PDA

View Full Version : Broncos safeties Moore, Carter figure to be better with added experience



Mannway187
06-08-2012, 09:57 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_20809445/broncos-safeties-moore-carter-figure-be-improved-second-season#ixzz1xDJrNsmL

In 2003, some rookie safety named Troy Polamalu didn't start a game for the 6-10 Pittsburgh Steelers.

A decade earlier, a Tampa Bay safety named John Lynch had only four starts through his two seasons and didn't become a full-time starter until his fourth year of 1996.

Come again why people are down on Rahim Moore?

For whatever reason, safety is a position not quickly mastered. It takes time — more time than a rookie whose offseason practice was wiped out by the labor lockout can capture. Such was the case for Moore as a Broncos rookie safety last year.

"Guys like John Lynch, Troy Polamalu, I've heard stories about how they came into the league," Moore said. "They had hard times at first, and now they're future Hall of Famers. It's tough being young, but it's not how you start, it's how you finish."

Ready or not, Moore, a second-round draft choice from UCLA, started the Broncos' first five games last year. He was not.

Quinton Carter also was a rookie, a fourth-round pick from Oklahoma, who wound up starting 12 of the Broncos' final 13 games, including their two playoff games. During the postseason, Carter made an interception against Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger and another against New England's Tom Brady.

"I didn't expect to play that much, but when I got in I felt like I made a few plays, but I left a lot on the field," Carter said.

Moore and Carter will compete, and rotate, with veteran Mike Adams, acquired in free agency, for the Broncos' two safety spots this season.

Chef Zambini
06-08-2012, 02:00 PM
thanks, finally an article I can appreciate !
yes, its fluffy, but with substance.
the referances to lynch and palomalo give me hope for our inexperienced safeties.
thats HOPE not confidence.

rationalfan
06-08-2012, 02:16 PM
i love the sentiment of this article. i've long wondered why people are so excited for the "potential" of incoming rookies, but "potential" is never used for second, third (or more, look at brandon lloyd) year players.

Chef Zambini
06-08-2012, 02:52 PM
May greatest concern about our broncos going into the 2012 season is SAFETY !
so many teams will be incorporating more TE oriented offenses, and running or passing in short yardage situations with TE formations, our safeties have to be smart, strong and fast enough to be able to counter whatever is called at the LOS !
our SAFETIES are critical to the success of our defense !
Last year, defenses just attacked goodman,
this year the target will be on our safeties,
their match-ups, their assignments.

nevcraw
06-08-2012, 04:04 PM
I think there were a lot who had written moore off with a tough rookie season.. -- i still think he will make a major impact soon with this team..

Jsteve01
06-08-2012, 06:08 PM
Read this article this am. I really like the stuff on Troy and Lynch.

Superchop 7
06-09-2012, 01:14 PM
Whether that is on the TE or against a third WR in a slot look, let’s see how the rookies use their feet and hands. Can they play press? When they are aligned off of the receiver, are they patient with their footwork—or do they panic? Can they keep their leverage and funnel the receiver to their help in the middle of the field? Plus, when the ball is thrown, can they get “in-phase” (think hip to hip) with the WR and play the “pocket” (in between the hands of the receiver) at the mesh point? Defensive backs that have man-to-man skills find a way to get in the field in the regular season. (source: Matt Bowen)

Moore needs work on all of the above.

Kenny Phillips, Eric Berry were far better their rookie season.

He should not have been on an NFL field last year.

No clue what they saw in this kid, he must have a high ceiling.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
06-09-2012, 01:49 PM
Thanks for posting this. It gives a perspective I hadn't thought of.

Simple Jaded
06-10-2012, 02:18 PM
Whether that is on the TE or against a third WR in a slot look, let’s see how the rookies use their feet and hands. Can they play press? When they are aligned off of the receiver, are they patient with their footwork—or do they panic? Can they keep their leverage and funnel the receiver to their help in the middle of the field? Plus, when the ball is thrown, can they get “in-phase” (think hip to hip) with the WR and play the “pocket” (in between the hands of the receiver) at the mesh point? Defensive backs that have man-to-man skills find a way to get in the field in the regular season. (source: Matt Bowen)

Moore needs work on all of the above.

Kenny Phillips, Eric Berry were far better their rookie season.

He should not have been on an NFL field last year.

No clue what they saw in this kid, he must have a high ceiling.Moore made his money being a centerfielder, not in man-to-man.

If you watched the Bears - Broncos replay today you saw in one play why the Broncos drafted him (range) and why he's still a backup all on one play, and it isn't getting "in phase at the mesh point". On Barber's TD run Carter got his ankles snapped by Barber on a reverse field run, Moore came all the way across field and got to nail Barber for a loss.......only he didn't even come close to bringing Barber down, didn't even slow him down.

The kid has talent, his main issue is toughness and he wouldn't be the first S to overcome a poor rookie season.......

Cugel
06-11-2012, 02:18 PM
Look they can post all the articles in the world about how past players overcame poor rookie years, and it's all basically irrelevant. :coffee:

Bottom line: Most fans are not down on Rahim Moore because we think he sucks. Fans are down on him because John Fox and Jack Del Rio just gave Moore a BIG VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE when they signed Mike Adams to play his same position and are paying Adams $4 million a season.

That's why we're down on Rahim Moore.

Now, Moore says that he's fighting for a starting spot potentially at strong-safety, not just free safety and that could be true.

EITHER Rahim Moore OR Quinton Carter could emerge as a starter this season. But, probably NOT both of them. And Carter would appear to have the leg up in that he actually played reasonably well last season and was NOT benched by his coaches.

For all those fans who insist on arguing pointlessly that the $4 million contract to Mike Adams WON'T determine who starts, get real!

Do you remember when Mike Shanahan signed Dre Bly for $4 million a season to start ahead of Foxworth? Same situation.

Foxworth started. Shanahan brought in someone to start ahead of him. Foxworth went to Shanahan and asked if he could compete for the starting job in training camp and the pre-season.

Shanahan told him the truth. "No." Realistically, given the money they were paying Dre Bly Foxworth was NOT going to be given the chance to start ahead of him. Period.

Same thing here. Moore is not going to start ahead of Mike Adams when they're paying Adams $4 million a year to start.

That's starter money, that's not backup money. If Moore exceeds expectations and emerges as the starter, then they're overpaying Mike Adams and he's going to either have to take a pay cut (unlikely) or else they'll have to release him next season.

Because you can't manage your salary cap by paying starter money to backups!

So, if Rahim Moore magically became the next Ed Reed, then Mike Adams would be become expendable. But, meanwhile he's just a little regarded backup.

And his potential is going to have to be displayed in special teams for the most part. And maybe in nickel and dime coverages if he can get on to the field. Because his role is a backup for this season.

NightTerror218
06-11-2012, 02:39 PM
It is not a vote of no confidence in Moore to sign Adams. They made a push for the SB. They signed guys who can help get them there and are immediate impacts right now. Adams got what a 1 or 2 yr deal? He is only a patch for a year or two. Tank is getting low. If they really did not like Moore they might have drafted a safety instead of a CB.

Chef Zambini
06-11-2012, 03:27 PM
Look they can post all the articles in the world about how past players overcame poor rookie years, and it's all basically irrelevant. :coffee:

Bottom line: Most fans are not down on Rahim Moore because we think he sucks. Fans are down on him because John Fox and Jack Del Rio just gave Moore a BIG VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE when they signed Mike Adams to play his same position and are paying Adams $4 million a season.

That's why we're down on Rahim Moore.

Now, Moore says that he's fighting for a starting spot potentially at strong-safety, not just free safety and that could be true.

EITHER Rahim Moore OR Quinton Carter could emerge as a starter this season. But, probably NOT both of them. And Carter would appear to have the leg up in that he actually played reasonably well last season and was NOT benched by his coaches.

For all those fans who insist on arguing pointlessly that the $4 million contract to Mike Adams WON'T determine who starts, get real!

Do you remember when Mike Shanahan signed Dre Bly for $4 million a season to start ahead of Foxworth? Same situation.

Foxworth started. Shanahan brought in someone to start ahead of him. Foxworth went to Shanahan and asked if he could compete for the starting job in training camp and the pre-season.

Shanahan told him the truth. "No." Realistically, given the money they were paying Dre Bly Foxworth was NOT going to be given the chance to start ahead of him. Period.

Same thing here. Moore is not going to start ahead of Mike Adams when they're paying Adams $4 million a year to start.

That's starter money, that's not backup money. If Moore exceeds expectations and emerges as the starter, then they're overpaying Mike Adams and he's going to either have to take a pay cut (unlikely) or else they'll have to release him next season.

Because you can't manage your salary cap by paying starter money to backups!

So, if Rahim Moore magically became the next Ed Reed, then Mike Adams would be become expendable. But, meanwhile he's just a little regarded backup.

And his potential is going to have to be displayed in special teams for the most part. And maybe in nickel and dime coverages if he can get on to the field. Because his role is a backup for this season.I appreciate your comments and the referance to shanny, but in his case he was ALSO ther GM so he was compelled to justify his expendatures.
FOX and del rio dont have the same conflict of interest and can therefore put the best 11 guys on the field, regardless of their paycheck !
I am not concerned about the financial politics, i think the best players will play !

Cugel
06-12-2012, 10:06 AM
I appreciate your comments and the referance to shanny, but in his case he was ALSO ther GM so he was compelled to justify his expendatures.
FOX and del rio dont have the same conflict of interest and can therefore put the best 11 guys on the field, regardless of their paycheck !
I am not concerned about the financial politics, i think the best players will play !

You totally missed the point. It's not that the "best players won't be on the field", it's that financial commitment is the coaches' verdict on who the best player is.

The coaches are committed to Mike Adams. He's been a starter in the NFL for years and had a big year for the Browns last season. They signed him as a FA and gave him a $4 million contract.

That indicates that they think that Adams is a better player. Period. He's going to start. And Moore who is still on his rookie contract for the next 3 years (including this one), will either win the starting job from Quinton Carter or else he'll be Adams' backup.

If Adams works out, then they pay him starter money $4 million+ a year for the next 5 years or so.

If somehow Moore convinces the coaches that he's better, then Adams becomes expendable. They get a starter who's better for less money and Adams will have to take it elsewhere. Then they re-sign Moore and pay him what they would have paid Adams.

What happens to team chemistry if the guy sitting on the bench is making 4 times as much as the starter? It's a problem. The starters have to be making the most money or else there's player resentment. And it's not good cap management.

A backup S does not cost $4 million a year. If you're paying a guy that much and he's backing up, then he's overpaid and you have to get rid of him. He's not earning his pay!

It's like paying $40,000 for a new car. . . . and winding up with a Dodge Dart! :laugh:

That ain't a worth $40,000!

tomjonesrocks
06-12-2012, 10:27 AM
I don't know enough about Lynch's or Polamalu's rookie seeasons to know if they showed flashes of greatness. Both hit with such authority I can't imagine neither showed that kind of potential at some point in their first seasons. Moore showed none of that kind of vicious hitting potential, save the infamous play in preseason that did more damage to his year than anything.

I hope to be wrong but I just don't see potential with Moore. I see a bad draft pick that should have been a DT instead. You look for flashes that a player can be something more in a rookie that has a bad first year. I didn't see any.

Carter on the other hand was not bad at all in his first year, and with Adams I think they'll be fielding a reasonable tandem at safety. We'll see.

TXBRONC
06-12-2012, 11:14 AM
Look they can post all the articles in the world about how past players overcame poor rookie years, and it's all basically irrelevant. :coffee:

Bottom line: Most fans are not down on Rahim Moore because we think he sucks. Fans are down on him because John Fox and Jack Del Rio just gave Moore a BIG VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE when they signed Mike Adams to play his same position and are paying Adams $4 million a season.

That's why we're down on Rahim Moore.

Now, Moore says that he's fighting for a starting spot potentially at strong-safety, not just free safety and that could be true.

EITHER Rahim Moore OR Quinton Carter could emerge as a starter this season. But, probably NOT both of them. And Carter would appear to have the leg up in that he actually played reasonably well last season and was NOT benched by his coaches.

For all those fans who insist on arguing pointlessly that the $4 million contract to Mike Adams WON'T determine who starts, get real!

Do you remember when Mike Shanahan signed Dre Bly for $4 million a season to start ahead of Foxworth? Same situation.

Foxworth started. Shanahan brought in someone to start ahead of him. Foxworth went to Shanahan and asked if he could compete for the starting job in training camp and the pre-season.

Shanahan told him the truth. "No." Realistically, given the money they were paying Dre Bly Foxworth was NOT going to be given the chance to start ahead of him. Period.

Same thing here. Moore is not going to start ahead of Mike Adams when they're paying Adams $4 million a year to start.

That's starter money, that's not backup money. If Moore exceeds expectations and emerges as the starter, then they're overpaying Mike Adams and he's going to either have to take a pay cut (unlikely) or else they'll have to release him next season.

Because you can't manage your salary cap by paying starter money to backups!

So, if Rahim Moore magically became the next Ed Reed, then Mike Adams would be become expendable. But, meanwhile he's just a little regarded backup.

And his potential is going to have to be displayed in special teams for the most part. And maybe in nickel and dime coverages if he can get on to the field. Because his role is a backup for this season.

By that kind of logic Kyle Orton should have never been benched because he was being paid starter money.

I think you're going from point A to B without details in the middle.

1.) After the 2011 draft Fox said it could take a couple years before they know for sure what they have in the players. The signing of Mike Adams doesn't necessarily indicate that they've given up on Moore after just one year.

2.) Yes Adams is getting starter money. But I don't think it's top five money. He's being paid that amount because he because comes to us a free agent with lots of starting experience. Usually that's going to get you more money and yes the assumption is that he will be the starter when the season kicks off. Just because he's being paid starter money doesn't mean he couldn't be benched. Again, exhibt A is Kyle Orton. I heard the argument that money will determine who starters. If Adams plays poorly he will be replaced just like Orton was.

NightTerror218
06-12-2012, 11:21 AM
Adams was signed to replace Dawkins who was expected to retire. Our secondary was weak. Adams is older and brings experience and was signed to be the starter going into the season. If Moore comes around and is playing better, no doubt Fox will start Moore, who was what a 2nd round pick.

TXBRONC
06-12-2012, 11:40 AM
Adams was signed to replace Dawkins who was expected to retire. Our secondary was weak. Adams is older and brings experience and was signed to be the starter going into the season. If Moore comes around and is playing better, no doubt Fox will start Moore, who was what a 2nd round pick.

I meant to make the point in my previous post that in part Adams was brought in to replace Dawkins i.e. veteran experience not by position. As you mentioned the Broncos have a second round pick invested in Moore which is quite a bit.

Cugel
06-12-2012, 01:02 PM
By that kind of logic Kyle Orton should have never been benched because he was being paid starter money.

I think you're going from point A to B without details in the middle.

1.) After the 2011 draft Fox said it could take a couple years before they know for sure what they have in the players. The signing of Mike Adams doesn't necessarily indicate that they've given up on Moore after just one year.

2.) Yes Adams is getting starter money. But I don't think it's top five money. He's being paid that amount because he because comes to us a free agent with lots of starting experience. Usually that's going to get you more money and yes the assumption is that he will be the starter when the season kicks off. Just because he's being paid starter money doesn't mean he couldn't be benched. Again, exhibt A is Kyle Orton. I heard the argument that money will determine who starters. If Adams plays poorly he will be replaced just like Orton was.

You really shouldn't use Kyle Orton as the example. #1 He DID start the season! Then he sucked his way onto the bench and that forced them to use Tebow as the starter. The money DID determine who was going to be the starter. THEN he lost his job due to poor play.

You fans are looking at things backwards. ANY player can lose his starting job for poor play. Moore did last year for instance. That doesn't mean that Moore can win the starting job in training camp or the pre-season. Adams would have to suck during the regular season for that to happen.

An example of that happening would be DT Sam Adams who was cut in the middle of the season for being utterly washed up and useless -- and this despite the fact that the Broncos starting DTs had to be Amon Gordon and Antwon Burton (horrible, horrible).

Reams make a financial commitment based on their talent evaluation.

Benching Moore does NOT mean they've "given up on him." IF they had "given up on him" he'd be released! An example of the Broncos "giving up" on a player was Alphonso Smith, the 2nd round pick who was traded in his second year for a used condom wrapper. Yes it was stupid, but that's what they did.

Moore could ultimately emerge as a starter.

But he's not going to become a starter THIS season unless he beats out Quinton Carter and I don't think that's likely based on how Carter and Moore played last year.

TXBRONC
06-13-2012, 08:38 AM
You really shouldn't use Kyle Orton as the example. #1 He DID start the season! Then he sucked his way onto the bench and that forced them to use Tebow as the starter. The money DID determine who was going to be the starter. THEN he lost his job due to poor play.

You fans are looking at things backwards. ANY player can lose his starting job for poor play. Moore did last year for instance. That doesn't mean that Moore can win the starting job in training camp or the pre-season. Adams would have to suck during the regular season for that to happen.

An example of that happening would be DT Sam Adams who was cut in the middle of the season for being utterly washed up and useless -- and this despite the fact that the Broncos starting DTs had to be Amon Gordon and Antwon Burton (horrible, horrible).

Reams make a financial commitment based on their talent evaluation.

Benching Moore does NOT mean they've "given up on him." IF they had "given up on him" he'd be released! An example of the Broncos "giving up" on a player was Alphonso Smith, the 2nd round pick who was traded in his second year for a used condom wrapper. Yes it was stupid, but that's what they did.

Moore could ultimately emerge as a starter.

But he's not going to become a starter THIS season unless he beats out Quinton Carter and I don't think that's likely based on how Carter and Moore played last year.

No my example of Orton is legitimate. What I understood you to say is that because Adams is being paid $4 million dollars Fox has no choice but start him. That is just not accurate. If money is the main reason he will start regardless of how he does in camp how is it that the money issue disappears in the middle of season? It doesn't. If he's outplayed I don't think Fox will start him.

Chef Zambini
06-13-2012, 11:01 AM
its all about the money.
a simple look at the ledger will tell you who starts...
just ask albert haynesworth.
Peyton manning starts for sure, look at what we are paying him !

Jsteve01
06-13-2012, 02:25 PM
I don't know enough about Lynch's or Polamalu's rookie seeasons to know if they showed flashes of greatness. Both hit with such authority I can't imagine neither showed that kind of potential at some point in their first seasons. Moore showed none of that kind of vicious hitting potential, save the infamous play in preseason that did more damage to his year than anything.

I hope to be wrong but I just don't see potential with Moore. I see a bad draft pick that should have been a DT instead. You look for flashes that a player can be something more in a rookie that has a bad first year. I didn't see any.

Carter on the other hand was not bad at all in his first year, and with Adams I think they'll be fielding a reasonable tandem at safety. We'll see.

Lynch was a qb in college. Polamalu showed flashes but you're getting all mixed up. If you'r only qualifier for a safety in today's nfl is that they hit hard well you're honestly probably going to have liabilities in the passing game. Moore was never known as a hitter but rather as a ball hawk. That's where I hope to see him contribute this year.

Cugel
06-13-2012, 03:11 PM
No my example of Orton is legitimate. What I understood you to say is that because Adams is being paid $4 million dollars Fox has no choice but start him. That is just not accurate. If money is the main reason he will start regardless of how he does in camp how is it that the money issue disappears in the middle of season? It doesn't. If he's outplayed I don't think Fox will start him.

You're still not getting it. It's like there's a mental block or something and you just keep repeating "the best player will start."

They gave Mike Adams $4 million because they think HE's better than Rahim Moore. What's difficult to understand about that?

The money doesn't FORCE them to use Adams if he decides to pull an Albert Haynesworth and take a nap on his big pile of money.

In that case he could lose his starting job to Moore or Carter, or someone else.

But, that's NOT going to happen in the pre-season or training camp. It's just like when a team has a draft pick (like Rahim Moore) who doesn't necessarily work out. They have something invested in him so they are likely to keep him around for a while rather than releasing or trading him.

The team wants to recoup on their investment in Adams. Fox and Elway want to justify their decision to sign him. They are NOT going to start Moore just because he plays as well as Adams.

Adams has the job. He's going to have to do something to lose it.

It's NOT a competition no matter what fan-placating noises Fox may make about "competition at every position."

That's why I mentioned the story about Foxworth and Dre Bly -- which apparently went sailing right over your head.

Remember that Dominique Foxworth had started the season before they signed Dre Bly. He was actually a BETTER CB than Dre Bly, which he proved after he was traded to the Ravens where he started for 2 seasons.

But Shanahan had signed Dre Bly for $4 million and realistically he wasn't going to let Foxworth compete for the starting job. Money DOES talk.

They gave the money to Dre Bly and committed to him as the starter. And he screwed the pooch and then they had to replace him.

But, Foxworth was long gone by then.

Moore is only in year 2 of his rookie contract so he's not going anywhere this year. But, he's going to be a backup. Period.

Cugel
06-13-2012, 03:17 PM
No my example of Orton is legitimate. What I understood you to say is that because Adams is being paid $4 million dollars Fox has no choice but start him. That is just not accurate. If money is the main reason he will start regardless of how he does in camp how is it that the money issue disappears in the middle of season? It doesn't. If he's outplayed I don't think Fox will start him.

What is hard for you to understand? They paid Orton the big money. They started Orton, not Tebow.

Then Orton LOST his job (by sucking), which anybody can do, regardless of how much money they make, and Tebow got his chance. If they thought Tebow was better than Orton, they wouldn't have paid Orton $4 million. That's starter money, not backup money. When Tebow took his job, they got rid of Orton.

Investing money in a player does NOT prevent a team from replacing a guy in the lineup if he sucks.

Investing money in a guy DOES mean that they're going to give that guy a chance to start and justify their decision to sign him for the Big $.

I.E. Adams not Moore is going to start Game 1.

What happens after that depends on Adams. He's going to have to do something to lose his starting job if Moore is going to start.

Chef Zambini
06-13-2012, 05:29 PM
you both essentially say the same thing.
you bopth agree the best player plays.

One presumes that compensation is an indication of ability,
the best player gets starter money
' he therefrore has almost a contractual obligation to start and justify the compensation.
If he sucks he gets replaced but the contract and investment almost guarantees the first right of refusal.
but ultimatly, the best player plays.


Regardless of paycheck, PLAYERS know which is the better teammate.