Joe Mays

[Canmore]

Joe Mays receives a lot of flack on these boards. Heck, some of it was from me. Still, EFX re-signed Mays to a 3 year deal worth $12 million with $4 million guaranteed. Was it a good move? I didn't think so, but as a part time player, mostly in on run downs, Mays may bring more to the table than at first thought. According to Pro Football Focus, Mays leads the leagues middle linebackers in Run Stop Percentage.


Which Brings Us to the Run Stop % …

To fully appreciate the how many stops a defender has made, you need to once again look at how much they’re on the field. That’s what brought the Run Stop Percentage Signature Stat to life; that desire to measure how often defenders were responsible for offensive failures relative to how often they were on the field. It’s through this stat we see that the Denver Broncos may have scored themselves a bargain with the re-signing of Joe Mays, as their middle linebacker led the league with a stop percentage of 14.29%. He was joined at the top by NaVorro Bowman who had an identical number as both men frequently left their mark on running backs.

Of course, there’s more to playing linebacker and contributing in run defense than making tackles and defensive stops–you need to be able to stand-up blockers, blow-up fullbacks, and re-direct runners–but it doesn’t hurt if you can make those plays that result in a defensive win. The Run Stop Percentage does as good a job as any at showing who is really getting it done.

More at http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/03/29/2011-run-stop-percentage-linebackers/

Is Mays a top middle linebacker? No. I certainly would like to see an upgrade in the middle. Al Wilson, where are you? Still, EFX may not have made a bad decision to re-sign Mays. Only $4 million is guaranteed and we have a number of holes. Now, if he could only cover someone.

[Joel]

The problem is paying $4 million/year for a part time player, mostly in on run downs. He doesn't bring more to the table than first thought; he's a Sam playing Mike, as initially thought, and thus hopelessly inadequate, especially for $4 million/year. If we spent that just to get get a run stuffer, why not pay it to Bunkley, have a run stuffer on ALL downs and go find a legit MLB who can cover over the middle and blitz?

Mays plays MLB like it's still 1974 and it's enough to pop slot receivers hard when they go over the middle, then watch the ball fly one direction while their head flies another. That doesn't work anymore because 1) it's illegal and 2) receivers are MUCH better at making catches and holding on no matter what. That reduces Mays to running guys down and tackling them AFTER they get a first down, which would be fine in a Sam but is a massive liability in a Mike, who must tackle like Mays and cover like DJ, picking up half a dozen sacks/year along the way.

Mays has 0 sacks, 0 Ints and 3 passes defended in his 4 year career; that's not a $4 million Mike. http://www.nfl.com/player/joemays/4277/profile

This is why I dislike referring to "ILBs" generally, as if 3-4 ILBs (who must be good in coverage but only passable blitzers/run stoppers) were the same as MLBs (who must excel at everything, like 3-4 OLBs.)

[Dzone]

London Fletcher will have at leas t one more season left. At the right price. But looks like we are going with Mays for 2011. Hope Irving doesn't turn out to be a wasted pick. He better show something or get showed the door.

[Ravage!!!]

apparently it is a 4 million a year Mike.

Fox has been a defensive coordinator and defensively minded DC for a long time in the NFL. During that career, he's proved to know his defense. That being said, I don't think he offers good pay to a player just "because."

[CoachChaz]

Id feel better if could cover anything and didnt tackle dirt as much. If he can improve, then 4 mil is a bargain. What scares me the most is Woodyard having to play Mike on passing downs

[Bugs Baloney]

Still keeping my fingers crossed on Nate Irving! Let's see if he stays healthy and pans out!

[Chef Zambini]

with the other SUSPENSIONS of linebackers, (DJ) I think we can remove the 'part-time" discription from the MAYS evaluation.

[Cugel]

The problem is paying $4 million/year for a part time player, mostly in on run downs. He doesn't bring more to the table than first thought; he's a Sam playing Mike, as initially thought, and thus hopelessly inadequate, especially for $4 million/year. If we spent that just to get get a run stuffer, why not pay it to Bunkley, have a run stuffer on ALL downs and go find a legit MLB who can cover over the middle and blitz?

Mays plays MLB like it's still 1974 and it's enough to pop slot receivers hard when they go over the middle, then watch the ball fly one direction while their head flies another. That doesn't work anymore because 1) it's illegal and 2) receivers are MUCH better at making catches and holding on no matter what. That reduces Mays to running guys down and tackling them AFTER they get a first down, which would be fine in a Sam but is a massive liability in a Mike, who must tackle like Mays and cover like DJ, picking up half a dozen sacks/year along the way.

Mays has 0 sacks, 0 Ints and 3 passes defended in his 4 year career; that's not a $4 million Mike. http://www.nfl.com/player/joemays/4277/profile

This is why I dislike referring to "ILBs" generally, as if 3-4 ILBs (who must be good in coverage but only passable blitzers/run stoppers) were the same as MLBs (who must excel at everything, like 3-4 OLBs.)

You basically wrote what I was going to when I saw this thread.

I'd rather have seen them give the money to Bunkley who was impressive stopping the run at a position where that's the prime criteria (DT). But, I think Joe Mays is entirely mediocre especially when you take WR coverage into account.

Denver needs an elite MLB to play a 4-3 effectively. Every time they've had one (Al Wilson) they had a good defense. Denver needs to find an elite MLB like Patrick Willis, Jerod Meyo, Curtis Lofton or Paul Posluzny. It's possible they could get a guy like that in the draft, if they were willing to trade up a bit.

After all, Clay Matthews was drafted #26 (that still angers me thinking we could have had BOTH Orakpo and Matthews instead of "No-Show and Ayers) and Paul Posluzny wasn't taken until the 2nd round. So it IS possible to get a great LB picking at #25 if you get the right guy. LOTs of really good starting LBs were chosen after #24.

[Cugel]

Still keeping my fingers crossed on Nate Irving! Let's see if he stays healthy and pans out!

He's going to have to show something in training camp and pre-season this year or he's not going to make the 53 man roster.

[Canmore]

The problem is paying $4 million/year for a part time player, mostly in on run downs. He doesn't bring more to the table than first thought; he's a Sam playing Mike, as initially thought, and thus hopelessly inadequate, especially for $4 million/year. If we spent that just to get get a run stuffer, why not pay it to Bunkley, have a run stuffer on ALL downs and go find a legit MLB who can cover over the middle and blitz?

Mays plays MLB like it's still 1974 and it's enough to pop slot receivers hard when they go over the middle, then watch the ball fly one direction while their head flies another. That doesn't work anymore because 1) it's illegal and 2) receivers are MUCH better at making catches and holding on no matter what. That reduces Mays to running guys down and tackling them AFTER they get a first down, which would be fine in a Sam but is a massive liability in a Mike, who must tackle like Mays and cover like DJ, picking up half a dozen sacks/year along the way.

Mays has 0 sacks, 0 Ints and 3 passes defended in his 4 year career; that's not a $4 million Mike. http://www.nfl.com/player/joemays/4277/profile

This is why I dislike referring to "ILBs" generally, as if 3-4 ILBs (who must be good in coverage but only passable blitzers/run stoppers) were the same as MLBs (who must excel at everything, like 3-4 OLBs.)

I agree with you Joel. I thought the article was interesting. We have really only guaranteed May's salary for the first year, it would appear. I hope we find a better replacement soon. I really wonder if Irving brings anything to the table or are we going to look elsewhere. I certainly hope we are not satisfied with or situation in the middle. This is a passing league. We need more than a one trick pony manning the middle.

[Joel]

Still keeping my fingers crossed on Nate Irving! Let's see if he stays healthy and pans out!
Pretty much my only hope now, but very much an unknown quantity. He's also a bit small for MLB, (the same size as DJ, and we all remember the spectacle of RBs dragging him downfield at Mike.)

with the other SUSPENSIONS of linebackers, (DJ) I think we can remove the 'part-time" discription from the MAYS evaluation.
Why? I can't imagine two worse LBs to rotate with each other; DJ's got great instincts and coverage ability, but regularly races to the ball against the run only to be overpowered by ball carriers, while Mays is a punishing tackler who lacks the speed or anticipation to read plays or cover anyone. That's like saying, "now that Ayers is suspended, Doom will play more." They only nominally play the "same" position.

You basically wrote what I was going to when I saw this thread.

I'd rather have seen them give the money to Bunkley who was impressive stopping the run at a position where that's the prime criteria (DT). But, I think Joe Mays is entirely mediocre especially when you take WR coverage into account.

Denver needs an elite MLB to play a 4-3 effectively. Every time they've had one (Al Wilson) they had a good defense. Denver needs to find an elite MLB like Patrick Willis, Jerod Meyo, Curtis Lofton or Paul Posluzny. It's possible they could get a guy like that in the draft, if they were willing to trade up a bit.

After all, Clay Matthews was drafted #26 (that still angers me thinking we could have had BOTH Orakpo and Matthews instead of "No-Show and Ayers) and Paul Posluzny wasn't taken until the 2nd round. So it IS possible to get a great LB picking at #25 if you get the right guy. LOTs of really good starting LBs were chosen after #24.
It's definitely doable for scouts who know how and a front office with that priority, and the fact we took two LBs in the first three rounds last year is encouraging (or bespeaks how empty we were at LB, but I doubt EFX thinks that's been remedied any more than we do.)

I hope we do it somehow, because running a 4-3 requires a very good MLB as assuredly as offense requires a very good QB. The way teams play 3-4 OLBs don't even try to pass cover these days, we might get away with putting DJ and Woodyard between Miller and Mays/Haggan if we had a solid NT. As it is, I'd still rather stick Miller between Haggan and DJ and hope he has the smarts and hands to cover than try another season with Mays at MLB. If Miller can play cover well enough of to make that survivable, we should put him at MLB where he belongs and put Mays at SLB where HE belongs.


I agree with you Joel. I thought the article was interesting. We have really only guaranteed May's salary for the first year, it would appear. I hope we find a better replacement soon. I really wonder if Irving brings anything to the table or are we going to look elsewhere. I certainly hope we are not satisfied with or situation in the middle. This is a passing league. We need more than a one trick pony manning the middle.
Sorry if I seemed a little confrontational; "it's not you, it's Mays." :tongue: I don't really disagree with you either, or the article, factually, it's just that I demand my Mike be a star, not a glorified Sam.

[Canmore]

...Sorry if I seemed a little confrontational; "it's not you, it's Mays." :tongue: I don't really disagree with you either, or the article, factually, it's just that I demand my Mike to be a star, not a glorified Sam.

Lol, you didn't come off as confrontational. That's really not your style, anyway. Like I said, I would love an upgrade at mike. I don't think it is going to happen this season. Stupid D J Williams.

[Joel]

Lol, you didn't come off as confrontational. That's really not your style, anyway. Like I said, I would love an upgrade at mike. I don't think it is going to happen this season. Stupid D J Williams.
Well, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude on DJs drug test and appeal; again, since the guy who took his sample was fired by the NFL for mishandling samples, DJs complaint could well be valid. Re-signing Mays, however, does not bespeak a team looking to improve its Mike, so we'll all just have to pray he magically learns how to cover and stops overrunning plays after the off season. Mainly, I didn't want you to think my harsh condemnation of his play was a harsh condemnation of your post, but it sounds like my comments were received as intended.

[Cugel]

Pretty much my only hope now, but very much an unknown quantity. He's also a bit small for MLB, (the same size as DJ, and we all remember the spectacle of RBs dragging him downfield at Mike.)

Why? I can't imagine two worse LBs to rotate with each other; DJ's got great instincts and coverage ability, but regularly races to the ball against the run only to be overpowered by ball carriers, while Mays is a punishing tackler who lacks the speed or anticipation to read plays or cover anyone. That's like saying, "now that Ayers is suspended, Doom will play more." They only nominally play the "same" position.

It's definitely doable for scouts who know how and a front office with that priority, and the fact we took two LBs in the first three rounds last year is encouraging (or bespeaks how empty we were at LB, but I doubt EFX thinks that's been remedied any more than we do.)

I hope we do it somehow, because running a 4-3 requires a very good MLB as assuredly as offense requires a very good QB. The way teams play 3-4 OLBs don't even try to pass cover these days, we might get away with putting DJ and Woodyard between Miller and Mays/Haggan if we had a solid NT. As it is, I'd still rather stick Miller between Haggan and DJ and hope he has the smarts and hands to cover than try another season with Mays at MLB. If Miller can play cover well enough of to make that survivable, we should put him at MLB where he belongs and put Mays at SLB where HE belongs.

#25 in the draft is quite late to find an elite DT, but hopefully NOT too late to find one of the top 3 or 4 LBs. They could also find an elite G at this point, or a RT.

MLB: But, I'd say that MLB is an even bigger need than any of those.

CB and S is a need in the long-term, but they just signed Porter and they have Champ, so they're set for at least this year. I think Andre Goodman would make a perfectly adequate #3 CB in rotation. Just don't depend on him. He's earning peanuts this year and is under contract till 2014 if they really want to keep him.

So, I don't see CB as a huge need right now, and they've added help at S by signing Mike Adams to add to Quinton Carter (SS) and to replace Rahim Moore at (FS) (Moore is looking like another wasted draft pick and I'm not surprised). Adams was good in coverage for the Browns last year.

So, now the secondary for the first time in many years looks solid at all positions and has decent depth, although it's not exactly spectacular outside Champ.

OL and DL: That means that the only real weaknesses on the team are OL and DL. They need help at G, RT and C. And they need 2 or ideally 3 really good DTs to go with either Warren or Thomas in the rotation. And they could use another RB.

But, outside that I'd say we're set, although far from an elite team.

NFL Personnel Managers Grade the Broncos: Before last year there was an article in the paper pointing out how McMoron had run so much talent out of Denver that the team had one of the weakest rosters in the NFL in terms of overall talent. NFL personnel men grade players according to a scale: A-Grade is elite pro-bowl talent. B-Grade is "solid starter" C-Grade is "role-player".

Most of Denver's players were C Grade or worse and only Champ Bailey rated an "A" grade at the time. By comparison, a SB team like the Packers would normally have 5 or 6 A-Grade players and the rest of the Starters would be B-grade, with only a few C grade players as fill-ins.

Today, we have a lot more "B-Grade" players, and as for A-Grade, I would argue that Peyton, Champ, Doom & Miller all qualify. (Miller might be arguable since it's only his second season, but he won the defensive rookie of the year last year and I expect great things from him).

The secondary run down I mention above shows that they've at least added some "solid-starters" to their lineup to replace the marginal "role-players" they had at some key positions.

Now for fixing the MLB, OL and DL. . . . .

[Joel]

#25 in the draft is quite late to find an elite DT, but hopefully NOT too late to find one of the top 3 or 4 LBs. They could also find an elite G at this point, or a RT. MLB: But, I'd say that MLB is an even bigger need than any of those.It's sound in principle but, in practice, a rookie QBing the D is as risky as one QBing the offense. Either way, a MLB needs, not just the physical ability and skills, but the experience to read formations, call the right audibles and then make big plays. Though it's possible to find the QB/MLB of the future in any draft, "experience" and "rookie" are mutually exclusive. There's no reason we can't find the next Al Wilson at #25 (or #125,) but also no reason to expect a star before Manning retires even if we do.


CB and S is a need in the long-term, but they just signed Porter and they have Champ, so they're set for at least this year. I think Andre Goodman would make a perfectly adequate #3 CB in rotation. Just don't depend on him. He's earning peanuts this year and is under contract till 2014 if they really want to keep him.So, I don't see CB as a huge need right now, and they've added help at S by signing Mike Adams to add to Quinton Carter (SS) and to replace Rahim Moore at (FS) (Moore is looking like another wasted draft pick and I'm not surprised). Adams was good in coverage for the Browns last year. So, now the secondary for the first time in many years looks solid at all positions and has decent depth, although it's not exactly spectacular outside Champ.

The secondary doesn't look solid at all to me; our CBs are solid IF we re-sign Harris, but our safeties are garbage without Dawkins. Carter scoring a gift wrapped playoff pick and a meaningless sack the first time the Pats smashed us doesn't make him good. If we find a centerfielder, Carter MIGHT be able to replace Dawkins as a devastating run stuffer, but that's a big "if", and run stuffing is not my primary interest in a safety.

I'd rather have Goodman at nickel and Harris as #2 CB than the reverse, but last I heard we still hadn't resigned Harris (which would be our biggest mistake in the secondary since letting Foxworth go.) The biggest secondary problem at present is the absence of anyone like Atwater, Lynch or Dawkins to either play centerfield OR run stop; Champ could fill both roles, but only if we found another elite CB to take his spot. I wouldn't mind drafting one early, because a good one could contribute immediately and Champ would be a lethal FS for the next five years.


OL and DL: That means that the only real weaknesses on the team are OL and DL. They need help at G, RT and C. And they need 2 or ideally 3 really good DTs to go with either Warren or Thomas in the rotation. And they could use another RB.

IF 1) Harris' back can last a full season, 2) we re-sign him AND 3) Clady's back to his old self after an injury-free offseason, I feel OK with our tackles, but our guards are a trainwreck, our only decent DT is in New Orleans, so we need major help on the interior of both lines. Unless Jeremiah Johnson comes on strong this year, we could definitely use another runner; McGahee's solid, but can't be an every down back when getting beat up breaking half a dozen tackles just to gain three yards 20-30 times a game, and our running game disappears without him.


But, outside that I'd say we're set, although far from an elite team.
Outside of the gaping holes in the center of our defensive and offensive lines, linebackers and secondary you think we're set? :tongue: I wouldn't even go that far, though those are my foremost concerns; we're also counting on Decker to stop dropping balls and Thomas to continue performing like he did after the Vikings game to even have decent starting WRs (the issue of depth at running back has already been discussed.) Heaven help us if our line lets our immobile $20 million dollar man get hurt again, because we'll be starting Weber or Hanie (in order of preference; are we destined to sign every failed Bears QB in history?)


NFL Personnel Managers Grade the Broncos: Before last year there was an article in the paper pointing out how McMoron had run so much talent out of Denver that the team had one of the weakest rosters in the NFL in terms of overall talent. NFL personnel men grade players according to a scale: A-Grade is elite pro-bowl talent. B-Grade is "solid starter" C-Grade is "role-player". Most of Denver's players were C Grade or worse and only Champ Bailey rated an "A" grade at the time. By comparison, a SB team like the Packers would normally have 5 or 6 A-Grade players and the rest of the Starters would be B-grade, with only a few C grade players as fill-ins. Today, we have a lot more "B-Grade" players, and as for A-Grade, I would argue that Peyton, Champ, Doom & Miller all qualify. (Miller might be arguable since it's only his second season, but he won the defensive rookie of the year last year and I expect great things from him). The secondary run down I mention above shows that they've at least added some "solid-starters" to their lineup to replace the marginal "role-players" they had at some key positions. Now for fixing the MLB, OL and DL. . . . .
I accept that argument, with the qualifier attached to Miller. I would even add Ayers, Kuper, Clady and McGahee as at least "high Bs." Unfortunately, there's nothing at the core, leaving all our stars essentially "playing in space." None of them can play as an effective unit because there's nothing holding the team together; it's just a group of talented but isolated athletes trying to patch very large critical holes.

[Cugel]

It's sound in principle but, in practice, a rookie QBing the D is as risky as one QBing the offense. Either way, a MLB needs, not just the physical ability and skills, but the experience to read formations, call the right audibles and then make big plays. Though it's possible to find the QB/MLB of the future in any draft, "experience" and "rookie" are mutually exclusive. There's no reason we can't find the next Al Wilson at #25 (or #125,) but also no reason to expect a star before Manning retires even if we do.

They're going to have to draft a really GOOD MLB at some point. If somebody falls, then they have to consider taking him.


The secondary doesn't look solid at all to me; our CBs are solid IF we re-sign Harris, but our safeties are garbage without Dawkins. Carter scoring a gift wrapped playoff pick and a meaningless sack the first time the Pats smashed us doesn't make him good. If we find a centerfielder, Carter MIGHT be able to replace Dawkins as a devastating run stuffer, but that's a big "if", and run stuffing is not my primary interest in a safety.

You're forgetting that they just signed Mike Adams at $4 million to play FS. He's NOT a Dawkins type heavy hitter, but a cover safety who played very well for the Browns the last couple of seasons and started 16 games. Obviously they weren't happy with their 2nd round pick Rahim Moore and downgraded him to backup.



The biggest secondary problem at present is the absence of anyone like Atwater, Lynch or Dawkins to either play centerfield OR run stop; Champ could fill both roles, but only if we found another elite CB to take his spot. I wouldn't mind drafting one early, because a good one could contribute immediately and Champ would be a lethal FS for the next five years.

Mike Adams, not Champ. Champ is still an elite #1 CB for the next couple of seasons. And they just got Porter to replace Goodman, so Goodman is not going to be the problem this season. He's only the nickel CB and he should be able to handle that role and cover #3 WRs, TEs and RBs in coverage.


IF 1) Harris' back can last a full season, 2) we re-sign him AND 3) Clady's back to his old self after an injury-free offseason, I feel OK with our tackles, but our guards are a trainwreck, our only decent DT is in New Orleans, so we need major help on the interior of both lines.

I wouldn't count on Harris. I don't think he's in anybody's long-term plans and he hasn't really been healthy since he left Denver. They only signed him as an emergency move since Kuper's injury and he might not even make the 53 man roster this year.

I doubt they have given up on Franklin after only 1 year. He had a tough year but they threw him in at RT as a rookie along with Beadles and Walton. I'm a lot more worried about them, but obviously the Broncos are satisfied that these young players can improve with time playing together and coaching. Beadles was the 2nd G taken in the draft and they obviously expect him to be a good one eventually.

It often takes 3 years for OL to mature and Walton, Franklin and Beadles certainly need it. I'd be surprised to see them grab an OL with their #1 pick, although they might take one in the 2nd round if someone falls.


Unless Jeremiah Johnson comes on strong this year, we could definitely use another runner; McGahee's solid, but can't be an every down back when getting beat up breaking half a dozen tackles just to gain three yards 20-30 times a game, and our running game disappears without him.

They obviously need a RB but they can get one later in the draft or even as an undrafted FA. You can always find a couple of RBs to come in and spell McGahee. I would expect them to try and find somebody in the 3rd or 4th round at RB.

I saw on ESPN that Todd McShay said that the Broncos have as much talent now as Indy had when Manning was taking them deep into the playoffs. I don't know if that's true, but since Indy was utterly HORRIBLE without Manning last year, he clearly was a one-man army for them for years.

That alone is going to improve the team by possibly 2 or 3 wins. I expect them to win the division and possibly 1 or even 2 playoff games. I don't expect SB, but they can build towards that for 2013.

[NightTerror218]

I have high hopes for Nate Irving. I hope he comes into the pre-season swinging. I give him, Rahim Moore, and Carter this year to show some improvement and then next year look to move this if nothing happens.

[Jsteve01]

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/378006-Pro-Football-Focus-Take-on-Joe-Mays

Welcome to last week

[Jsteve01]

I really want to see Irving healthy and will a full offseason. Anyone that's writing off rookies after one year especially a lockout shortened offseason just has zero idea how difficult the transition to the pro game really is, the factor in the high ankle sprain and the position he plays (Mike is one of the toughest defensive positions to play from a mental aspect) and Im willing to take a wait and see approach with Irving.

[Joel]

They're going to have to draft a really GOOD MLB at some point. If somebody falls, then they have to consider taking him.
Also reasonable, but I don't expect draft picks to truly dominate at MLB any sooner than at QB, for many of the same reasons. If we're just looking for someone to lay some wood on backs and occasionally blitz, sure, but that's the bare minimum for a Sam, not a Mike, who must do EVERYTHING well. Under normal circumstances, I could accept waiting for a Mike to develop, but Manning has greatly increased the urgency of filling our many critical holes, because he's living on borrowed time.


You're forgetting that they just signed Mike Adams at $4 million to play FS. He's NOT a Dawkins type heavy hitter, but a cover safety who played very well for the Browns the last couple of seasons and started 16 games. Obviously they weren't happy with their 2nd round pick Rahim Moore and downgraded him to backup.

Mike Adams, not Champ. Champ is still an elite #1 CB for the next couple of seasons. And they just got Porter to replace Goodman, so Goodman is not going to be the problem this season. He's only the nickel CB and he should be able to handle that role and cover #3 WRs, TEs and RBs in coverage.
I knew about the Adams signing, but don't know enough about the player to put full faith in him, and our safeties were absolutely wretched once we lost Dawkins. With Champ visibly slowing but still a punishing tackler with a nose for the ball, and Chris Harris showing some nice play at nickel last year, it just made sense to move the former to FS and start the latter opposite Porter. That might still be true with Adams, but last I heard (which was a while ago) we hadn't re-signed Chris Harris, so it may not be an option anyway.

If Adams can do the job at FS and Porter lives up to his billing I'll worry much less about our secondary in the short term, but it seems clear to me Champ is making up for slower feet with veteran instincts and experience, following in the proud tradition the last couple decades of elite CBs becoming elite safeties at the end of their careers. We're going to need another shut down corner soon, and grabbing one now would be a great way to kill two birds with one stone.


I wouldn't count on Harris. I don't think he's in anybody's long-term plans and he hasn't really been healthy since he left Denver. They only signed him as an emergency move since Kuper's injury and he might not even make the 53 man roster this year.
I'm looking at it as a "what have we got to lose?" situation: The biggest reason everyone cheered Harris' release was they didn't think him worth the money he could demand and "we drafted a good RT anyway." Well, here we are, and Harris' health has drastically reduced his asking price, while the tackle we drafted has yet to emerge as a dominant player.

I doubt they have given up on Franklin after only 1 year. He had a tough year but they threw him in at RT as a rookie along with Beadles and Walton. I'm a lot more worried about them, but obviously the Broncos are satisfied that these young players can improve with time playing together and coaching. Beadles was the 2nd G taken in the draft and they obviously expect him to be a good one eventually.


It often takes 3 years for OL to mature and Walton, Franklin and Beadles certainly need it. I'd be surprised to see them grab an OL with their #1 pick, although they might take one in the 2nd round if someone falls.
In the case of Beadles and Walton, it clearly will take NO LESS than three years to mature—or (more likely) they already have and are as good as they'll ever be. Franklin certainly merits another year to see if he gets over the hump but, IMHO, Beadles and Walton have had their shot, repeatedly, and it's time to find a REAL guard. We can only guess how Kuper will be post-injury, but at anything <100% we have NOTHING at guard, which bodes ill for Mannings health and makes run-oriented Foxball impossible. Signing Harris to a modest FA deal would give us a fall back position if Franklin can't hack it; we have no such luxury at guard.


They obviously need a RB but they can get one later in the draft or even as an undrafted FA. You can always find a couple of RBs to come in and spell McGahee. I would expect them to try and find somebody in the 3rd or 4th round at RB.
Bargain hunting in later rounds and FA hasn't helped our backs much more than our defense lately (on the other hand, the back we drafted early hasn't exactly wowed anyone either.) We need a one-two punch at RB, because we run a LOT and our guards let defenders pound the crap out of our starter, who probably has only a few years left in his 30 year old body anyway. It's not as high a priority for me as G and MLB (which the Adams and Porter signings have made my biggest concern) and a 3rd or 4th round pick sounds like a good place to look, but we got lucky with McGahee after many years of hitting dry holes in free agency and the draft. It's kind of embarrassing to have gone from "insert Pro Bowl runner here" to having a stable full of dregs at the position, but we haven't had an elite runner since Portis or Gary.


I saw on ESPN that Todd McShay said that the Broncos have as much talent now as Indy had when Manning was taking them deep into the playoffs. I don't know if that's true, but since Indy was utterly HORRIBLE without Manning last year, he clearly was a one-man army for them for years.

That alone is going to improve the team by possibly 2 or 3 wins. I expect them to win the division and possibly 1 or even 2 playoff games. I don't expect SB, but they can build towards that for 2013.
The thing folks forget is Manning rarely took Indy deep into the playoffs. Their best teams won and lost a Super Bowl (and were far more talented than this one, especially on the offensive line; Ryan Lilja made it to the AFC West, but KC, not Denver) but you'd expect more from the team with the decades best regular season record. Two of their "runs" consist of trouncing defenseless Broncos before being sent home in the next round, and I'm not saying our secondary was BAD, but we responded by trading Portis for Champ after the first rout and spending all our top picks on three CBs after the second. Apart from that and the two Super Bowls they had a slew of one and dones and (barely) beat Vermiels Chiefs in the Puntless Playoff before losing their next game. Consider this: Mannings playoff record against the Chargers is 0-2. :eek:

Mannings Colts were like all those college teams that rack up a bunch of lopsided wins against their awful Conference and complain no one respects that, then awkwardly shuffle off to obscurity after Michigan or Nebraska beats them by 30 points in a Bowl. They played six games a year against an expansion team, the hopeless Jags and a Titans team Bud Adams has been annually dismantling for fun since I was born; amassing a ton of wins in that Division isn't very impressive: That's why we have the playoffs, where Mannings Colts are barely above .500 (without the Broncos Beatdowns and that KC game, they wouldn't be.)

Fact is, Manning and Dungy between them didn't really solve Indys problems, even when they had Wayne, Harrison and Clark plus a great offensive line and Bob Sanders. All we have is a banged up Manning at the end of his career, and the Chiefs look pretty scary to me if they stay healthy. Their QB is questionable, and they could use another legit WR, but otherwise that's a solid team, especially on defense and the offensive line. The Faders have a new coach and the Bolts are in a tailspin, but KC was my 2012 favorite at the end of 2011, and has only improved in the offseason (I worry about Houston without Dreesen and Eric Winston.)

[Cugel]

Bargain hunting in later rounds and FA hasn't helped our backs much more than our defense lately (on the other hand, the back we drafted early hasn't exactly wowed anyone either.) We need a one-two punch at RB, because we run a LOT and our guards let defenders pound the crap out of our starter, who probably has only a few years left in his 30 year old body anyway. It's not as high a priority for me as G and MLB (which the Adams and Porter signings have made my biggest concern) and a 3rd or 4th round pick sounds like a good place to look, but we got lucky with McGahee after many years of hitting dry holes in free agency and the draft. It's kind of embarrassing to have gone from "insert Pro Bowl runner here" to having a stable full of dregs at the position, but we haven't had an elite runner since Portis or Gary.


3rd round is the right place to find a top RB. NFL GMs are moving more and more AWAY from drafting RBs in the first round. This year Trent Richardson is likely to be the ONLY RB taken in the first. Last year, Mark Ingram was the FIRST RB taken, at #28 and 4 more were drafted in the 2nd, mostly at the END of the second round.

You could draft one of the top 4-5 RBs with Denver's 2nd round pick, possibly one of the top 3. And you could get a perfectly serviceable RB to come in and spell McGahee with Denver's 3rd pick.

NFL GMs these days look at RB as a high-impact, short-duration pick. RBs take a beating and don't last long enough to make good #1 picks.

The reason should be obvious.

Elite talent is mostly drafted in the first round. There are 22 starters on an NFL team, but obviously no starter can last 22 years, so it's impossible to replace all or even MOST of your players with #1st round picks. Or even 1st and 2nd rounders (each starter would have to last 11 years and that's not ever going to happen).

So, a player you take in the first round better last (hopefully) for 10 years or so or you're wasting that pick. IF the average RB lasts about 5 years or so then taking one with a first rounder is wasteful, unless that RB is going to be an elite All-Pro like Trent Richardson is projected to become (maybe).

So, third or 4th round is EXACTLY where the Broncos need to find their next RB.

1st round -- DT or CB
2nd round -- DT or CB or LB or G/C
3rd round -- RB or CB or LB or S or G/C
etc.

[Chef Zambini]

The problem is paying $4 million/year for a part time player, mostly in on run downs. He doesn't bring more to the table than first thought; he's a Sam playing Mike, as initially thought, and thus hopelessly inadequate, especially for $4 million/year. If we spent that just to get get a run stuffer, why not pay it to Bunkley, have a run stuffer on ALL downs and go find a legit MLB who can cover over the middle and blitz?

Mays plays MLB like it's still 1974 and it's enough to pop slot receivers hard when they go over the middle, then watch the ball fly one direction while their head flies another. That doesn't work anymore because 1) it's illegal and 2) receivers are MUCH better at making catches and holding on no matter what. That reduces Mays to running guys down and tackling them AFTER they get a first down, which would be fine in a Sam but is a massive liability in a Mike, who must tackle like Mays and cover like DJ, picking up half a dozen sacks/year along the way.This is why I dislike referring to "ILBs" generally, as if 3-4 ILBs (who must be good in coverage but only passable blitzers/run stoppers) were the same as MLBs (who must excel at everything, like 3-4 OLBs.)Mays has 0 sacks, 0 Ints and 3 passes defended in his 4 year career; that's not a $4 million Mike. http://www.nfl.com/player/joemays/4277/profile


3/4 .....4/3, defenses morph so much a linebacker is a linebacker, mike sam larry wilbur, for all I care! a LINEBACKER shows up with certain talents and skills, its up to the coaches to accentuate those talents !
LT was a linebacker. i dont recall him in too many pass coverage schemes.
my point....?
these days you draft a kid becuase of his innate skills and talents. accentuate that talent, and then based on his football mensa, you increase his work load and tasks at hand as he progresses.
DJ. out of college. kid was a beast at covering the TE and rushing the QB.
he could have been a perrenial pro-bowler if we just let him focus on those two primary skills.
but no, he went thru a half dozen coaches who jerked him around like a marionette assigned to commitee.
VON is being allowed to be VON, and the next guy(s) we draft for the defense, hopefully guys who play up the middle, Dt, Lb and safety, those guys NEED to show inherent talent in stopping the run and/or getting after the QB, and as contributers in their rookie season, the coaches have to figure out ways to let them do what they do best.

[Chef Zambini]

as for mays,
he also plays special teams (both ways i believe)
and with the suspensions, the contract is as much about supply and demand as ability and contribution.

[Cugel]

In a 4-3 it matters to have a MLB who can both cover TEs, RBs and WRs coming across the middle AND come up strong and stuff the RB in run support. Mays can do the run support, but he can't cover worth a damn and that's not worth $4 million a year.

And no, you can't always compensate for his short-comings. All too often he's going to be called on to do things he can't do well. Miller can drop into coverage, but to use him to cover a TE is a waste of his pass-rushing ability which is why he was drafted #2 overall.

It wasn't to cover WRs in the flat that they took him ahead of Marcel Dareus!

Sure, he can do it, but that's like entering a Maseratti in a dirt-bike race!

[Joel]

3rd round is the right place to find a top RB. NFL GMs are moving more and more AWAY from drafting RBs in the first round. This year Trent Richardson is likely to be the ONLY RB taken in the first. Last year, Mark Ingram was the FIRST RB taken, at #28 and 4 more were drafted in the 2nd, mostly at the END of the second round.

You could draft one of the top 4-5 RBs with Denver's 2nd round pick, possibly one of the top 3. And you could get a perfectly serviceable RB to come in and spell McGahee with Denver's 3rd pick.

NFL GMs these days look at RB as a high-impact, short-duration pick. RBs take a beating and don't last long enough to make good #1 picks.

The reason should be obvious.

Elite talent is mostly drafted in the first round. There are 22 starters on an NFL team, but obviously no starter can last 22 years, so it's impossible to replace all or even MOST of your players with #1st round picks. Or even 1st and 2nd rounders (each starter would have to last 11 years and that's not ever going to happen).

So, a player you take in the first round better last (hopefully) for 10 years or so or you're wasting that pick. IF the average RB lasts about 5 years or so then taking one with a first rounder is wasteful, unless that RB is going to be an elite All-Pro like Trent Richardson is projected to become (maybe).

So, third or 4th round is EXACTLY where the Broncos need to find their next RB.

1st round -- DT or CB
2nd round -- DT or CB or LB or G/C
3rd round -- RB or CB or LB or S or G/C
etc.
Running itself is less of a priority since all the new restrictions on pass rushing and coverage changed the old saw: Now FOUR things can happen on a pass, with an automatic first down by penalty most likely. Meanwhile, no one gives a dead rats rump about hitting "defenseless runners," so much so the NFL publicly and explicitly stated that the moment a QB tucks it away to run he loses all the bubble wrap enjoyed as a passer. Thus a backs career life expectancy is measured in months, and running still averaged the same 4.2 yards per carry in 2011 it did in 1985, yet passes produce first downs, often even when incomplete.

I'm not sure how long the owners who make up the rules committee will be comfortable reducing the NFL to a glorified arena league defensive backs refer to as "flag football" (because, for them, it is) and long time fans have begun viewing with the same scorn rugby fans feel. As I said elsewhere, "any team on any given Sunday" has ceased to be about parity and become about luck and favorable rules: Chunk the ball downfield every play and there's a good chance the right guy comes down with it; if not, you'll STILL get a first down by penalty if the defense gives the QB or receivers so much as a dirty look.

There's a reason so many people ignore Tebows abysmal completion percentage to praise his yards per completion: That's modern pro football. I don't think it will be much longer though, because it's becoming an embarrassing joke, and a shameful one to anyone who's followed the sport long enough to remember how it was played 20 years ago, let alone 40 (i.e. all owners.) There's a reason teams have repeatedly shattered Marinos 1984 records for TDs and passing yardage: When you can't touch the QB and must let receivers catch the ball and take off running before you can hit them, offenses become a lot more productive.

I was most struck by it replaying Madden '07 the past couple weeks: On nearly every pass the defender timed the hit to coincide with the balls arrival (like they were taught five years ago,) so YAC was hard to come by, and every time the ball popped loose John Maddens voice praised them at length for a "great play" that would result in first downs, fines and suspensions now. Maybe I should get the new version of Madden so my frustration at tackles before I can spin or sprint disappears now that receivers can't be touched until they "make a football move." :rolleyes:

So, yeah, it's reaching the point that drafting a back on the first day of the draft is a wasted pick, but the rules committee has historically worked hard to restore the balance between offense and defense every time the pendulum swings too far in one direction, and as reminders of the need for that become more glaring I expect them to do so again.


3/4 .....4/3, defenses morph so much a linebacker is a linebacker, mike sam larry wilbur, for all I care! a LINEBACKER shows up with certain talents and skills, its up to the coaches to accentuate those talents !
LT was a linebacker. i dont recall him in too many pass coverage schemes.
my point....?
these days you draft a kid becuase of his innate skills and talents. accentuate that talent, and then based on his football mensa, you increase his work load and tasks at hand as he progresses.
DJ. out of college. kid was a beast at covering the TE and rushing the QB.
he could have been a perrenial pro-bowler if we just let him focus on those two primary skills.
but no, he went thru a half dozen coaches who jerked him around like a marionette assigned to commitee.
VON is being allowed to be VON, and the next guy(s) we draft for the defense, hopefully guys who play up the middle, Dt, Lb and safety, those guys NEED to show inherent talent in stopping the run and/or getting after the QB, and as contributers in their rookie season, the coaches have to figure out ways to let them do what they do best.
Linebackers are not interchangeable, and the distinction between 3-4s and 4-3s exists for a reason (though teams putting an OLBs hand in the dirt on most downs have blurred it.) LT was a freak (in many ways...) not the norm, and there's a reason DJ went inside when we ran a 3-4: 242 pounds is WAY too light for a 3-4 OLB, and his coverage skills would've been wasted since most 3-4 OLBs today don't bother covering anyone (I'm honestly baffled why the short passing offenses many receivers hasn't changed that; probably because so many coaches seem to think blitzing the only defense against the pass.)

The basic rule is, or should be, that MLBs must cover, run stop and blitz well in a 4-3, and OLBs must in a 3-4; in many ways, the biggest advantage of a 3-4 is that it essentially allows teams to put two Mikes on the field at once—IF they have a NT the equivalent of two 4-3 DTs. The rise of TEs, RBs and possession receivers catching passes in the flat and over the middle is naturally suited to the 3-4, not because of an extra blitzer (which it really doesn't offer anyway; a front seven is a front seven, though the 3-4 does make disguising blitzes easier,) but because the extra LBs can cover them better. Except... they don't; it's a puzzler.

as for mays,
he also plays special teams (both ways i believe)
and with the suspensions, the contract is as much about supply and demand as ability and contribution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the contract was signed before the suspensions. The special teams point is valid (much as with Burns, who almost never saw the field as a linebacker, but was a demon on special teams) but paying a guy $4 million to play special teams doesn't make much sense either. Special teams is important, but not as important as MLB.

In a 4-3 it matters to have a MLB who can both cover TEs, RBs and WRs coming across the middle AND come up strong and stuff the RB in run support. Mays can do the run support, but he can't cover worth a damn and that's not worth $4 million a year.

And no, you can't always compensate for his short-comings. All too often he's going to be called on to do things he can't do well. Miller can drop into coverage, but to use him to cover a TE is a waste of his pass-rushing ability which is why he was drafted #2 overall.

It wasn't to cover WRs in the flat that they took him ahead of Marcel Dareus!

Sure, he can do it, but that's like entering a Maseratti in a dirt-bike race!
Well, y'know, this is why I keep suggesting Miller play Mike; people say it would be a waste, but it's hard to see how someone can be "wasted" at the single most important spot on defense. My bigger reservations there are about whether Miller is big and experienced enough to QB the defense, run stop and cover, but if he can ONLY blitz we wasted the #2 pick wherever he plays. Miller was (mostly) a 3-4 OLB at A&M, and that translates to 4-3 MLB far more than a 4-3 OLB (which translates more to a 3-4 ILB ala DJ.)

The big advantage would be that Mays could be our starting Sam (probably where he belongs) and backup MLB, with Haggan as HIS backup. DJ and Woodyard at Will would give us a solid and deep LB corps, and I'm fairly happy with our starters and depth at DE, so our defensive issues would be our DTs and secondary; after that, we could focus on our moribund offense.

[Cugel]

I'm not sure how long the owners who make up the rules committee will be comfortable reducing the NFL to a glorified arena league defensive backs refer to as "flag football" (because, for them, it is) and long time fans have begun viewing with the same scorn rugby fans feel. As I said elsewhere, "any team on any given Sunday" has ceased to be about parity and become about luck and favorable rules: Chunk the ball downfield every play and there's a good chance the right guy comes down with it; if not, you'll STILL get a first down by penalty if the defense gives the QB or receivers so much as a dirty look.

There's a reason so many people ignore Tebows abysmal completion percentage to praise his yards per completion: That's modern pro football. I don't think it will be much longer though, because it's becoming an embarrassing joke, and a shameful one to anyone who's followed the sport long enough to remember how it was played 20 years ago, let alone 40 (i.e. all owners.) There's a reason teams have repeatedly shattered Marinos 1984 records for TDs and passing yardage: When you can't touch the QB and must let receivers catch the ball and take off running before you can hit them, offenses become a lot more productive.


You've got to be kidding right? :laugh:

The NFL is a BUSINESS. Pat Bowlen bought his franchise for $78 million in 1984 and today his franchise is worth approximately $1.1 BILLION according to Forbes business magazine.

Every other owner has seen similar massive increases in the value of their ownership interest.

And this immense increase in popularity has taken place while the NFL has sanctified the QB and liberalized the passing rules.

First they said Defenders can't touch the WR more than 5 yds. from the LOS.
Then they said they can't hit the "defenseless" WR.
Then when defenses responded by trying to put a big hit on the QB to deter him from taking advantage of the pass-interference and holding rules the league once again intervened by making it illegal to touch the QB in the pocket.

Can't hit him after he's released the ball or hit him in the head ever or throw him to the turf, or breath on him too heavily or even look at him in an intimidating manner!

Do you suppose all this was accidental? They pay their elite QBs $50+ million and have to draft them in the first round. The QB is the visible face of the franchise and a top QB is one of the most widely recognized sports figures in America. Their QB is their most valuable asset and they want him to last!

The very last thing any of these billionaires wants is some reserve LB earning the league minimum, breaking their $50 million investment. Collectively they have gotten together to preserve their financial stake in QBs.

They are protecting their investments and "balance" be damned. As long as people don't start tuning out the games they aren't going back to "3 yards and a cloud of dust."

That's BORING. A 60 yard pass play is EXCITING. Women especially like it and like the emphasis on the QB and increasing the fan base has largely meant increasing interest among women over the last 30 years.

So, the chances of a reversal in policy are LESS THAN ZERO for the foreseeable future.

And that means that RBs will decline in value rather than increase. They are becoming more and more interchangeable parts. The Broncos pioneered the way with their ZBS, inserting a new 1000 yard RB each season.

And any fan who's been around long enough to pine for the "old days" is, in NFL Owners's eyes, the equivalent of Abe Simpson!

http://us.acidcow.com/pics/20110322/hilarious_headlines_03.jpg
"You kids get off my lawn!" (My motto these days as well!)

[MOtorboat]

It would be borderline retarded to move a pass rusher like Miller to MLB.

Thankfully, I don't think Del Lazio is that stupid.

[Joel]

You've got to be kidding right? :laugh:

The NFL is a BUSINESS. Pat Bowlen bought his franchise for $78 million in 1984 and today his franchise is worth approximately $1.1 BILLION according to Forbes business magazine.

Every other owner has seen similar massive increases in the value of their ownership interest.

And this immense increase in popularity has taken place while the NFL has sanctified the QB and liberalized the passing rules.
First they said Defenders can't touch the WR more than 5 yds. from the LOS.
Then they said they can't hit the "defenseless" WR.
Then when defenses responded by trying to put a big hit on the QB to deter him from taking advantage of the pass-interference and holding rules the league once again intervened by making it illegal to touch the QB in the pocket.

Can't hit him after he's released the ball or hit him in the head ever or throw him to the turf, or breath on him too heavily or even look at him in an intimidating manner!

Do you suppose all this was accidental? They pay their elite QBs $50+ million and have to draft them in the first round. The QB is the visible face of the franchise and a top QB is one of the most widely recognized sports figures in America. Their QB is their most valuable asset and they want him to last!

The very last thing any of these billionaires wants is some reserve LB earning the league minimum, breaking their $50 million investment. Collectively they have gotten together to preserve their financial stake in QBs.

They are protecting their investments and "balance" be damned. As long as people don't start tuning out the games they aren't going back to "3 yards and a cloud of dust."

That's BORING. A 60 yard pass play is EXCITING. Women especially like it and like the emphasis on the QB and increasing the fan base has largely meant increasing interest among women over the last 30 years.

So, the chances of a reversal in policy are LESS THAN ZERO for the foreseeable future.

And that means that RBs will decline in value rather than increase. They are becoming more and more interchangeable parts. The Broncos pioneered the way with their ZBS, inserting a new 1000 yard RB each season.

And any fan who's been around long enough to pine for the "old days" is, in NFL Owners's eyes, the equivalent of Abe Simpson!

http://us.acidcow.com/pics/20110322/hilarious_headlines_03.jpg
"You kids get off my lawn!" (My motto these days as well!)
As an aside at the start, all the same arguments against letting some scrub DT making the League minimum end the career of an exciting highly paid (and lucrative) "skill" player applies to running backs as much as to QBs. The only difference is backs are subjected to MUCH more physical contact per down, hence their window of productive play is much smaller.

Bear in mind that the CPI is more than twice what it was in 1984; the NFLs profitability has dramatically increased in the past three decades, but not nearly as much as just looking at the bottom line would suggest. Also, those increased profits have less to do with changing the leagues style than with the salary cap and expanded network competition for broadcast contracts. Believe it or not, Madden accounts for much of it; according to Wikipedia, the computerized football game is the NFLs second largest revenue source after merchandise.

Yet part of what made MNF genius was that ABC was the only network with no NFL deal, and, when all other games were played simultaneously during a seven hour Sunday window, MNF gave them a captive national audience for marquee games. Thanks largely to recent rules changes, NFL teams are now such inconsistent crap shoots it's impossible to predict "marquee games" even a year in advance, hence "flex-scheduling" (i.e. "half of last years playoff teams got there by luck and already have 10 losses this year.") The question is if that makes the average person more or less inclined to watch, but the answer should be obvious.

Apparel remains the NFLs largest revenue source and, along with TV ratings, ticket sales and Madden purchases, highlights the problem I see: The NFL makes very little money off 15 year old girls switching over to the fourth quarter of SNF to check out Tom Brady (if "Desperate Housewives" is a re-run.) I'm not convinced women, as a whole, prefer passing fireworks to reliable running any more or less than men do, but NO ONE prefers watching games whose outcome is almost randomly determined by who runs under the most punts-masquerading-as-passes (or draws a defensive penalty when they don't.)

The NFL makes most of its money off merchandise (jerseys, travel mugs, caps etc.) Madden (apparently) and TV contracts, in that order. There may not be many Gale Sayers fans left among the demographics contributing most of that cash, but fans of Barry Sanders and Walter Payton remain disproportionate. In the past two or three years alone I've purchased or given/received as gifts:

2 Broncos team jackets (one of which I've worn daily for the last six months; nothing like free advertising,)
1 Broncos cap,
1 Broncos travel thermos
1 Broncos wallet
1 Packers freezer mug
1 Cowboys miniature replica football (with tee,)
2 copies of Madden

How many "fans" who didn't even HAVE a favorite team two years ago (and still can't name any starters except the QB) have done the same? Is it plausible that many new women fans (who aren't exactly a disproportionate demograpic among PC/console gamers) have? Should we start a poll to see how many of the people who spend substantial amounts of time at BF and other places support the recent rules figuratively hamstringing defenses in the name of preventing them from literally hamstringing QBs/WRs? Pretty sure we both know what the results would be. ;)

Speaking of the Simpsons: Remember the episode where Mo gives the bar a "post-modern" renovation to attract new clients, and throws out his old ones? Remember when he justifies it by saying, "at least the tips are good," only to to discover his tip jar is empty? The new environment proved unprofitable as well as uncomfortable, though the latter prompted him to desperately turn on a football game (replacing the disembodied eye previously on the screen,) to the loud booes of his new patrons, one of whom demands, "unless you're being ironic, turn that off!"

Old school fans remain vital to the NFL because they provide its revenue; the only place recruiting new fans is relevant is in TV contracts, but since there are 67% more networks bidding for 6.25% more games than 20 years ago, that's not a great worry for the NFL. Everything else—ticket sales, merchandise and computer games—depends almost entirely on long time serious fans increasingly as disgusted as players are by the NFL turning into a flag football arena league.

"As long as people don't start tuning out the games they aren't going back to '3 yards and a cloud of dust.'" I agree; what if people DO start tuning out the games? Not everyone; they'll still be able to count on HS girls with Brady Quinns name scribbled next to theirs inside cute little hearts in their notebooks. Just people who, y'know, actually SPEND MONEY on the NFL.

"Any team on any given Sunday" used to be about true parity; the Competition Committee (along with the draft and revenue sharing) ensured the very worst teams could always compete with the very best. Todays "parity" is that of the coin toss, where the very worst teams always have a good chance of scoring on the very best, and victory often comes down to who has the last chance to heave the ball downfield randomly, hoping that either the right guy runs under it or the defense is penalized if not.

No serious fan wants to watch that, because it magnifies the element of luck at the expense of talent and skill so much that the great teams in which fans invest their time, emotion and MONEY regularly have success snatched away by far less talented but more lucky opponents. I hesitate to mention He Who Must Not Be Named, but the reaction to his 2011 season neatly illustrates my point: Most long time fans were disgusted at the lack of skill, but most new fans, particularly young/female ones, were mesmerized by the drama.

The question, from a BUSINESS perspective, is where the NFL gets more of its money, and the answer is obvious: The NFL cannot afford to lure in millions of casual (i.e. non-paying) fans at the expense of convincing people like you and me to support (financially and otherwise) far more respectable sports like rugby.

If the NFL were JUST about increasing popularity TV blackouts wouldn't exist (it's doubtful they do much for ticket sales, but they do NOTHING for popularity.) As you rightly note, the NFL's a business, and if gets more people to watch games on TV for free, at the expense of people paying to see them in person, the business loses money. Look at the Pro Bowl: Has its ticket sales and even its ratings grown or shrunk since the League started sending players based on fan popularity rather than the coaches assessment of their play?

The more the NFL becomes a sideshow instead of a competition, the more its revenue will suffer; the question is how long it takes the owners to realize that. They already took a step by (slightly) reducing the amount of bubble wrap surrounding QBs last year. Hopefully, the combination of the Saints multi-year bounty program and James Harrison publicly admitting he goes low, knowing it increases serioues injuries, to comply with the letter but not spirit of the rules will convince them to fix what they so badly broke in the last five years.

Meanwhile, even if none of the above were true, all the same arguments against letting some scrub DT making the League minimum end the career of an exciting highly paid (and lucrative) "skill" player applies to running backs as much as to QBs. The only difference is that backs are subjected to MUCH more physical contact per down, hence their window of productive play is much smaller.

[Joel]

It would be borderline retarded to move a pass rusher like Miller to MLB.

Thankfully, I don't think Del Lazio is that stupid.
You make it sound like MLBs can't rush the passer; once upon a time, it was among their most vital roles. The reality is, it remains so; not only are they closer to the QB than everyone but the frount four, they have speed most DTs lack and strength most safeties lack to reach him. If/when DTs soak up blockers, most MLBs have a better chance of getting through/around a back to the QB than most safeties do, and certainly do when DTs DON'T soak up blockers.

If ALL Miller can do is blitz then 1) he needs to gain at least 25 lbs. and play DE and 2) he wasn't worth the #2 overall pick. Personally, I'm optimistic he's fast enough (and hopefully smart enough) to be good in coverage, too, and hits hard enough his size won't be a liability against the run at either MLB or SLB.

The bottom line is: Which would you rather be without, a solid starting MLB, or SLB? Though, to be fair, until/unless he's better against the run, Miller doesn't even qualify as the latter; he's a third down pass rusher who lines up at SLB instead of RDE. I see a lot more potential in him, but even in a league as passing obsessed as this one, he's not worth the #2 overall pick unless he achieves much of that potential. Mays or Haggan would be fine SLBs if we moved Miller to MLB; the question is whether Miller's good enough to play MLB.

[MOtorboat]

You make it sound like MLBs can't rush the passer; once upon a time, it was among their most vital roles. The reality is, it remains so; not only are they closer to the QB than everyone but the frount four, they have speed most DTs lack and strength most safeties lack to reach him. If/when DTs soak up blockers, most MLBs have a better chance of getting through/around a back to the QB than most safeties do, and certainly do when DTs DON'T soak up blockers.

If ALL Miller can do is blitz then 1) he needs to gain at least 25 lbs. and play DE and 2) he wasn't worth the #2 overall pick. Personally, I'm optimistic he's fast enough (and hopefully smart enough) to be good in coverage, too, and hits hard enough his size won't be a liability against the run at either MLB or SLB.

The bottom line is: Which would you rather be without, a solid starting MLB, or SLB? Though, to be fair, until/unless he's better against the run, Miller doesn't even qualify as the latter; he's a third down pass rusher who lines up at SLB instead of RDE. I see a lot more potential in him, but even in a league as passing obsessed as this one, he's not worth the #2 overall pick unless he achieves much of that potential. Mays or Haggan would be fine SLBs if we moved Miller to MLB; the question is whether Miller's good enough to play MLB.

He's not, nor will he ever be a MLB, no matter how many words you write about it. Nor should he.

[Softskull]

They say this cat Mays is a bad mother
Shut your mouth
But I'm talkin' 'bout Mays
Then we can dig it

[Simple Jaded]

Instead of moving Von Miller to MLB or trading him for a MLB how bout just drafting a MLB? Maybe sign a MLB in free agency? That's how most teams do it.......

[Joel]

Instead of moving Von Miller to MLB or trading him for a MLB how bout just drafting a MLB? Maybe sign a MLB in free agency? That's how most teams do it.......
Fine by me; go to. Until/unless we do one or both of those things though, we still need someone to QB the D, and it ain't Joe Mays. He and Haggan both run stop (which is the SLBs JOB) well enough to start at SLB (in fact, they do it better than Miller,) and Mays could also be an adequate backup MLB in a pinch; it's not like we'd be naked at SLB if we moved Miller. We're just rather naked at MLB as long as Mays is starting; hopefully last years draft or next years will change that soon.

[Jsteve01]

It would be borderline retarded to move a pass rusher like Miller to MLB.

Thankfully, I don't think Del Lazio is that stupid.
You make it sound like MLBs can't rush the passer; once upon a time, it was among their most vital roles. The reality is, it remains so; not only are they closer to the QB than everyone but the frount four, they have speed most DTs lack and strength most safeties lack to reach him. If/when DTs soak up blockers, most MLBs have a better chance of getting through/around a back to the QB than most safeties do, and certainly do when DTs DON'T soak up blockers.

If ALL Miller can do is blitz then 1) he needs to gain at least 25 lbs. and play DE and 2) he wasn't worth the #2 overall pick. Personally, I'm optimistic he's fast enough (and hopefully smart enough) to be good in coverage, too, and hits hard enough his size won't be a liability against the run at either MLB or SLB.

The bottom line is: Which would you rather be without, a solid starting MLB, or SLB? Though, to be fair, until/unless he's better against the run, Miller doesn't even qualify as the latter; he's a third down pass rusher who lines up at SLB instead of RDE. I see a lot more potential in him, but even in a league as passing obsessed as this one, he's not worth the #2 overall pick unless he achieves much of that potential. Mays or Haggan would be fine SLBs if we moved Miller to MLB; the question is whether Miller's good enough to play MLB. joel I know you're fond of pff. You might note that they had Miller ranked as the best 4-3 Sam vs the run in the league last year. Sure he needs to grow in coverage but lets not exaggerate his deficiencies to make a point. At the same time. John Maxwell who is one of my favorite writers has always said maximize your strengths. Miller is one of the best pass rushers in the game as a 2nd year player. I maximize that if I'm del rio

[Simple Jaded]

But Joe Mays will QB the defense, he will play MLB. To my knowledge he's never played SLB and Miller has never played MLB. Besides, Miller is a pass rusher first and foremost and when he got in trouble with the coaches last year it was because he lost his responsibility against the run. I'm not saying he couldn't make more of an impact on 1st and 2nd from the MLB but the position is no different this year than last year and if they thought Miller should play MLB they would've have done so last year.

Btw, it's every bit as much the MLB's job to stop the run as it is the SLB

Also, I think Haggan is still unsigned.......

[ShaneFalco]

i like mays alot, he hits hard, just struggles vs the pass. But he is a downhill hitter and tackler fullspeed all over the run game.

If you watch most of our games he was always near the ball.

[bcbronc]

i like mays alot, he hits hard, just struggles vs the pass. But he is a downhill hitter and tackler fullspeed all over the run game.

If you watch most of our games he was always near the ball.

near the ball until it passed him because Mays was filling the wrong gap.

and can we put this lunacy to rest about Miller playing MLB. All you have to do is take a look at him to see he's not physically built like a Mack 'backer. It makes about as much sense as saying we should move Champ to TE.

[NightTerror218]

i like mays alot, he hits hard, just struggles vs the pass. But he is a downhill hitter and tackler fullspeed all over the run game.

If you watch most of our games he was always near the ball.

But he can take bad angles and miss tackles going for big hits.

[Dapper Dan]

I switched Miller to MLB on Madden. It ain't worth it. It's better to just go out and get an MLB. True story.

[Cugel]

Bear in mind that the CPI is more than twice what it was in 1984; the NFLs profitability has dramatically increased in the past three decades, but not nearly as much as just looking at the bottom line would suggest. Also, those increased profits have less to do with changing the leagues style than with the salary cap and expanded network competition for broadcast contracts. Believe it or not, Madden accounts for much of it; according to Wikipedia, the computerized football game is the NFLs second largest revenue source after merchandise.

NFL teams blather a lot about "revenue" but that's mostly when they are complaining that the players make too much money.

The real value of their franchises is the stock price, not annual revenues.

The NFL is a growth industry because there are a LOT more willing buyers for NFL franchises than there are sellers. So, the market price per share keeps going up.

Like the Joe Walsh song: "I can't complain, but sometimes I still do. Life's been good to be so far."

They whine about "revenues" but it's utterly absurd when you consider that the value of Bowlen's franchise increased approximately 1200%, from $87 million to $1,100 million. Revenue be damned! He's gone from "extremely rich" to "obscenely wealthy by any standard." And that would still be true if the Broncos didn't make a penny in net revenue this year!

And QBs are their greatest assets. Other "talent" positions simply don't compare.

NOBODY is giving a WR $19 million per year the way the Broncos are Peyton Manning. QB is a MUCH bigger investment.

So, they will never change the rules to protect WRs and RBs the way they do QBs because they are simply not as valuable.

It's a QB driven league, and as long as the value of their portfolios keeps skyrocketing the way it has, there's no incentive to change that.

[Superchop 7]

The problem is paying $4 million/year for a part time player, mostly in on run downs. He doesn't bring more to the table than first thought; he's a Sam playing Mike, as initially thought, and thus hopelessly inadequate, especially for $4 million/year. If we spent that just to get get a run stuffer, why not pay it to Bunkley, have a run stuffer on ALL downs and go find a legit MLB who can cover over the middle and blitz?

Mays plays MLB like it's still 1974 and it's enough to pop slot receivers hard when they go over the middle, then watch the ball fly one direction while their head flies another. That doesn't work anymore because 1) it's illegal and 2) receivers are MUCH better at making catches and holding on no matter what. That reduces Mays to running guys down and tackling them AFTER they get a first down, which would be fine in a Sam but is a massive liability in a Mike, who must tackle like Mays and cover like DJ, picking up half a dozen sacks/year along the way.

Mays has 0 sacks, 0 Ints and 3 passes defended in his 4 year career; that's not a $4 million Mike. http://www.nfl.com/player/joemays/4277/profile

This is why I dislike referring to "ILBs" generally, as if 3-4 ILBs (who must be good in coverage but only passable blitzers/run stoppers) were the same as MLBs (who must excel at everything, like 3-4 OLBs.)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________


It depends on the assignment, if your job is A-B gap run stuff.....drop into zone slant if its a pass and keep an eye on the QB if he runs........and you are doing your job.......he is worth it.

Understand.....C gap is not his responsibility.......his job is to bounce it outside. Stats do not matter if you are doing your job.

This is all hypothetical.......what is needed is the opinion of the D-co-ord, he needs to justify the money to Mays considering our lousy run defense.

But......if C gap is Rahim Moores responsibility.......well.......he plays scared.

[bcbronc]

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________


It depends on the assignment, if your job is A-B gap run stuff.....drop into zone slant if its a pass and keep an eye on the QB if he runs........and you are doing your job.......he is worth it.

Understand.....C gap is not his responsibility.......his job is to bounce it outside. Stats do not matter if you are doing your job.

This is all hypothetical.......what is needed is the opinion of the D-co-ord, he needs to justify the money to Mays considering our lousy run defense.

But......if C gap is Rahim Moores responsibility.......well.......he plays scared.


Fair point. I'd still like my MLB to be able to play sideline to sideline though.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

Also, I think Haggan is still unsigned.......

Haggan signed with the Rams last week.