Tracy Porter cleared to play

[PAINTERDAVE]

BroncoTalk ‏@BroncoTalk
Tracy Porter is cleared to play

http://broncotalk.net
--------------------------------

I expect Porter is a hungry beast after sitting out...
and watching the team win win win...
and..
he only signed a one year contract ..
he will be eager to audition..
for us or whoever.
_

Think about it... he has not played since the game before the road trip
to San Diego... and we have WON every game since.

Yeah.. Porter is gonna be hungry.

[SR]

It'll be interesting to see how he is used with the emergence of Harris and Carter.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[shank]

after this much time off, he should be fresh, but probably quite rusty. with how well the young guys are playing, it might be good to keep tracy around in spot duty and keep him healthy.

i don't like messing with what's been working so well for us lately, and if we have porter fresh and healthy in our back pocket, he would be amazing depth late in the season as insurance.

[Canmore]

It'll be interesting to see how he is used with the emergence of Harris and Carter.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

You can't have to many quality players. It will be very interesting to see how Porter is used.

[PAINTERDAVE]

It'll be interesting to see how he is used with the emergence of Harris and Carter.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Nice problem to have.

BeastlySkronk had this take on it....
intrigueing..
__________________
I'd expect him to slowly be worked back into the defense. Although we're playing the Chiefs so maybe not. Either way I think we have to find a way to get all 4 of these guys on the field. Even though the majority of people are against it, Champ should definitely play some S for us in certain (passing) situations. It basically comes down to would you rather have Adams or Leonhard in the game over Porter. I'd rather have Porter in. Champ doesn't even have to play S, I know Chris Harris play S in college, he could do it if Carter/Porter/Bailey can slide in and cover the slot WR.

These 4 CBs are playmakers. Putting Bailey at S in an obvious passing situation would stress out a QB. He has Miller and Dumervil coming after him and Champ Bailey roaming the middle of the field while our CBs are all over his receivers. Jim Leonhard has 2 picks this year as a rotation S and he isn't even that good in coverage. I think Champ would easily get an INT a game if he took some snaps away from Leonhard/Adams at S.
~ BeastlySkronk

[SR]

Nice problem to have.

BeastlySkronk had this take on it....
intrigueing..
__________________
I'd expect him to slowly be worked back into the defense. Although we're playing the Chiefs so maybe not. Either way I think we have to find a way to get all 4 of these guys on the field. Even though the majority of people are against it, Champ should definitely play some S for us in certain (passing) situations. It basically comes down to would you rather have Adams or Leonhard in the game over Porter. I'd rather have Porter in. Champ doesn't even have to play S, I know Chris Harris play S in college, he could do it if Carter/Porter/Bailey can slide in and cover the slot WR.

These 4 CBs are playmakers. Putting Bailey at S in an obvious passing situation would stress out a QB. He has Miller and Dumervil coming after him and Champ Bailey roaming the middle of the field while our CBs are all over his receivers. Jim Leonhard has 2 picks this year as a rotation S and he isn't even that good in coverage. I think Champ would easily get an INT a game if he took some snaps away from Leonhard/Adams at S.
~ BeastlySkronk

It's an interesting perspective but I don't think moving Champ to safety is the answer when we are playing against a team that has Bowe at WR. I would rather Champ stick Bowe and whatever else.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[MOtorboat]

Oh lord, here we go again...

No. No. No. No.

[MOtorboat]

I was going to respond further but I went back and watched the first half of the Chargers game and watched Champ Bailey single handedly shut down Malcolm Floyd.

Continue on with the idiocy.

[SR]

I was going to respond further but I went back and watched the first half of the Chargers game and watched Champ Bailey single handedly shut down Malcolm Floyd.

Continue on with the idiocy.

Admittedly, Champ has had a couple bad showings this year against big, physical receivers (AJ Green most recently), but he can still shut down 95% of the receivers in this league. Moving him to safety in any capacity at this point is just a bad football move, period.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[bcbronc]

It's an interesting perspective but I don't think moving Champ to safety is the answer when we are playing against a team that has Bowe at WR. I would rather Champ stick Bowe and whatever else.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I actually agree completely. There's teams against which I'd like to see the gameplan include moving Champ around the formation a bit. KC isn't one of those teams. Leave him on Bowe, one safety over the top, and keep an extra guy in the box.


I was going to respond further but I went back and watched the first half of the Chargers game and watched Champ Bailey single handedly shut down Malcolm Floyd.

Continue on with the idiocy.

come on. I understand you're pushing this agenda that Champ is still what he was when he was 25, but really? A: Malcolm Floyd isn't anything special as a WR. I'd expect any of our top 4 CBs to be able to hold his own "singlehandedly" against Floyd. Especially with the way Rivers and our pass rush have been playing.

and B: Champ had balls caught on him in the 2nd half. I'm going by memory here but iirc he had one drive where he had 3 balls caught on him...2 for sure, not sure if the third was the same drive or not off the top of my head. Either way, in the 2nd half Champ looked human. Still a top corner, but don't try to sell it like he was invincible vs SD.

And preemptively, please spare me the "I hate Champ, think he sux at CB" bullshit. It's just that the "Champ singlehandedly shut down the mighty Malcolm Floyd for the entire first half!!!" is LOLz worthy. Champ would probably be insulted. :lol:

[bcbronc]

I'm glad Porter's health has come around. However they use him this week, that's the most important thing.

On the field, I expect they'll have a target number of reps he'll play, Carter will lose some reps but gradually.

[Poet]

I have posted on this message board with Mo for about three years. Not once, ever, have I seen him say that Champ at 30+ is as good as he was in his prime.

[MOtorboat]

I actually agree completely. There's teams against which I'd like to see the gameplan include moving Champ around the formation a bit. KC isn't one of those teams. Leave him on Bowe, one safety over the top, and keep an extra guy in the box.



come on. I understand you're pushing this agenda that Champ is still what he was when he was 25, but really? A: Malcolm Floyd isn't anything special as a WR. I'd expect any of our top 4 CBs to be able to hold his own "singlehandedly" against Floyd. Especially with the way Rivers and our pass rush have been playing.

and B: Champ had balls caught on him in the 2nd half. I'm going by memory here but iirc he had one drive where he had 3 balls caught on him...2 for sure, not sure if the third was the same drive or not off the top of my head. Either way, in the 2nd half Champ looked human. Still a top corner, but don't try to sell it like he was invincible vs SD.

And preemptively, please spare me the "I hate Champ, think he sux at CB" bullshit. It's just that the "Champ singlehandedly shut down the mighty Malcolm Floyd for the entire first half!!!" is LOLz worthy. Champ would probably be insulted. :lol:

I watched the game again.

For the second week in a row, you have no clue what you are talking about. He played strictly man to man on Malcolm Floyd almost entirely. Even when he played off the line, he was in man to man against the outside receiver out of the break (that was against bunch formations).

You, frankly, don't know what you're seeing. I implore you to shut the **** up.

Two weeks in a row you claim that he isn't covering recievers one on one. Two weeks in a row you are wrong.

FWIW, that crap you peddled in the game thread or wherever it was you spewed the lie that he was lined up at safety, was utterly wrong. I mean, if you want to talk scheme and have ideas about how players are used, at least watch the ******* games.

[bcbronc]

I watched the game again.

For the second week in a row, you have no clue what you are talking about. He played strictly man to man on Malcolm Floyd almost entirely. Even when he played off the line, he was in man to man against the outside receiver out of the break (that was against bunch formations).

You, frankly, don't know what you're seeing. I implore you to shut the **** up.

Two weeks in a row you claim that he isn't covering recievers one on one. Two weeks in a row you are wrong.

FWIW, that crap you peddled in the game thread or wherever it was you spewed the lie that he was lined up at safety, was utterly wrong. I mean, if you want to talk scheme and have ideas about how players are used, at least watch the ******* games.

what the **** you talking about? I haven't said boo about whether Champ was in man or not. I did say he was lined up at safety, but I was just yanking your chain. But on those two plays he certainly wasn't lined up on the 1 receiver, he was lined up inside, 10-12 yards off the LOS in a 2 high look. They were probably both 7 DB sets, not too sure but he wasn't on the perimeter. Only saw it twice without rewatching the game, and one play didn't get off because of the penalty.

Either way, I haven't said shit about Champ playing man vs SD. You say he played "strictly man on Floyd almost entirely", so are you saying D. Alexander didn't catch any balls on Champ? Here's some quotes from the gameday thread, not from me or Zam:

"Champ is getting beat again today"

"Champ too slow again."

"Dang...almost had Rivers and Bailey gets burned."

"3rd time today Champ"

"Bailey not having a good outing."

Yet Floyd only got 4 catches for 67 yards. First, that's not exactly "singlehandedly shutting down" a WR, especially a pretty average one like Floyd. Second, why would there be these negative comments--some from Champs most vocal supporters on these boards--if Champ was playing at the top of his game? Come on MO, I barely understand this game and you JUST watched it, connect the dots for me.

And just for the record "playing man to man" is not synonymous with "singlehandedly shutting down". You can't just ignore what the other 20 guys on the field are doing and say "he was in man coverage, he singlehandedly shut that guy down". Not all man coverage is created equal, not every man situation is identical, not every man scheme has the same requirements. I realize this is fairly basic stuff, but sometimes your posts read like you don't understand that.

Either way, I haven't said shit about whether Champ played "strictly man to man" vs SD, so just carry on telling us how Champ singlehandedly shut down the great Malcolm Floyd for the entire first half!!

[Ravage!!!]

I don't think Porter is "rusty." I think when you play the game this long, its all mental. You've seen it all, and from that point its just a matter of reacting, or whether or not your body will allow you to react.

Porter is good to have back on the team, healthy. Can never have too many CBs, and having depth as we do right now, is fantastic.

[SR]

I don't think Porter is "rusty." I think when you play the game this long, its all mental. You've seen it all, and from that point its just a matter of reacting, or whether or not your body will allow you to react.

Porter is good to have back on the team, healthy. Can never have too many CBs, and having depth as we do right now, is fantastic.

If anything I think his conditioning might be a little off, but to be honest this should be a tuneup game and would be the perfect game to let Porter get his legs back.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Chef Zambini]

i tyrust in JDR to utilize porter as NEEDED.
our team has blossomed defensively, almost simultaneous with porters injury.


We dont need to rush porter back on to the field, once we are up by 24 points porter can test his game legs.

[Timmy!]

Heres a crazy idea, maybe our dime package should be bailey, harris, carter, and porter all playing CORNERBACK.

[Chef Zambini]

when porter returns he will be tested ! he will have a target on his back and considered the weakest link.
see #21 goodman of last year for details.
so... when porter does return, he better be fully tested and READY for the challenge. JDR will make that determination, not OUR hopes, dreams, desires or pre-conceived notions.

[SR]

when porter returns he will be tested ! he will have a target on his back and considered the weakest link.
see #21 goodman of last year for details.
so... when porter does return, he better be fully tested and READY for the challenge. JDR will make that determination, not OUR hopes, dreams, desires or pre-conceived notions.

In case you haven't noticed, any Broncos corner not named Champ Bailey has a target on their back and always gets tested by opposing QBs...

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[DenBronx]

Move Champ to safety - No
Move Harris to safety - No
Move Carter to safety - No

Why would we move anyone to safety when our safeties are finally stepping up!? Moore I think came 2nd in tackles last week and they are benifitting from the rest of the team stepping up. The fact is everyone was playing out of sync at the beggining of the year. Now finally they are playing as a total team.

If anyone were to play safety it would be Harris but we dont need him to do that right now. He is a beast on the other side of Champ! So Porter would be the only option to move to safety. Hey here's an idea, how about we just let Porter rotate with the guys who need rest? Why do we always need to move X player to X position?

[Simple Jaded]

Ya know, if you keep saying Champ Bailey is better off at S eventually you'd be right. So keep pimping that prediction, some day you'll be able to say "I told ya so".

But at this point in time, not so much.......