struggled throwing the deep ball, so they had him throw more screens and short passes.

red98
03-27-2009, 10:52 PM
Touche.

I'll believe it when I see it. There was apparently little reason to retain Dennison and Turner, then.

He said he'll use both. Loves our gaurds for pulling etc.

Seems he is all about having players and units that are versatile and can do different things.

I like it. If this JC stuff was settled I'd be pretty excited right now.

red98
03-27-2009, 10:54 PM
I actually think Scheffler would be very solid in Mcdaniels offense, esspecially in the slot.... he causes a lot of mismatches.

I bet McD could have alot of fun running Sheffler out of the slot. :D

Shazam!
03-27-2009, 10:54 PM
As for Jay, he needs to be able to read thru his progressions to the 3rd or 4th guy instead of forcing it to 1 or 2.

Nothing against Jay, but maybe from what McD watched Jay wasn't the type of QB (who relies so heavily on arm strength) to play the system. That's one thing he knows is QBs. Even John Elway, who relied so heavily on velocity and getting the ball to the spot quickly, maybe wouldn't have been a good fit in the system that requires a lot of patience and precision.

red98
03-27-2009, 10:57 PM
I think it's hard to say. Their offense looked pretty different with Cassel in there than it did with Brady. Brady excelled throwing the ball downfield while Cassel struggled throwing the deep ball, so they had him throw more screens and short passes.

Yep. Shows Mcd's versatility and ability to know his player's limitations.

red98
03-27-2009, 11:03 PM
Nothing against Jay, but maybe from what McD watched Jay wasn't the type of QB (who relies so heavily on arm strength) to play the system. That's one thing he knows is QBs. Even John Elway, who relied so heavily on velocity and getting the ball to the spot quickly, maybe wouldn't have been a good fit in the system that requires a lot of patience and precision.

Could be but I think McD will will teach him the right way to do it.

I think we have been lacking in that area (teaching players) last few years and the Pats have a reputation for excelling in that area.

Also like Honz said, Mcd changed his "O" to adapt to Cassell with good results.

As an aside, many people talk about Brady being a system QB, I think he's shown he's a very good QB who's worked through several variations of offensive scheme.

Jay may be being a jerk right now but he has skills and I think McD will put him in a position to win (if he's still here :D)

bud
03-27-2009, 11:26 PM
Touche.

I'll believe it when I see it. There was apparently little reason to retain Dennison and Turner, then.

I'm hoping that keeping them will help the guys buy into the new system.

But, you do have a point there. McDaniels could have brought just about anybody in.

I hope the zone blocking doesn't completely disappear. It worked pretty well.

dogfish
03-27-2009, 11:54 PM
it's a top secret offense, passed down in the mcdaniels family for generations-- that's why he had to bring his brother here to help out. . . .


doogie won't reveal much about the "O" excpet that most of our players don't fit. . . .

BroncoTech
03-28-2009, 02:49 AM
There is no McDaniel's offense, only a Billichick offense. Can you name one disciple of Billicheck that ever did anything in this league? I don't see a teacher type like Bill Walsh with the west coast defense scheme here that came with this coach.

As far as zone blocking goes it got a lot less effective when you could no longer chop block. I always liked the pulling guard concept but always wondered about the gap left empty doing that.

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 02:51 AM
Could be but I think McD will will teach him the right way to do it.

I think we have been lacking in that area (teaching players) last few years and the Pats have a reputation for excelling in that area.

Also like Honz said, Mcd changed his "O" to adapt to Cassell with good results.

As an aside, many people talk about Brady being a system QB, I think he's shown he's a very good QB who's worked through several variations of offensive scheme.

Jay may be being a jerk right now but he has skills and I think McD will put him in a position to win (if he's still here :D)

I think that Josh did see alot of immaturity in the tapes he watched before and after coming to DEN.. jay was encouraged this past year to go vertical and with the incentives built into his contract, he may have did that way to much, to the detriment of the team.. many times he forced passes into tight spots, double and triple coverage. When the other wide outs were virtually uncovered, wide open, but jay did not see it or ignored it. While trying to make the big play..

I suspect Josh has seen this and has concerns about jay taking direction and actually learning the scheme..

Shazam!
03-28-2009, 02:57 AM
Can you name one disciple of Billicheck that ever did anything in this league?

That is more of a reason for McDaniels to succeed.

He can break the trend as a young offensive minded guy with a knack for QBs who even knows something about defense... I think that's why he was brought in?

Hardwired
03-28-2009, 07:28 AM
I suspect Josh has seen this and has concerns about jay taking direction and actually learning the scheme..

I'm wondering if Jay has the same worries and it's a big reason he's trying to force a trade. Maybe he's scared of a disciplined offense because he doesn't think he'd be good enough at it.

bud
03-28-2009, 07:40 AM
... [J]ay was encouraged this past year to go vertical and with the incentives built into his contract, he may have did that way to much, to the detriment of the team.. ...


Cutler went to the air because of his contract?.. WHAT?!

Is there anybody in here besides Jrwiz that (even remotely) buys that?

Jeezus. There's a reason why I call people crackpots.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in quite a while.

---------------

Real problem: Cutler is forcing the ball to Marshall. Cutler and Marshall look like Favre to Sharpe right now. Marshall is a reliable target; but Cutler has too much trust and faith in one guy. That's where Cutler has struggled the most.

Good news; because Marshall is going to help Cutler learn to spread the ball around. Cutler won't have a choice in the matter. Because, Marshall can't seem to go (even) one offseason without getting himself into trouble--and suspended.

(I know I already said it... But... I still can't believe anybody thinks Cutler was thinking about his contract on the field last season. What a ridiculous theory.)

elsid13
03-28-2009, 08:01 AM
At it heart the McDaniel's offense philosophy is a single back play action centric offense. Over the last three years, the NE coaches have adopted the system to fit to the strength of the players on the team (that why they took to calling it amoeba offense). NE also has specialized it package greater then any other team in the league, which is why he is bringing so many backs. Now NE has run ZBS scheme but they have depend on more pulling guard/dive plays then Denver did. But Denver has been incorporate that stuff the last two season as the line has got bigger.

What McDaniel has done in last two season as the OC was to incorporate more of spread look to the team to take advantage of Moss and Welker and loss of TE that can get down the field effective. Because of the spread look and no FB it very important that TE be good blocker first and receiver second. Hopefully McDaniel will go back to more two TE sets in Denver (similar to what NE ran three season ago) and use Scheffer out wide similar to way INDY use Dallas Clark

hamrob
03-28-2009, 10:17 AM
Everyone gives the Pats credit for having such a high powered offense...why?

They had Tom Brady...and went and got a couple guys like Randy Moss and Wes Welker...they then had a great season...perhaps the best ever. But other than that season...their offense is and has been average!

Its so moronic listening to all these posters speak about how this new offense is so much better than what we have been used to. Give me a break. Belecheat and MCDumbass can't hold a candle to Shanahan's offenses. The Broncos have had a top 10 offense for the past 12yrs. The problem with the Broncos have been in the other two phases of the football game (Defense, Special Teams)...not offense.

So, what do they do...they hire a so-called offensive coach to come blow up the #2 offense in the league...and leave the Dline where it was?

How the heck....are so many of you...lost in translation??

BroncoJoe
03-28-2009, 10:20 AM
So, what do they do...they hire a so-called offensive coach to come blow up the #2 offense in the league...and leave the Dline where it was?

How the heck....are so many of you...lost in translation??

*sigh*

16th rated offense in points. Who cares about yards?

hamrob
03-28-2009, 10:33 AM
*sigh*

16th rated offense in points. Who cares about yards?

*sigh*

Field positon...where did we rank?

Defensive takeaways...where did we rank?

Defensive points...where did we rank?

bud
03-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Ok. Well give you that.

It did take some talent for the Pats to get the numbers.

The Broncos have some talent of their own.

I still expect good things from the offense.

BroncoJoe
03-28-2009, 10:54 AM
*sigh*

Field positon...where did we rank?

Defensive takeaways...where did we rank?

Defensive points...where did we rank?

Nice change there...

I can't find a site to rank field position. We all know the defense didn't get turnovers and allowed a boat load of points. We also know only Favre threw more interceptions. Cutler also put the ball on the ground a lot. Didn't lose all that many fumbles, but it still cost us yards and a down.

Fact is we didn't score like the "#2" ranked offense should have.

BroncoWave
03-28-2009, 11:25 AM
Never mind the new set of running backs (Buckhalter, J.J. Arrington and LaMont Jordan) the Broncos acquired through free agency. Perhaps the most significant change to the Broncos' offense this year will be the diminished role of the zone-blocking scheme that had been a Denver staple since the Mike Shanahan era began in 1995.

"That was really their bread-and-butter," McDaniels said. "We did more gap schemes in New England, where we're going to pull a guard. I can't give that up. That's kind of my baby. But you're going to see both."

The new running scheme will showcase the agility of Broncos guards Ben Hamilton and Chris Kuper.


http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11991316

McDaniels is going to use a gap scheme and pull the guards.


Sigh...

Did you even read that whole excerpt?

He's not getting rid of the ZBS. Like others have said, he would have gotten rid of Dennison and Turner if he was just going to totally dump it.

He said that he is going to implement his running scheme but based on that quote it appears that he will use both.

I still haven't heard one good reason as to why it's a bad thing that we're going to give defenses multiple looks to worry about in our running game.

Even if he primarily uses the gap sceme and only sprinkles in the ZBS that would still be an effective way to keep defenses on their toes and make them have to worry about different looks. I fail to see the bad.

hamrob
03-28-2009, 11:26 AM
I'm not saying that Jay doesn't have to improve.

Last year was only his 2nd full season. He's still learning.

But, we asked him to do way...way too much.

My point is, we didn't give him too much help. And, he still played very well.

When you're playing from behind...and you have no running game. You have to take chances.

Sure, he has to cut back on the turnovers...but he's 25yrs old and one of the most talented/gifted QB's in the league.

Just on natural progression...Jay's a top-5 QB this year. If there was one thing about the Broncos that wasn't broken it was Jay Cutler. Yes, the Oline was pretty darn good...but a big part of that had to do with Jay's mobility, strength and quick release.

hamrob
03-28-2009, 11:28 AM
I don't think it's bad to switch up running schemes...but I'm not impressed with the additons to our stable. All three of those guys are 3rd down backs...whose going to be the stallion?

bud
03-28-2009, 11:32 AM
Nice change there...

I can't find a site to rank field position. We all know the defense didn't get turnovers and allowed a boat load of points. We also know only Favre threw more interceptions. Cutler also put the ball on the ground a lot. Didn't lose all that many fumbles, but it still cost us yards and a down.

Fact is we didn't score like the "#2" ranked offense should have.

Denver had no power game in short yardage. The Broncos were forced to pass.

On the other hand, I questioned some of the playcalls in the red zone. (I liked Kubes better as a playcaller. Denver missed him.)

I'm hoping McDaniels can help sort out the playcalling.

I'm skeptical about what the staff has done (thus far) to address the backs themselves. I don't see anything that resembles a feature back. I hope they have a good draft plan.

bud
03-28-2009, 11:33 AM
I don't think it's bad to switch up running schemes...but I'm not impressed with the additons to our stable. All three of those guys are 3rd down backs...whose going to be the stallion?

My thoughts exactly.

DenverBronkHoes
03-28-2009, 11:34 AM
this new offense.... whatever u wanna call it.... Will definately require to use less arm and more brain... which is essentially a good thing for him at this point...

Its great to see Jay fit those balls in a shoebox in double and triple coverage and make the play.... Made my heart jump a few times... But when it does not work out and theres literally a guy WIDE open, its frustrates me as a fan, and i know people in the organization have to feel the same way....

Jay will be alright

bud
03-28-2009, 11:49 AM
Sigh...

Did you even read that whole excerpt?

He's not getting rid of the ZBS. Like others have said, he would have gotten rid of Dennison and Turner if he was just going to totally dump it.

He said that he is going to implement his running scheme but based on that quote it appears that he will use both.

I still haven't heard one good reason as to why it's a bad thing that we're going to give defenses multiple looks to worry about in our running game.

Even if he primarily uses the gap sceme and only sprinkles in the ZBS that would still be an effective way to keep defenses on their toes and make them have to worry about different looks. I fail to see the bad.

I didn't say it was bad. And, nobody thinks the zone blocking is going away completely. Then again, it isn't going to have a huge role either. Denver's fortunes clearly hinge on the success of the gap scheme.

I am nervous that Denver's offensive line will struggle with a new system... Then again, I also pointed out the weakness in short yardage (situations) last season... They weren't blowing anybody off the ball when it really mattered with those zone blocks.

Furthermore, McDaniels started out talking like the blocking scheme wouldn't change at all. As the offseason has continued, he has gotten more and more vocal about his new gap schemes... It's obvious (in many ways) that McDaniels wants to bring as much of his offense (from New England) to Denver as possible.


Speculation: If you have an idea and refer to it as "my baby", what does that mean? For myself, that would mean I have something I believe in; and I'm going to use it--alot. I'm not expecting Shanahan's zone blocking to be a factor in McDaniels' Broncos.

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 11:57 AM
I think the term less arm and more brain is the phrase of the day.

I fail to see what Y'all expect Josh to do in getting better RB's.

Very few in the FA market and with limit on funds, I think we did OK.

Y'all forget that NE does not rely on a stud buffalo but 2 RBs that both get about 750-900 yards and athird that gets about 400 the majority of the RB TDs and a lot of passes (Faulk). All the while having a top ten running attack.

Their running game complements the passing game, much like ours has the past few years.

bud
03-28-2009, 12:01 PM
I think the term less arm and more brain is the phrase of the day.

I fail to see what Y'all expect Josh to do in getting better RB's.

Very few in the FA market and with limit on funds, I think we did OK.

Y'all forget that NE does not rely on a stud buffalo but 2 RBs that both get about 750-900 yards and athird that gets about 400 the majority of the RB TDs and a lot of passes (Faulk). All the while having a top ten running attack.

Their running game complements the passing game, much like ours has the past few years.

Dillon and Faulk were both considered feature backs at one time for a reason. They could get a couple tough yards when it mattered.

McDaniels wasn't hired to make excuses about the difficulties of the open market. If that were a valid point, Shanahan would still be here.

MOtorboat
03-28-2009, 12:13 PM
Dillon and Faulk were both considered feature backs at one time for a reason. They could get a couple tough yards when it mattered.

McDaniels wasn't hired to make excuses about the difficulties of the open market. If that were a valid point, Shanahan would still be here.

Dillon, ok...I'll agree with you, but Faulk, a feature back? I don't think so.

BroncoWave
03-28-2009, 12:32 PM
Dillon and Faulk were both considered feature backs at one time for a reason. They could get a couple tough yards when it mattered.

McDaniels wasn't hired to make excuses about the difficulties of the open market. If that were a valid point, Shanahan would still be here.

Show me where he has made that excuse?

But seriously, who on the market (within financial reason) could McDaniels have signed better than who he has at RB?

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 12:36 PM
Cutler went to the air because of his contract?.. WHAT?!

Is there anybody in here besides Jrwiz that (even remotely) buys that?

Jeezus. There's a reason why I call people crackpots.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in quite a while.

---------------

Real problem: Cutler is forcing the ball to Marshall. Cutler and Marshall look like Favre to Sharpe right now. Marshall is a reliable target; but Cutler has too much trust and faith in one guy. That's where Cutler has struggled the most.

Good news; because Marshall is going to help Cutler learn to spread the ball around. Cutler won't have a choice in the matter. Because, Marshall can't seem to go (even) one offseason without getting himself into trouble--and suspended.

(I know I already said it... But... I still can't believe anybody thinks Cutler was thinking about his contract on the field last season. What a ridiculous theory.)



why not that seems to be one of the only things he is worried about now?

follow the money folks..

remember all the huge hints about jay trust issues will go away IF he gets a new contract. How he will believe Josh if he is the highest paid player in the NFL..

it is cooks MO for his Qb clients..

Follow the money.. I think jay has been watching cuba gooding movies way to much..

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 12:59 PM
Dillon and Faulk were both considered feature backs at one time for a reason. They could get a couple tough yards when it mattered.

McDaniels wasn't hired to make excuses about the difficulties of the open market. If that were a valid point, Shanahan would still be here.


Faulk has never been a feature back in Billies offense.. the most yards he has ever got was 638 and has never started more that 8 games and only two years has played less than 15 games..
http://www.nfl.com/players/kevinfaulk/profile?id=FAU126264

if you look back on their offense over th Billies regime there you will fond only one year IIRC that one RB had the big yards and that was when dillion was there even when they went after malroney as a number one choice he was not the stud buffalo has had never started more than 6 games in one year..

go back and do your homework on their running game..

it has been 2 backs with 750-900 yard or so except in the one strong dillion year 1635 the other years he has had 800 or less almost since Billie got promoted in NE.. he almost always has ONE RB that get another 400-600 in running yards and that RB gets alot of passes and huge chunk of the TD from the RB's allotment..

billie likes RBBC and I see no reason to believe that Josh will not copy that here in DEN.. Passing game will set up the running attack and finish off games with a strong dose of running the ball for TOP reasons once we get a lead..

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 01:05 PM
Dillon and Faulk were both considered feature backs at one time for a reason. They could get a couple tough yards when it mattered.

McDaniels wasn't hired to make excuses about the difficulties of the open market. If that were a valid point, Shanahan would still be here.


considering no one really knew what the FA RB market was going to look like when Pat fired mikeys ass for gross incompetence or insubordination (no one knows for sure).. That is a ludicrous comment to begin with..

Josh has made no such statement .. I did it is a fact of life we did not want to spend a ton of money on a stud buffalo when they only used one for one year in NE offense and quickly went back to RBBC after ONE good year from Dillon.. and Faulk has been the go to guy in the NE passing games as a RB.. not as a RB as you have suggested..

DenverBronkHoes
03-28-2009, 01:12 PM
why not that seems to be one of the only things he is worried about now?

follow the money folks..

remember all the huge hints about jay trust issues will go away IF he gets a new contract. How he will believe Josh if he is the highest paid player in the NFL..

it is cooks MO for his Qb clients..

Follow the money.. I think jay has been watching cuba gooding movies way to much..

Jr u are really hitting it off with me today buddy..... keep going, i like this:salute:

DenverBronkHoes
03-28-2009, 01:13 PM
can we all agree that Josh had a serious advantage having that one guy?... what was his name?? shit right on the tip of my tongue.... i think his name is ANDY FLOSS????

WARHORSE
03-28-2009, 03:24 PM
Cutler went to the air because of his contract?.. WHAT?!

Is there anybody in here besides Jrwiz that (even remotely) buys that?

Jeezus. There's a reason why I call people crackpots.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in quite a while.

---------------

Real problem: Cutler is forcing the ball to Marshall. Cutler and Marshall look like Favre to Sharpe right now. Marshall is a reliable target; but Cutler has too much trust and faith in one guy. That's where Cutler has struggled the most.

Good news; because Marshall is going to help Cutler learn to spread the ball around. Cutler won't have a choice in the matter. Because, Marshall can't seem to go (even) one offseason without getting himself into trouble--and suspended.

(I know I already said it... But... I still can't believe anybody thinks Cutler was thinking about his contract on the field last season. What a ridiculous theory.)



Dead on the money.:salute:

(That phrase fits in so many ways around here.)

bud
03-28-2009, 04:52 PM
Faulk has never been a feature back in Billies offense.. the most yards he has ever got was 638 and has never started more that 8 games and only two years has played less than 15 games..
http://www.nfl.com/players/kevinfaulk/profile?id=FAU126264

if you look back on their offense over th Billies regime there you will fond only one year IIRC that one RB had the big yards and that was when dillion was there even when they went after malroney as a number one choice he was not the stud buffalo has had never started more than 6 games in one year..

go back and do your homework on their running game..

it has been 2 backs with 750-900 yard or so except in the one strong dillion year 1635 the other years he has had 800 or less almost since Billie got promoted in NE.. he almost always has ONE RB that get another 400-600 in running yards and that RB gets alot of passes and huge chunk of the TD from the RB's allotment..

billie likes RBBC and I see no reason to believe that Josh will not copy that here in DEN.. Passing game will set up the running attack and finish off games with a strong dose of running the ball for TOP reasons once we get a lead..

I said both Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon had been feature backs "at one time".

Here's what I see: Reading comprehension borders on laughable. Behind that, a short fused and impulsive little man. Did I miss anything?.. :)

To go a step further, Marcus Allen wasn't much of a feature back for Kansas City either. The Chiefs couldn't rely on him to carry their offense; he had lost a step by the time he arrived in KC. But, he did know how to get a couple yards when he needed them.

Before he was a star in St. Louis, Faulk was an everyday feature back. He was handed the ball in a fairly normal offense and asked to get yards on the ground. The Rams are the ones that discovered how to get him active in the passing game.

Nevertheless, I said both men (Dillon and Faulk) had been feature backs at one time. I wouldn't say either man is as talented in short yardage as Marcus Allen; but (even in old age) they were miles ahead of the garbage Denver put on the field last season.

Read what I write, do your homework, and think before you hit the post button. :lol: I was talking about older running backs finding a niche in New England. And, they were providing services Denver didn't have last season.

bud
03-28-2009, 04:55 PM
Dillon, ok...I'll agree with you, but Faulk, a feature back? I don't think so.

Prove me wrong.

Looked like a featured back in Indianapolis to me.

They drafted him, remember? He was running more than he was catching in Indy.

bud
03-28-2009, 04:56 PM
Show me where he has made that excuse?

But seriously, who on the market (within financial reason) could McDaniels have signed better than who he has at RB?

You made the excuse for him.

And, I'm not a football coach or GM. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

I didn't say it was easy. But, that doesn't mean results don't/won't matter.

bud
03-28-2009, 05:04 PM
why not that seems to be one of the only things he is worried about now?

follow the money folks..

remember all the huge hints about jay trust issues will go away IF he gets a new contract. How he will believe Josh if he is the highest paid player in the NFL..

it is cooks MO for his Qb clients..

Follow the money.. I think jay has been watching cuba gooding movies way to much..

Well, that's what I get for reading an internet message board... Silly crackpot theories (read what he said mods) from actual living and breathing crackpots.

Don't stop there. Tell us about the "real" moon landing in the television studio. Then, we can talk about the man on the grassy knoll. And, we can finish the day with a long discussion about Hitler in Brazil...

dogfish
03-28-2009, 05:07 PM
Prove me wrong.

Looked like a featured back in Indianapolis to me.

They drafted him, remember? He was running more than he was catching in Indy.



dude, you have kevin faulk confused with marshall faulk. . . .


:rofl:

honz
03-28-2009, 05:13 PM
dude, you have kevin faulk confused with marshall faulk. . . .


:rofl:

They are similar...just one of them is a hall of famer while the other is a journeyman. :lol:

bud
03-28-2009, 05:21 PM
That's what happens when you get old. :(

horsepig
03-28-2009, 06:22 PM
Hasnt this whole thread missed the point? McD wants to spread the ball around. If you're a DC you don't know what's coming next.
The running back from Litle Sisters of the Poor U. are Shanny's thing. As are the linebackers, DE's, DT's, safeties, and corners, the ST's players and just about everyone else on last year's roster.
I just hope to hell I can at least watch a team that at least wants and tries to win.

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 07:38 PM
I said both Marshall Faulk and Corey Dillon had been feature backs "at one time".

Here's what I see: Reading comprehension borders on laughable. Behind that, a short fused and impulsive little man. Did I miss anything?.. :)

To go a step further, Marcus Allen wasn't much of a feature back for Kansas City either. The Chiefs couldn't rely on him to carry their offense; he had lost a step by the time he arrived in KC. But, he did know how to get a couple yards when he needed them.

Before he was a star in St. Louis, Faulk was an everyday feature back. He was handed the ball in a fairly normal offense and asked to get yards on the ground. The Rams are the ones that discovered how to get him active in the passing game.

Nevertheless, I said both men (Dillon and Faulk) had been feature backs at one time. I wouldn't say either man is as talented in short yardage as Marcus Allen; but (even in old age) they were miles ahead of the garbage Denver put on the field last season.

Read what I write, do your homework, and think before you hit the post button. :lol: I was talking about older running backs finding a niche in New England. And, they were providing services Denver didn't have last season.

And when did Marshall Faulk ever play for Billie?

If you are talking about STL who gives a **** as we are not discussing them we are talking about the players in NE and those that Josh saw play.. Who he will be molding his offense around..

Dillon was the studbuffalo for one year* 2004-1635, 2005-733, 2006-812 and each and every year before and after their top two RB's all had 600-900 yards each with a third RB usually Kevin Faulk the #2 or 3 in yards RB catching alot of passes usually the #3 or 4 pass receiver....

NE does not have a studbuffalo approach under Billie since he got Brady he does the RBBC, even when they drafted Malroney he was in that 900 yards range..

* http://www.nfl.com/teams/newenglandpatriots/statistics?season=2004&team=NE&seasonType=


If Y'all think that Josh is going to go off the reservation on this I think your howling at the moon.. It worked for NE during his apprenticeship, and I see no reason for him to do a change up on it now..


Time to figure it out now if the realization has not set in YET, we are going to be NE WEST with a couple of Joshs wrinkles....

dogfish
03-28-2009, 08:19 PM
JR, i think the points you're making are all legit, but i would say one thing. . . . this is doogie's first crack at being the top guy, and as much as he is clearly looking to pattern this team off what they did in NE, i'm not sure that we should automatically assume that he's going to do EVERYTHING the same. . . the reason i say this is that we've brought in most of the top backs from this year's draft class for private workouts, and i don't think he'd do that if he didn't have at least some interest in possibly drafting one of them. . . now, it's certainly possible that that was just due dilligence and he simply wants to get familiar with them in case the defensive players he wants aren't on the board when we pick, but i wouldn't understimate the possiblity of an offensive guy spending draft picks to further beef up "his" side of the ball-- especially since reworking the "O" seems to have been a high priority of his since he got here. . .

also, we did go after derrick ward in FA, and only brought in lamont jordan after we missed out on ward. . . and if he does trade hillis :doh:, the only young backs on the roster are the bandaids and crutches crew from last year, guys that have been hurt pretty much every year of their careers dating back to college. . . buckhalter and jordan aren't long term answers, and he may well have brought them in just to be sure that he had a couple of guys for a year or two, until he could put his own player in place. . .


edit: knowshon moreno, chris wells, donald brown, lesean mccoy, javon ringer and rashad jennings have all had private workouts with denver . . . .

Lonestar
03-28-2009, 08:44 PM
JR, i think the points you're making are all legit, but i would say one thing. . . . this is doogie's first crack at being the top guy, and as much as he is clearly looking to pattern this team off what they did in NE, i'm not sure that we should automatically assume that he's going to do EVERYTHING the same. . . the reason i say this is that we've brought in most of the top backs from this year's draft class for private workouts, and i don't think he'd do that if he didn't have at least some interest in possibly drafting one of them. . . now, it's certainly opossible that that was just due dilligence and he simply wants to get familiar with them in case the defensive players he wants aren't on the board when we pick, but i wouldn't understimate the possiblity of an offensive guy spending draft picks to further beef up "his" side of the ball-- especially since reworking the "O" seems to have been a high priority of his since he got here. . .

also, we did go after derrick ward in FA, and only brought in lamont jordan after we missed out on ward. . . and if he does trade hillis :doh:, the only young backs on the roster are the bandaids and crutches crew from last year, guys that have been hurt pretty much every year of their careers dating back to college. . . buckhalter and jordan aren't long term answers, and he may well have brought them in just to be sure that he had a couple of guys for a year or two, until he could put his own player in place. . .


edit: knowshon moreno, chris wells, donald brown, lesean mccoy, javon ringer and rashad jennings have all had private workouits with denver . . . .


I can see this scenario but still believe they will have to be versatile in being able to catch eh ball out of the back field..

I see Hillis as Faulk and would be very surprised to see him go unless we get some top notch picks for him..

I truly hope that we address the front 7 on D before entertaining any offensive help.. and I still see the 3 RB back approach anyway.. He has seen how it works in conjunction with his passing game I just do not see him deviating from that in a big way.. Even last year when he was dealing with a "rookie" QB they only had a slight uptick in the running game..


2008 #6 2248 yards
2007 13 1849
2006 12 1969
2005 24 1512
2004 7 2134
2003 27 1606
2002 28 1508
2001 13 1793


Looks to me that NE's running game was an after thought for most of the Belichick years there enough to keep the defense honest..

skycoyote
03-29-2009, 12:16 AM
Ever work with the FNG and he always talks about how they did it at his last job?

hamrob
03-29-2009, 12:21 AM
The Patriots had one year where their offense was great...and guess what they choked! 16-1! OUCH! :-)

Other than that...their offense has been AVERAGE!!!!

Who won more games head to head.....Belicheat vs. Shanahan? Come on....let's hear it.

So, quit thinking that Mcdumbass is the savior. Yeah, let's go it with Simms and see where you guys are at mid season. "We love our McDumbass...even those we're 2-6...we luv us some Mickey-D!"

Lonestar
03-29-2009, 12:21 AM
ever work with the fng and he always talks about how they did it at his last job?

fng?

dogfish
03-29-2009, 12:23 AM
fng?

****in' new guy. . . . :laugh:

Lonestar
03-29-2009, 12:30 AM
The Patriots had one year where their offense was great...and guess what they choked! 16-1! OUCH! :-)

Other than that...their offense has been AVERAGE!!!!

Who won more games head to head.....Belicheat vs. Shanahan? Come on....let's hear it.

So, quit thinking that Mcdumbass is the savior. Yeah, let's go it with Simms and see where you guys are at mid season. "We love our McDumbass...even those we're 2-6...we luv us some Mickey-D!"

Since Belichick took over in NE..

lets see 3 super bowls since Belichick took over.. lost a couple of games to mikey..

playoffs almost every year vs getting our asses kicked ONCE in the playoffs..

mikey Zero Superbowl since Billie took over.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

define success beating Belichick or wining super bowls..
Going undefeated or having 7-9 season..

some times you have to get a reality check ..


welcome to the real world..

Josh may not be the Saviour, but mikey sure as hell was not without his HOF players he was ravarage.. won some games he should not have BUT lost a hell of a lot of games he should have won BIG..

mikey is gone move on.. get with the NEW program..

Lonestar
03-29-2009, 12:31 AM
Ever work with the FNG and he always talks about how they did it at his last job?

what is he supposed to do when asked about it? go mute?

BroncoWave
03-29-2009, 12:40 AM
You made the excuse for him.

And, I'm not a football coach or GM. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

I didn't say it was easy. But, that doesn't mean results don't/won't matter.

It's not an excuse, it's a fact. The market for RB's sucked this year. Do you want to debate that?

Lonestar
03-29-2009, 12:44 AM
It's not an excuse, it's a fact. The market for RB's sucked this year. Do you want to debate that?


did the draft happen And I did not notice ?

Perhaps they have plans on draft day or June 1 cuts or for that matter training camp cuts..

still have a long ways to go before the season ..

MOtorboat
03-29-2009, 12:44 AM
It's not an excuse, it's a fact. The market for RB's sucked this year. Do you want to debate that?

Shanahan would have found the next Terrel Davis in this free agent market. :rolleyes:

elsid13
03-29-2009, 08:23 AM
Nice change there...

I can't find a site to rank field position. We all know the defense didn't get turnovers and allowed a boat load of points. We also know only Favre threw more interceptions. Cutler also put the ball on the ground a lot. Didn't lose all that many fumbles, but it still cost us yards and a down.

Fact is we didn't score like the "#2" ranked offense should have.

Football Outsider has the stats. Denver offense average start last season was 25.85 line. That was dead last of all teams. Denver also moved the ball the most yard of all teams and was 9th for scoring per drive. That offense also had only 164 total offense drives last season, only Indy was less.

Here is the site and analysis. http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

BroncoJoe
03-29-2009, 09:14 AM
Football Outsider has the stats. Denver offense average start last season was 25.85 line. That was dead last of all teams. Denver also moved the ball the most yard of all teams and was 9th for scoring per drive. That offense also had only 164 total offense drives last season, only Indy was less.

Here is the site and analysis. http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

That's a cool site - thanks for the heads up.

I also noticed we were 29th in Fumbles/Drive and Interceptions/Drive. It's also interesting that there is only ~8 yard difference between #1 and us at 32.

elsid13
03-29-2009, 09:41 AM
That's a cool site - thanks for the heads up.

I also noticed we were 29th in Fumbles/Drive and Interceptions/Drive. It's also interesting that there is only ~8 yard difference between #1 and us at 32.

It a pretty good site. I do think that they attempt to over analyze at times and try to put to much sabermetrics into the game. It easier in baseball to use that type of statical review/prediction because there are limited variables and outcomes compared to football.

Lonestar
03-29-2009, 02:51 PM
It a pretty good site. I do think that they attempt to over analyze at times and try to put to much sabermetrics into the game. It easier in baseball to use that type of statical review/prediction because there are limited variables and outcomes compared to football.


except on Tuesdays if your wearing green socks and have one blue and one brown eye.. with brown hair on a windy day.. :laugh:

and then there is wednesday...............:D

BroncoJoe
03-30-2009, 12:56 AM
Football Outsider has the stats. Denver offense average start last season was 25.85 line. That was dead last of all teams. Denver also moved the ball the most yard of all teams and was 9th for scoring per drive. That offense also had only 164 total offense drives last season, only Indy was less.

Here is the site and analysis. http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

I was thinking about this a bit more. Do you think turnovers (30) had anything to do with our crappy field position? I would guess it did, but it's too late to do any research. I may look into this tomorrow.

elsid13
03-30-2009, 04:45 AM
I was thinking about this a bit more. Do you think turnovers (30) had anything to do with our crappy field position? I would guess it did, but it's too late to do any research. I may look into this tomorrow.

there was report somewhere that I read that attempted to correlate field position and turnovers. While it looked like there was relationship, that relationship was statically significant.