Reprising His Role

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=334&storyID=9075

Also, on above link, you can hear Spencer speaking today to the press


ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- In the modern-day NFL, you'd be hard-pressed to find a player more versatile than Spencer Larsen.

Larsen, who enters his second season with the Broncos can best be labeled as a "jack of all trades."

In his rookie campaign with the Broncos in 2008, Larsen's flexibility quickly became evident. During training camp, Larsen altered between linebacker and fullback. With the Broncos convinced he could play both roles, Larsen played both sides of the ball during the regular season, all the while being recognized as one of the orange and blue's top-notch special teams players.

Just how unique of a player is Larsen? In Week 11, the Broncos' 24-20 win at Atlanta on Nov. 16 -- just 10 games into his pro career -- he became the first Bronco in franchise history to start on both offense and defense, in the same game nonetheless.

Now, Head Coach Josh McDaniels and his staff are asking the 25-year-old to reprise his role from last season. Speaking with media members at Dove Valley on Tuesday afternoon, Larsen said he is comfortable with continuing to be a two-way player.

"That (McDaniels) was able to look at last year and decide to keep me on and give me a chance is exciting," he said. "Whatever they have me do, I'm excited about it and I'll do my best with it."

For any player, grasping a new coach's system takes time, regardless of position. But Larsen must learn new terminology for all three phases of the game, making his life at Dove Valley a bit hectic this offseason.

A typical day for Larsen starts by meeting with linebackers coach Don Martindale and his defensive counterparts. Then he meets with running backs coach Bobby Turner and the rest of the tailbacks. Later, Larsen is filled in about what he missed from the other side of the ball.

"They both give me as much information as they think I can handle," Larsen said of his coaches.

Once back home, Larsen -- playbook in hand -- continues to study the array of new systems he is learning. Admittedly, he has felt like a rookie at times this offseason.

"I pick up one book and get as much as I can out of it and then get the other one and get as much as I can out of it and go like that day in and day out," Larsen said.

Currently, Larsen -- who has played inside linebacker during offseason camps -- says he is adapting quickest on the defensive side of the ball because it is a position he has played his entire career. However, the hybrid player believes he is making progress at fullback and on special teams as well.

"You just do it the best you can and that's all they really expect out of me," he said of the coaching staff. "I'm just trying to get as comfortable as I can in both positions -- that's my main goal."

Despite contributing in so many roles, Larsen doesn't feel multiple duties are hurting his overall production. And he doesn't believe he is being overworked either, citing that he is getting as many reps as the rest of his teammates during practice.

"The coaches, they look and see what you can handle and what you can't. And once you can't, they cut it back," he said. "They've been doing this for a long time and know what a player can take. I haven't felt like I've gotten spread out."

[silkamilkamonico]

Larson is a McDaniels type of player. He's a "football player".

[Simple Jaded]

Poor mans Mike Vrabel?.......

[Lonestar]

still thought is was stupid last year to play him ONLY as FB and not really get him on the field play till late in the year at LB where he and woodyard kicked the other LB 's ass..

[topscribe]

I just hate that they are sticking Larsen at FB, even part of the time. He's a
linebacker, and no matter what he says to placate the coaches, that is what
he wants to play. I personally believe (I may be wrong, but I do) Larsen could
crack the starting lineup and stay there.

The common criticism against him is that "he's not fast." Well, I have news
here: neither was Dick Butkus . . . yet who is it many regard as the greatest
MLB of all time? Besides, Larsen's "football speed" far exceeds his 40-in-shorts.
His uncanny sense of anticipation and field vision have a lot to do with that.
And he's nasty: he hits like a stray mortar shell.

Put him back at LB and keep him there, except for STs, of course.

-----

[anton...]

The common criticism against him is that "he's not fast." Well, I have news
here: neither was Dick Butkus . . .

although i agree with your post as a whole, butkus was a bad example simply because when he played, the overall game speed and the speed of all individuals was somewhat slower...

each year, players get faster, its a fact of most sports...

but i too wish larsen could get a chance to become a starting ILB...

[topscribe]

although i agree with your post as a whole, butkus was a bad example simply because when he played, the overall game speed and the speed of all individuals was somewhat slower...

each year, players get faster, its a fact of most sports...

but i too wish larsen could get a chance to become a starting ILB...

So the principle remains the same because of the relativity.

Nonetheless, Butkus would be an All-Pro today in his prime. I really believe
that. There are players of yore who would be elite today, such as Unitas,
Sayers, Jim Brown, and, yes, Butkus.

The point is, however, Larsen is "slow" in the same manner Butkus was "slow":
that is, relative to the other players. And Larsen has this nasty little habit of
showing up where the ball happens to be . . .

-----

[rationalfan]

So the principle remains the same because of the relativity.

Nonetheless, Butkus would be an All-Pro today in his prime. I really believe
that. There are players of yore who would be elite today, such as Unitas,
Sayers, Jim Brown, and, yes, Butkus.

The point is, however, Larsen is "slow" in the same manner Butkus was "slow":
that is, relative to the other players. And Larsen has this nasty little habit of
showing up where the ball happens to be . . .

-----

what's interesting about this prolonged discussion is that larsen's deficiencies (covering fleet tight ends, lack of quickness) seem to get rationalized by fans as minor problems while the deficiencies of other linebackers, such as nate webster, are exploited as contentious points of fault.

larsen's not bad. but he's no dj williams - much less dick butkus.

[topscribe]

what's interesting about this prolonged discussion is that larsen's deficiencies (covering fleet tight ends, lack of quickness) seem to get rationalized by fans as minor problems while the deficiencies of other linebackers, such as nate webster, are exploited as contentious points of fault.

larsen's not bad. but he's no dj williams - much less dick butkus.

Okay, and Jake Delhomme is no John Elway. And Matt Forte is no Barry
Sanders. And Nene is no Wilt Chamberlain. Now that we have that out of the
way . . .

So who had Larsen tabbed as a Dick Butkus? Can a name be brought up ever
on this board without ensuing accusations of trying to make a player equal to
that name? I simply pointed out another player who did quite well for himself
without the attribute of great speed. So what's up with that?

Regarding Nate Webster, he exposed his own "contentious point of fault" via
his pathetic play. No one had to "exploit" it. So what does that have to do
with the topic, anyway?

-----

[Lonestar]

Okay, and Jake Delhomme is no John Elway. And Matt Forte is no Barry
Sanders. And Nene is no Wilt Chamberlain. Now that we have that out of the
way . . .

So who had Larsen tabbed as a Dick Butkus? Can a name be brought up ever
on this board without ensuing accusations of trying to make a player equal to
that name? I simply pointed out another player who did quite well for himself
without the attribute of great speed. So what's up with that?

Regarding Nate Webster, he exposed his own "contentious point of fault" via
his pathetic play. No one had to "exploit" it. So what does that have to do
with the topic, anyway?

-----



one only wonders if this pathetic D from last year would have been so bad IF larsen, woodyard and DJ had played all year..

[gobroncsnv]

especially since Woodyard and Larsen ADDED to our defense, Webster and a couple of others detracted from it... I enjoyed watching Woody and Larsen play, about as much as I hated to see Web out there.
Missed assignments, tackles, and helmets.... uugghh!

[broncofaninfla]

I can't help but think if Larsen shines at LB like I think he will he role will at FB will be reduced. I'm guessing he will only be used in emergancy situations if Hillis is unable to go.
It says a lot about Larsen that he can play at a pro level at both positions, esentially saving a roster spot.

[broncofaninfla]

still thought is was stupid last year to play him ONLY as FB and not really get him on the field play till late in the year at LB where he and woodyard kicked the other LB 's ass..

I agree, he and WW were arguably our best LB's last year

[rationalfan]

Okay, and Jake Delhomme is no John Elway. And Matt Forte is no Barry
Sanders. And Nene is no Wilt Chamberlain. Now that we have that out of the
way . . .

So who had Larsen tabbed as a Dick Butkus? Can a name be brought up ever
on this board without ensuing accusations of trying to make a player equal to
that name? I simply pointed out another player who did quite well for himself
without the attribute of great speed. So what's up with that?

Regarding Nate Webster, he exposed his own "contentious point of fault" via
his pathetic play. No one had to "exploit" it. So what does that have to do
with the topic, anyway?

-----


my point is that fan favorite players tend to only be seen in the positive light. obviously, people on this board like larsen. they also like hillis. and woodyard. thus, these three players are often lawded for their abilities. they're rarely criticized for physical or talent deficiencies and often their deficiencies are rationalized away behind hope and hyperbole. meanwhile it's the opposite for players who become fan punching bags (i.e. nate webster).

i'm not saying webster is great. and i'm not saying larsen is terrible. simply stating that larsen might not be as good as some people think he is.

[topscribe]

my point is that fan favorite players tend to only be seen in the positive light. obviously, people on this board like larsen. they also like hillis. and woodyard. thus, these three players are often lawded for their abilities. they're rarely criticized for physical or talent deficiencies and often their deficiencies are rationalized away behind hope and hyperbole. meanwhile it's the opposite for players who become fan punching bags (i.e. nate webster).

i'm not saying webster is great. and i'm not saying larsen is terrible. simply stating that larsen might not be as good as some people think he is.

Well, I would hope you wouldn't say Webster was great. He was pathetic.
There is a reason his contract was not renewed this year.

Regarding Larsen, he indeed may not be as great as "some" people think he is,
although I don't know who around here thinks he is "great" at the moment. As
I see it, most of the posters here are pretty level-headed in their approach
toward him and other players.

Nonetheless, he could be worse than viewed, or he could be better. I think all
we posters here want is that they give him a fair chance to show what he
can do and that spreading him out to offense, as well as defense, does not
set him back. :noidea:

-----

[broncofaninfla]

my point is that fan favorite players tend to only be seen in the positive light. obviously, people on this board like larsen. they also like hillis. and woodyard. thus, these three players are often lawded for their abilities. they're rarely criticized for physical or talent deficiencies and often their deficiencies are rationalized away behind hope and hyperbole. meanwhile it's the opposite for players who become fan punching bags (i.e. nate webster).

i'm not saying webster is great. and i'm not saying larsen is terrible. simply stating that larsen might not be as good as some people think he is.

Honetsly I wouldn't like Larsen if I felt he wasn't a good player. He was one of our best LB's last year. I know that isn't saying much given the scrubs we had playing for us but I like the guy soley based on his play and potential.