View Full Version : The Blueprint for Beating the BRONCOS......
WARHORSE
10-07-2013, 01:53 PM
Have you heard it? Romo and the Cowboys have the blueprint for beating the Broncos..............
Top Ten Needs for defeating the Broncos:
1. Throw for over 500 yards.
2. Throw 5 TD passes.
3. Have your top rusher rush for less than 45 yards.
4. Rush for less than 60 total yards.
5. Have THREE WRs that go over 120 yards receiving.
6. Pick off Peyton at least once.
7. Limit them to at least three field goals vs TDs.
8. Dont throw more than one pick yourself.
9. Have at least a 66% conversion rate on your third downs.
10. Jerk on Peytons facemask at least once per game.
All of the above will bring you to a 3pt. loss.
So........when you figure out how to score 4 more pts......you then have the 'complete' blueprint for beating the Broncos.
Good luck.
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 01:56 PM
That's one of my least favorite BS things the media says. "Team X just gave the blueprint to beating Team Y". That is such a bullshit idea. Everyone knows you beat a team like this by scoring a lot of points and disrupting our passing game. That's the blueprint. The thing is, not too many teams actually have the talent to execute that blueprint.
chazoe60
10-07-2013, 01:57 PM
The blueprint for beating the Broncos:
Score 52 points, unless you're the Eagles, then you have to score 53. :D
tomjonesrocks
10-07-2013, 02:11 PM
The defense was so depleted I don't think that was a blueprint.
I do think Denver though has shown a huge, big-time problem defending deep passes though and if they don't get it sorted out that could be a massive issue.
I'd have hoped that had been sorted out after last year's disaster.
Army Bronco
10-07-2013, 02:15 PM
Have you heard it? Romo and the Cowboys have the blueprint for beating the Broncos..............
Top Ten Needs for defeating the Broncos:
1. Throw for over 500 yards.
2. Throw 5 TD passes.
3. Have your top rusher rush for less than 45 yards.
4. Rush for less than 60 total yards.
5. Have THREE WRs that go over 120 yards receiving.
6. Pick off Peyton at least once.
7. Limit them to at least three field goals vs TDs.
8. Dont throw more than one pick yourself.
9. Have at least a 66% conversion rate on your third downs.
10. Jerk on Peytons facemask at least once per game.
All of the above will bring you to a 3pt. loss.
So........when you figure out how to score 4 more pts......you then have the 'complete' blueprint for beating the Broncos.
Good luck. You forgot to say..only punt once.
chazoe60
10-07-2013, 02:17 PM
In all honesty the blueprint for beating the Broncos is pretty obvious:
1. Run the ball, eat up clock
2. Have a good TE and use him a lot. TEs are our kryptonite and have been for a while
3. Get lucky. Have the ball bounce your way more than the Broncs way.
The trick is making those things happen, especially sine the most important one on the list(run the ball) happens to be our defense's specialty.
gregbroncs
10-07-2013, 03:34 PM
In all honesty the blueprint for beating the Broncos is pretty obvious:
1. Run the ball, eat up clock
2. Have a good TE and use him a lot. TEs are our kryptonite and have been for a while
3. Get lucky. Have the ball bounce your way more than the Broncs way.
The trick is making those things happen, especially sine the most important one on the list(run the ball) happens to be our defense's specialty.Except that it was a pass to the TE that ended the day for the Cowboys. :)
chazoe60
10-07-2013, 03:37 PM
Except that it was a pass to the TE that ended the day for the Cowboys. :)
Well, obviously the blueprint to beating the Broncos doesn't include throwing INTs while trying to throw to your TE.
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-07-2013, 03:41 PM
The blueprint is easy....steal Manning's cleats.
TXBRONC
10-07-2013, 03:41 PM
The defense was so depleted I don't think that was a blueprint.
I do think Denver though has shown a huge, big-time problem defending deep passes though and if they don't get it sorted out that could be a massive issue.
I'd have hoped that had been sorted out after last year's disaster.
There are some in the media like Marshall Falk who are saying that the Cowboys have give the League the blue print for beating the Broncos which is true you completely ignore that Denver is missing five starters on defense.
MasterShake
10-07-2013, 03:56 PM
Or as Madden would say, "What you are gonna want to do is get the ball in the end zone and BOOM! score more points than Denver!"
Blue prints, keys to the game, etc. I hate all those football buzz terms. The bottom line is there is no accounting for what Denver is doing right now under Manning. You can say we got punched in the jaw, but its more like we got our heads ripped off and somehow we still managed to swing our chainsaw blindly and kill the Cowboys at the last second.
wayninja
10-07-2013, 04:11 PM
Or as Madden would say, "What you are gonna want to do is get the ball in the end zone and BOOM! score more points than Denver!"
Blue prints, keys to the game, etc. I hate all those football buzz terms. The bottom line is there is no accounting for what Denver is doing right now under Manning. You can say we got punched in the jaw, but its more like we got our heads ripped off and somehow we still managed to swing our chainsaw blindly and kill the Cowboys at the last second.
Yep, the only real strategy you can hope to employ is to make 0 mistakes. Even then, you will probably lose.
Skinny
10-07-2013, 04:14 PM
Teams might want to establish some sort of running game first.
Joker56
10-07-2013, 04:58 PM
Ummmm
Not sure... but if they steal Manning cleats...
Well... he would run faster ?
Just saying... you kow what i mean ?
DenBronx
10-07-2013, 05:03 PM
If there is a blueprint then it would be spreading our defense out. Our defense looks awful when spread out. The Cowboys had so many options, alot like our offense has. There wont bee too many teams like that we play but NE also does this. By that time our defense will have everyone back.
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 05:07 PM
IMO, there is really no blueprint to stop our offense. The huge majority of our drives that have not resulted in touchdowns this season have been for self-inflicted reasons. Penalties, fumbles, bad playcalls, stuff like that. The best defense is against us is to hope we make a ton of mistakes. You can't blitz because Manning gets the ball out too fast. Can't play man to man, because we are 4 deep with top-flight receiving threats, and no defense in the league has that many people capable of covering our talent 1-on-1. Can't run zone because Manning will just pick it apart. Really the only way to beat this team is to outscore it IMO. Dallas just about did that. Not too many teams in the NFL are capable of putting up those kinds of points, though.
wayninja
10-07-2013, 05:09 PM
IMO, there is really no blueprint to stop our offense. The huge majority of our drives that have not resulted in touchdowns this season have been for self-inflicted reasons. Penalties, fumbles, bad playcalls, stuff like that. The best defense is against us is to hope we make a ton of mistakes. You can't blitz because Manning gets the ball out too fast. Can't play man to man, because we are 4 deep with top-flight receiving threats, and no defense in the league has that many people capable of covering our talent 1-on-1. Can't run zone because Manning will just pick it apart. Really the only way to beat this team is to outscore it IMO. Dallas just about did that. Not too many teams in the NFL are capable of putting up those kinds of points, though.
It took a career day from Romo just to keep up with what Manning seems to do every week.
Having said that, I'd feel a lot better if we can get our defense healthy and playing better.
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 05:11 PM
It took a career day from Romo just to keep up with what Manning seems to do every week.
Having said that, I'd feel a lot better if we can get our defense healthy and playing better.
Yeah, our defense really needs to stay healthy. At least our offense has stayed healthy so far. That could be another blueprint to stopping our offense. Hope some of our skill players start going down.
DenBronx
10-07-2013, 05:13 PM
The blueprint isnt stopping our offense but it's torching our defense. If teams can do that then it puts the pressure back on our offense and we dont want to do that every game.
Like I said in another thread, the Cowboys have a really good team. I think they will go deep in the playoffs this year.
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 05:14 PM
The blueprint isnt stopping our offense but it's torching our defense. If teams can do that then it puts the pressure back on our offense and we dont want to do that every game.
Like I said in another thread, the Cowboys have a really good team. I think they will go deep in the playoffs this year.
Agreed. No one is going to stop our offense. They just have to hope to outscore it.
TXBRONC
10-07-2013, 05:19 PM
If there is a blueprint then it would be spreading our defense out. Our defense looks awful when spread out. The Cowboys had so many options, alot like our offense has. There wont bee too many teams like that we play but NE also does this. By that time our defense will have everyone back.
That's what the pundits like Tomlinson are is the Yeah but as of yesterday we were missing five starters and don't know of any defense that is going to look good when their missing five starters.
sneakers
10-07-2013, 05:20 PM
Have you heard it? Romo and the Cowboys have the blueprint for beating the Broncos..............
Top Ten Needs for defeating the Broncos:
1. Throw for over 500 yards.
2. Throw 5 TD passes.
3. Have your top rusher rush for less than 45 yards.
4. Rush for less than 60 total yards.
5. Have THREE WRs that go over 120 yards receiving.
6. Pick off Peyton at least once.
7. Limit them to at least three field goals vs TDs.
8. Dont throw more than one pick yourself.
9. Have at least a 66% conversion rate on your third downs.
10. Jerk on Peytons facemask at least once per game.
All of the above will bring you to a 3pt. loss.
So........when you figure out how to score 4 more pts......you then have the 'complete' blueprint for beating the Broncos.
Good luck.
11. Score more points than the broncos
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 05:20 PM
That's what the pundits like Tomlinson are is the Yeah but as of yesterday we were missing five starters and don't know of any defense that is going to look good when their missing five starters.
And not just 5 starters, probably 5 of our better starters. Definitely our 2 best linebackers, 2 of our top 3 corners, and one of our top 2 or 3 linemen.
DenBronx
10-07-2013, 05:20 PM
Agreed. No one is going to stop our offense. They just have to hope to outscore it.
And thats easier said than done. There are only a handfull of teams capable of doing that.
NE, DAL, NO, SEA, DET and maybe GB.
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 05:22 PM
And thats easier said than done. There are only a handfull of teams capable of doing that.
NE, DAL, NO, SEA, DET and maybe GB.
And the good news for us is that only one of those teams is in the AFC.
That's one of my least favorite BS things the media says. "Team X just gave the blueprint to beating Team Y". That is such a bullshit idea. Everyone knows you beat a team like this by scoring a lot of points and disrupting our passing game. That's the blueprint. The thing is, not too many teams actually have the talent to execute that blueprint.
It's often true though, because great teams can win in a variety of ways and it's a copycat league. Teams frequently seem invincible as each opponent tries one thing or another searching with increasing desperation for SOME kind of Achilles Heel. Then along comes a pretty good team that specializes in the one thing to which the great one is vulnerable, beats them by repeatedly having success with the same style or small group of plays, and everyone's like "Oh, NOW I see." No coach will waste time looking for a SECOND way to beat the once-unbeatable unless his team is especially awful at the style that worked.
Like chazoe and DenBronx said, the blueprint to beating us isn't that hard to figure out, just to accomplish.
1) Run the ball, chew the clock, rest your D, tire ours and keep PFM and his receiving hydra on the sideline. That's a good first step to beating anyone who doesn't score lots of defensive points; too bad our front seven's #1 against the run and has been pretty much all season. Dallas has a good run blocking and a very good back in Murray: How'd they do yesterday? If we build a big lead early it takes even guys like Peterson and Foster out of the game, especially in the second half.
2) Go deep a lot; our run D and scoring will force you to anyway, and (at least for now) our pass rush usually can't stop you. Don't throw at Champ, DRC or Harris though, because they'll more often than not make you sorry: Hit your backs, TEs and slot guys, counting on them being able to get way downfield faster than our good zone LBs, and beat our young safeties helping out over the top.
3) Get pressure without a blitz, because PFM will invariably pick it up before the snap, audible, and find ANYONE who's open. You probably can't fake him out much showing one thing before the snap then doing another after it, and almost never have time to get pressure off the edge, but if you can get pressure up the middle he hates that as much as Brady or any other accurate QB with a quick release.
There's one more key wrinkle, and it may be the straw that breaks defenses backs if he can stay healthy: Don't let Moreno get the ball in space, and tackle him cleanly every time. He's not going down for just one guy this year (I hope that doesn't read as badly as it sounded in my head,) and now that we finally have a line surge that's good enough for at least 4 yards almost every time. If he gets a hole, or a pass out of the backfield, close fast and tackle hard or it's a big gain. He's also one more problem to deal with rushing Manning.
It'll be interesting to see if our pass rush improves a lot with Miller, and if Champ, DRC and Harris combined with Woodyard and Trevathan make passes to EVERYONE difficult, but the basic blueprint is managing to run on us consistently and/or winning a long range air war with Manning. Neither is easy, but both are doable; any team can beat any team on any given Sunday, especially with the new rules.
And thats easier said than done. There are only a handfull of teams capable of doing that.
NE, DAL, NO, SEA, DET and maybe GB.
The Pats worry me more than Indy, mainly because I don't think the Colts D is for real, and it looks like New Englands once again is. Truthfully, the only decent defensive team we've faced is Baltimore, and they're a shadow of their former selves. We can't count on our amazing offense to score 50 points every week; sooner or later a good defense (hopefully not KCs) will slow us down and force ours to respond in kind. That's why we need solid running, and not just from Moreno (sorry, Denver backs, but the days of me blaming your failures on the line are gone: They're doing their job, you do yours.)
It's also why we need solid D, and not just vs. the run. The days when just stopping the run was good enough are also gone; with the new rules, throwing literal Hail Maries all day is more viable than at any time since the AFLs early days.
BroncoWave
10-07-2013, 05:44 PM
The Pats worry me more than Indy, mainly because I don't think the Colts D is for real, and it looks like New Englands once again is. Truthfully, the only decent defensive team we've faced is Baltimore, and they're a shadow of their former selves. We can't count on our amazing offense to score 50 points every week; sooner or later a good defense (hopefully not KCs) will slow us down and force ours to respond in kind. That's why we need solid running, and not just from Moreno (sorry, Denver backs, but the days of me blaming your failures on the line are gone: They're doing their job, you do yours.)
It's also why we need solid D, and not just vs. the run. The days when just stopping the run was good enough are also gone; with the new rules, throwing literal Hail Maries all day is more viable than at any time since the AFLs early days.
Losing Wilfork really hurts the Pats' D. I don't our offense would have too much trouble with them.
DenBronx
10-07-2013, 05:44 PM
And the good news for us is that only one of those teams is in the AFC.
NE and INDY are the two teams thats worry me on our schedule and are really the only two teams capable of getting into any sort of shootout with us. I know playing KC and SD are going to be tough games but I still think we win those, possibly sweep the division again. Houston doesnt scare anyone at all, they look bad, real bad. Tenn? Not going to be a shootout game there.
I think Indy is a game Manning really wants to show up for and he will want to make a statement against Brady and the Pats. If Manning plays mad, like he did against Balt then these two games wont be shootouts, they will be blowouts.
The Colts will also be Millers first game back.
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-07-2013, 06:06 PM
And not just 5 starters, probably 5 of our better starters. Definitely our 2 best linebackers, 2 of our top 3 corners, and one of our top 2 or 3 linemen.
Ayers has been our best pass rusher so far. I know Phillips leads the team in sacks, but Ayers has looked more physically imposing to me.
Losing Wilfork really hurts the Pats' D. I don't our offense would have too much trouble with them.
Ah, right you are; I'd forgotten about that. I mean, he's only one guy, but the NT on a 3-4 is the anchor, and they weren't a great D even with him (just way better than last year, but that's setting the bar low.)
TXBRONC
10-08-2013, 07:00 AM
And thats easier said than done. There are only a handfull of teams capable of doing that.
NE, DAL, NO, SEA, DET and maybe GB.
I agree with everyone on that list except for New England. They don't have the weapons to get into shoot out with the Broncos.
Ravage!!!
10-08-2013, 09:56 AM
Yeah.. noticed that Indy isn't on the list. Indy has beaten two of the top NFC "predicted" Super Bowl favorites in the last 3 weeks. People thought them beating the 49ers was "luck" or that the 49ers were simply "down" since they lost to Seattle. Indy is going to be a TOUGH game.
CoachChaz
10-08-2013, 10:19 AM
And thats easier said than done. There are only a handfull of teams capable of doing that.
NE, DAL, NO, SEA, DET and maybe GB.
I dont know that I would put SEA on this list. If Jermaine Kearse, Sidney Rice and Golden Tate are suddenly a feared receiving trio...I must have missed the e-mail.
CoachChaz
10-08-2013, 10:26 AM
I loved Bill Polian's breakdown. Hey mentioned three key "problems" the Broncos have going forward.
1. The offensive line. "You cant go a whole season with a patchwork line, especially if your LT is one that is out"...even though we've only allowed 5 sacks and Clark has handled Trent Cole and Demarcus Ware to 0 sacks.
2. The pass rush. "Eventually their inability to get to the QB is going to hurt tham and even though Miller comes back soon, who knows what shape he'll be in"...despite having 10 combined sacks in 5 games from our current DE's, and I doubt Miller is sitting on the cough pounding potato ships.
3. Lack of a run game. "The passing game makes up for it, but eventually they have to get support from the running game. maybe Ball can develop over the season, but he's still a rookie"...despite the fact that Moreno is on pace for 1000+ yards and 10+ TD's and averaging 5 ypc.
How do people like this have a job as an analyst and where can I apply?
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-08-2013, 10:33 AM
I loved Bill Polian's breakdown. Hey mentioned three key "problems" the Broncos have going forward.
1. The offensive line. "You cant go a whole season with a patchwork line, especially if your LT is one that is out"...even though we've only allowed 5 sacks and Clark has handled Trent Cole and Demarcus Ware to 0 sacks.
2. The pass rush. "Eventually their inability to get to the QB is going to hurt tham and even though Miller comes back soon, who knows what shape he'll be in"...despite having 10 combined sacks in 5 games from our current DE's, and I doubt Miller is sitting on the cough pounding potato ships.
3. Lack of a run game. "The passing game makes up for it, but eventually they have to get support from the running game. maybe Ball can develop over the season, but he's still a rookie"...despite the fact that Moreno is on pace for 1000+ yards and 10+ TD's and averaging 5 ypc.
How do people like this have a job as an analyst and where can I apply?
My only explanation is he has to say something. He's no longer a GM, he's now a talking head. He can't very well say, "there is no answer, they're unbeatable.".
BroncoWave
10-08-2013, 10:33 AM
I loved Bill Polian's breakdown. Hey mentioned three key "problems" the Broncos have going forward.
1. The offensive line. "You cant go a whole season with a patchwork line, especially if your LT is one that is out"...even though we've only allowed 5 sacks and Clark has handled Trent Cole and Demarcus Ware to 0 sacks.
2. The pass rush. "Eventually their inability to get to the QB is going to hurt tham and even though Miller comes back soon, who knows what shape he'll be in"...despite having 10 combined sacks in 5 games from our current DE's, and I doubt Miller is sitting on the cough pounding potato ships.
3. Lack of a run game. "The passing game makes up for it, but eventually they have to get support from the running game. maybe Ball can develop over the season, but he's still a rookie"...despite the fact that Moreno is on pace for 1000+ yards and 10+ TD's and averaging 5 ypc.
How do people like this have a job as an analyst and where can I apply?
Well there really aren't 3 key problems with this team, so you have to stretch for something. If I had to list three problems though, those probably would be the three. Not that they are "problems" per say, but we aren't AS strong in those 3 areas as we are in pretty much every other facet of the game.
BroncoWave
10-08-2013, 10:34 AM
My only explanation is he has to say something. He's no longer a GM, he's now a talking head. He can't very well say, "there is no answer, they're unbeatable.".
Honestly, the only real answer to the question is injuries. That's really the only thing that can slow this team down. The Dallas game is example A of that. That, or a lot of really unfortunate things bouncing against us in a close game.
Ravage!!!
10-08-2013, 10:35 AM
I loved Bill Polian's breakdown. Hey mentioned three key "problems" the Broncos have going forward.
1. The offensive line. "You cant go a whole season with a patchwork line, especially if your LT is one that is out"...even though we've only allowed 5 sacks and Clark has handled Trent Cole and Demarcus Ware to 0 sacks.
2. The pass rush. "Eventually their inability to get to the QB is going to hurt tham and even though Miller comes back soon, who knows what shape he'll be in"...despite having 10 combined sacks in 5 games from our current DE's, and I doubt Miller is sitting on the cough pounding potato ships.
3. Lack of a run game. "The passing game makes up for it, but eventually they have to get support from the running game. maybe Ball can develop over the season, but he's still a rookie"...despite the fact that Moreno is on pace for 1000+ yards and 10+ TD's and averaging 5 ypc.
How do people like this have a job as an analyst and where can I apply?
I think they have to come up with something. I know that I'm LOVING all the great press the Broncos are getting right now, but I live in KC territory and at 5-0, they are SICK and tired of hearing it (:laugh: they actually think they are good). Now I don't care, but I'm sure the TV and Radio heads are getting tons of emails, texts, and tweets on how much "positive" things are said about Denver. So I'm sure they just have to try and come up with something. SOMETHING other than saying "wow" because right now, really, this Dallas game was the only tiny "chink in the armor" that the Broncos have shown.
If they go on and on and on about how we don't have any weaknesses, then that would be a BOLD statement that just wouldn't be true.
WARHORSE
10-08-2013, 01:49 PM
If Von Miller is in that game, Romo not only goes down multiple times more, but it would also have effected how long they stayed on the field, which in turn could have led to more points for us and less injuries.
Von makes the entire pass rush better and Romo plays with happy feet knowing his time is out......interceptions. Romo would not get away from Von like he did from others.
Im glad we're playing Jags this week and hope we rest the guys who were injured. It helps us get reps to the backups for depth and a deeper run while allowing them time to heal.
I think Champ comes back this week.
CoachChaz
10-08-2013, 02:09 PM
Merrill Hoge was saying he could see 16-0 but thought KC could beat us. Said we wont get 35 against that defense. My thought is even if we only get 28...where is KC getting 29? Yeah, their pass rush is looking good, but Manning doesnt sit long and we can certainly run against them.
They might go undefeated until they play us, but I still like our chances against them. Indy scares me more than KC.
wayninja
10-08-2013, 02:21 PM
My only explanation is he has to say something. He's no longer a GM, he's now a talking head. He can't very well say, "there is no answer, they're unbeatable.".
I don't see why not considering that is probably the best analysis at this point.
Really the only who can beat Denver is Denver. They have a bad game and the other team has a flawless game. That's about it.
The injuries explanation does make those points more credible, even moreso than it does others.
I loved Bill Polian's breakdown. Hey mentioned three key "problems" the Broncos have going forward.
1. The offensive line. "You cant go a whole season with a patchwork line, especially if your LT is one that is out"...even though we've only allowed 5 sacks and Clark has handled Trent Cole and Demarcus Ware to 0 sacks. Yeah, the backups and emergency signings are getting it done, very well, but it's taking ALL our depth to do it. That's why we signed Painter as backup tackle when Clark went in: Because if anything happens to Clark or Franklin, who else is left? If Kuper's healthy we're a little better at guard, but after him we have more questions than answers.
2. The pass rush. "Eventually their inability to get to the QB is going to hurt tham and even though Miller comes back soon, who knows what shape he'll be in"...despite having 10 combined sacks in 5 games from our current DE's, and I doubt Miller is sitting on the cough pounding potato ships.
The Broncos seem hellbent on proving sacks overrated; Ayers and Phillips both have respectable numbers despite rotating at the same position, yet we do NOT consistently reach QBs. We post a LOT of coverage sacks: Everyone's blocked but everyone's also COVERED, protection finally breaks down after 6 or 7 seconds, then one lucky guy gets to the QB. That, and fear of uncovered receivers in the modern NFL, is why I dislike blitzes; I always say, "a coverage sack is STILL a sack." Nevertheless, we can't live off them; we're missing Miller, Wolfe's getting little pressure, and if Ayers is out next week we've basically just Phillips.
3. Lack of a run game. "The passing game makes up for it, but eventually they have to get support from the running game. maybe Ball can develop over the season, but he's still a rookie"...despite the fact that Moreno is on pace for 1000+ yards and 10+ TD's and averaging 5 ypc.
Moreno's tearing it up, but has never completed a full season; he tore it up in the playoffs until he got hurt—then we ran for just one first down followed by 3 runs for 4 yards and punted so the Ravens got their OT-forcing TD. Now, a lot of Moreno's injury problem has been our line letting multiple defenders through to tackle him almost before he got the handoff, and they're much improved in that regard (though recall point 1.) Still, he's just one guy, and neither Hillman nor Ball have shown they can carry the load if he misses more games. Neither picks up blitzes as well, and neither approaches his 5.1 YPA.
The thing is though, any team can be weakened by injuries; by December, let alone January, most are. In the long term, it's less about IF a team has injuries than WHEN, and whether they're season/career-ending. Defensive injuries made the Ravens a joke when we crushed them on their own field last December, but what a difference a months convalescence made. We had a ton of injuries Sunday that let Dallas back into the game; once Harris went out with a concussion, Ayers with a dislocated shoulder and Woodyard with a stomped neck we couldn't stop keep a Girl Scout troop out of our end zone.
That doesn't make us beatable any more than losing Clady for the year, Miller for the first six games and Champ for five (so far...) does. It's the old "if we stay healthy..." bit, and so far we haven't, but if we get lots of dings early we'll still be the team to beat so long as we're not dinged much at the end. Super Bowls are all about peaking and getting healthy at the right time.
All THAT said, until/unless Miller and Champs return restores it, our D IS a concern, especially after Sunday. Eventually our offense will have an off day and score <20 pts intead of >40; our D better bring it then.
The blueprint to beating Denver is to pressure Manning. Manning has had issues when he is being blitzed with some success. The Chargers were able to handle Manning like that. The Steelers did as well, at times. The problem is that when you blitz him and it doesn't work, he beats the shit out of you. Coverage doesn't typically work against Manning, as he can dissect what you're doing and just audible you into oblivion. Or, he changes the route of a single player, and it just obliterates you. In years past, the Patriots were able to stop Manning by doubling Harrison, and employing incredibly amounts of contact onto the WR's. However, the rules have changed, and you can't mug a WR into the ground anymore.
Stopping Manning is absolutely brutal.
BroncoWave
10-08-2013, 03:37 PM
The blueprint to beating Denver is to pressure Manning. Manning has had issues when he is being blitzed with some success. The Chargers were able to handle Manning like that. The Steelers did as well, at times. The problem is that when you blitz him and it doesn't work, he beats the shit out of you. Coverage doesn't typically work against Manning, as he can dissect what you're doing and just audible you into oblivion. Or, he changes the route of a single player, and it just obliterates you. In years past, the Patriots were able to stop Manning by doubling Harrison, and employing incredibly amounts of contact onto the WR's. However, the rules have changed, and you can't mug a WR into the ground anymore.
Stopping Manning is absolutely brutal.
But Manning also has more weapons than he has ever had and it getting the ball out faster than ever it seems. If you blitz there will always be an open guy, and Manning can probably get it there before your blitz arrives. The talent around him is allowing him to play in absolute God mode this season.
TXBRONC
10-08-2013, 03:38 PM
The blueprint to beating Denver is to pressure Manning. Manning has had issues when he is being blitzed with some success. The Chargers were able to handle Manning like that. The Steelers did as well, at times. The problem is that when you blitz him and it doesn't work, he beats the shit out of you. Coverage doesn't typically work against Manning, as he can dissect what you're doing and just audible you into oblivion. Or, he changes the route of a single player, and it just obliterates you. In years past, the Patriots were able to stop Manning by doubling Harrison, and employing incredibly amounts of contact onto the WR's. However, the rules have changed, and you can't mug a WR into the ground anymore.
Stopping Manning is absolutely brutal.
It's a generic blueprint because that's true for every quarterback in the League.
But Manning also has more weapons than he has ever had and it getting the ball out faster than ever it seems. If you blitz there will always be an open guy, and Manning can probably get it there before your blitz arrives. The talent around him is allowing him to play in absolute God mode this season.
Which is why everyone says great QBs (e.g. Manning, Brady, Rodgers) must be pressured up the gut; they recognize blitzes, make hot reads and get the ball out so fast it's almost impossible to get there off the edge. I'm really perplexed more teams don't blitz their Mikes up the gut for the same reason they often do that with safeties. The shortest distance between two points is still a straight line, not a diagonal, and any coverage scheme that can spare a safety can spare a Mike, who's greater strength and mass gives him a much better chance of getting past guards to the QB.
Anyway, yeah, blitzing great QBs is death; we must get there with our front four, maybe ONE extra LB, and cover everyone. If/when we do blitz our only chance against the best is either up the middle or with a REALLY fast DB off the edge; LBs usually can't get there in time unless coming straight at him from the snap.
BroncoWave
10-08-2013, 04:13 PM
Which is why everyone says great QBs (e.g. Manning, Brady, Rodgers) must be pressured up the gut; they recognize blitzes, make hot reads and get the ball out so fast it's almost impossible to get there off the edge. I'm really perplexed more teams don't blitz their Mikes up the gut for the same reason they often do that with safeties. The shortest distance between two points is still a straight line, not a diagonal, and any coverage scheme that can spare a safety can spare a Mike, who's greater strength and mass gives him a much better chance of getting past guards to the QB.
Anyway, yeah, blitzing great QBs is death; we must get there with our front four, maybe ONE extra LB, and cover everyone. If/when we do blitz our only chance against the best is either up the middle or with a REALLY fast DB off the edge; LBs usually can't get there in time unless coming straight at him from the snap.
He could just throw it to JT over the middle every single time then. Any blitz is going to create a hole in the defense.
He could just throw it to JT over the middle every single time then. Any blitz is going to create a hole in the defense.
If Mike blitzes someone else has to pick up his coverage, but with 6 defenders that shouldn't be a problem for a good D, even if they keep a safety deep. Just because we blitz Will or Sam doesn't mean someone's open, and the same is true blitzing Mike. Only difference is Will's usually better in coverage, and Mike's closer to the QB at the snap. In terms of coverage, the most expendable (and thus blitzable) guy's usually Sam, which partly explains how we use Miller, but if the rest of the D can play man for a few seconds blitzing any one LB doesn't automatically leave someone open. It's when we send the house that problems start.
Put it this way: Throwing to JT over the middle requires he do the same thing blitzing OLBs must, in the other direction: Get just behind and in the middle of the opposing formation from the edge. Go with him, Will.
It's a generic blueprint because that's true for every quarterback in the League.
It's not generic when it's literally 'only' one that works on Peyton. Also, it doesn't work on every Qb, either. At certain points in his career, blitzing Michael Vick was an effort in futility. A noteworthy addendum is that your defensive line has to get pressure. They have to. It's an obvious point, but if your line can get that push and disrupt a play as it starts, there's not much a QB can do about that.
TXBRONC
10-08-2013, 06:35 PM
It's not generic when it's literally 'only' one that works on Peyton. Also, it doesn't work on every Qb, either. At certain points in his career, blitzing Michael Vick was an effort in futility. A noteworthy addendum is that your defensive line has to get pressure. They have to. It's an obvious point, but if your line can get that push and disrupt a play as it starts, there's not much a QB can do about that.
What I said isn't a criticism of but it's a generic truth even for Michael Vick if a defense gets pressure on a quarterback going to effect them.
G_Money
10-09-2013, 12:56 PM
There are VERY few teams that can truly stop Manning. The blueprint really is:
Get pressure with your front four ONLY. For a 3-4 team this means with the 3 down + a backer. Can't be more than that. You need everybody else in coverage, preferrably press man-coverage to disrupt timing. Number of teams in the league that can do this: um... maybe 3? Without Wilfork, I don't think NE can, and I haven't seen it from the Pack this year either, so that leaves Seattle, San Fran and Kansas City. Indy is a big unknown for me: I don't know that they can stop Manning, but they ARE good at stopping everybody else so maybe they just need the chance to show what they can do against this type of attack. So it might be 4 teams.
If you'd ALSO like to run different schemes first and second half, or call different coverages and occasional blitz fronts once Manning gets you to declare and then starts to audible (so that he's audibling into a different coverage than you're showing him), you've got a shot.
We have better depth in the receiving corps than Manning has ever had across that many positions. Two wides, slot and TE are all exceedingly dangerous. The back out of the backfield can do some damage too. That makes blitzing almost impossible, unless it's stunt or zone blitzes, but a team like Pitt that used to be able to do that is in a down phase, and the Ravens aren't the RAVENS either.
Otherwise, just hope he has a bad day. Receivers tip balls that are intercepted, Manning makes a bad read, holding penalties call back touchdowns.
Most of the teams that can really challenge us are in the NFC, and some of them are struggling. I'm glad we had this game against Dallas, where the offense put up 50+ when we needed it, and we got to figure out how we'd be attacked and how to minimize that kind of exposure (getting Champ back on the field and moving Harris to the nickel will help, but both guys need to get healthy first).
But the problem with having a blueprint to "stopping" Manning is that he'll get stopped for about 24 points, and that's only IF you have a DL that can get pressure by itself or some exotic blitz package that confuses the line calls for a half.
Having a blueprint that requires sharks with frickin' laserbeams strapped to their heads to be effective is only useful if you have both sharks AND laser beams. Some teams have neither, and then the blueprint might as well be used to wipe their asses with.
~G
topscribe
10-09-2013, 01:06 PM
The defense was so depleted I don't think that was a blueprint.
I do think Denver though has shown a huge, big-time problem defending deep passes though and if they don't get it sorted out that could be a massive issue.
I'd have hoped that had been sorted out after last year's disaster.
Well, with Champ and Chris Harris out, leaving the league's biggest sucker
for double moves (Tony Carter) and another who shouldn't even be on the
roster (Omar Bolden) to defend, that sort of thing can happen.
It didn't help that Woodyard went out early, either. He is the guy who
patrols the middle of the field, and when the other defenders are drawn in
to try to fill that hole, it creates more opportunities for talent such as Dez
Bryant over the top.
Once these guys come back, and Von once again bolsters the pass rush,
I think defending deep passes will become less of a problem. IMO.
.
Ravage!!!
10-09-2013, 01:06 PM
I don't know. Manning having Harrison, Wayne, Clark, and Edgerin James might have been just as talented of a group as we have.
topscribe
10-09-2013, 01:13 PM
I don't know. Manning having Harrison, Wayne, Clark, and Edgerin James might have been just as talented of a group as we have.
Yes, that was some receiving corps, and James was a heck of a RB. And don't
forget, Manning had Stokley in his prime for a while, too.
.
G_Money
10-09-2013, 02:22 PM
The 2004 Colts had Harrison, Wayne and Stokely all over a thousand yards, and Edge with 1500 yards rushing and 50+ catches. Dallas Clark only caught 25 balls that year, but man - lotta weapons. They still only managed a field goal against the Pats in a playoff loss.
Julius Thomas has more TD catches in 5 games than Clark had in all but 2 seasons. We're on pace (I know, I hate pace stats but still) to have FOUR pass-catchers with 1,000 yard seasons. AFAIK that's never happened. In that 2004 year, Manning was one of 4 or 5 seasons with 3 wides that had a thousand yards, but if Julius keeps up this pace it's completely outrageous. Our backs are on pace to match almost exactly what those Colts put up with Edge, btw, both on the ground and receiving out of the backfield.
I'll take fewer HOF potential players than that '04 Colts squad, similar or better production, and a Super Bowl win.
~G
BroncoWave
10-09-2013, 03:26 PM
I don't know. Manning having Harrison, Wayne, Clark, and Edgerin James might have been just as talented of a group as we have.
I think it's close, but I would give us a slight edge.
Harrison/DT I would say is a push.
Wayne was quite a bit better than Decker.
Welker gets a slight edge over Stokley.
JT is considerably more talented than Clark IMO.
James better than Moreno.
That gives us 3 of the 5 IMO. While it is close, I would take our group over theirs. But I'm sure a Colts fan would say the same thing about their guys.
I think it's close, but I would give us a slight edge.
Harrison/DT I would say is a push.
Wayne was quite a bit better than Decker.
Welker gets a slight edge over Stokley.
JT is considerably more talented than Clark IMO.
James better than Moreno.
That gives us 3 of the 5 IMO. While it is close, I would take our group over theirs. But I'm sure a Colts fan would say the same thing about their guys.
I would say DT is better than Harrison. The size and speed make him an easier target.
Stokley has never been close to Welker. There is no slight edge. That's like saying Manning gets a slight edge over Jake Plummer.
BroncoWave
10-09-2013, 03:40 PM
I would say DT is better than Harrison. The size and speed make him an easier target.
Stokley has never been close to Welker. There is no slight edge. That's like saying Manning gets a slight edge over Jake Plummer.
I dunno, Stokley in his prime was really good. I don't think he was that far behind where Welker is now. I think people also forget that Harrison was really, really good in his prime. DT probably has more physical talent, but Harrison's production was every bit as good.
I dunno, Stokley in his prime was really good. I don't think he was that far behind where Welker is now. I think people also forget that Harrison was really, really good in his prime. DT probably has more physical talent, but Harrison's production was every bit as good.
Stokley was very good. Like Plummer, he was above average. Welker is an all time great slot reciever who is setting receiving records.
BroncoWave
10-09-2013, 03:47 PM
Stokley was very good. Like Plummer, he was above average. Welker is an all time great slot reciever who is setting receiving records.
I'm sorry, but I think Stokley was way better as a slot WR than Plummer was as a QB, and I was a huge Plummer supporter. I think Stokley is one of the top slot WRs of this era. Can't really say the same for Plummer as a QB.
TXBRONC
10-09-2013, 03:48 PM
I would say DT is better than Harrison. The size and speed make him an easier target.
Stokley has never been close to Welker. There is no slight edge. That's like saying Manning gets a slight edge over Jake Plummer.
I would say the tight ends are pretty close.
Ravage!!!
10-09-2013, 04:02 PM
I would say DT is better than Harrison. The size and speed make him an easier target.
Stokley has never been close to Welker. There is no slight edge. That's like saying Manning gets a slight edge over Jake Plummer.
Harrison was compared to JERRY RICE in his prime. He was the last receiver to actually have the ability, the skill, and the opportunity to have reached records set by Rice. DT is NOT the receiver that Harrison was. Harrison is a HoF WR....EASILY. As much as I like DT, he is NOT the receiver that Harrison was.
But I do agree that Stokely, although a very good slot receiver, isn't as good as Welker... SPEED wise. When it comes to running routes, Stokely matches up pretty well with Welker. So there isn't nearly the gap between Welker and Stokely as there is between Plummer and Manning.
--------------------
Harrison > DT
Wayne > Decker
Clark = Thomas (as of right now, absolutely) Clark was good for YEARS and proved to be a valid weapon. As of right now, Thomas has done it for 5 games. There would be no reason to say that Thomas is better than Clark at this point. You can't be as successful as Clark was for as long as he was by only be "ok." He showed that he can still be a valid weapon if given the ball when we played against him this year.
James >>> Moreno
I'm sorry, but I think Stokley was way better as a slot WR than Plummer was as a QB, and I was a huge Plummer supporter. I think Stokley is one of the top slot WRs of this era. Can't really say the same for Plummer as a QB.
I think the talent gap is about Plummer to Manning though. You only need Welkers last four seasons to get more catches and yards than Stokley had over a 14 year career. That's not counting this year or a few other very productive years for Welker. The guy is in a class of his own when talking slot receivers.
Ravage!!!
10-09-2013, 04:05 PM
I think the talent gap is about Plummer to Manning though. You only need Welkers last four seasons to get more catches and yards than Stokley had over a 14 year career. That's not counting this year or a few other very productive years for Welker. The guy is in a class of his own when talking slot receivers.
Yeah.. but Stokely played on a team that had Manning throwing to Harrison, Wayne, and Clark (and any RB on the roster). Brady..threw to Welker and then to any other nobody that might get open. Catches and stats don't tell the story as to who is a better talent. Those are just numbers on a piece of paper.
Harrison was compared to JERRY RICE in his prime. He was the last receiver to actually have the ability, the skill, and the opportunity to have reached records set by Rice. DT is NOT the receiver that Harrison was. Harrison is a HoF WR....EASILY. As much as I like DT, he is NOT the receiver that Harrison was.
But I do agree that Stokely, although a very good slot receiver, isn't as good as Welker... SPEED wise. When it comes to running routes, Stokely matches up pretty well with Welker. So there isn't nearly the gap between Welker and Stokely as there is between Plummer and Manning.
--------------------
Harrison > DT
Wayne > Decker
Clark = Thomas (as of right now, absolutely) Clark was good for YEARS and proved to be a valid weapon. As of right now, Thomas has done it for 5 games. There would be no reason to say that Thomas is better than Clark at this point. You can't be as successful as Clark was for as long as he was by only be "ok." He showed that he can still be a valid weapon if given the ball when we played against him this year.
James >>> Moreno
I would say the proof is in the pudding. Manning was never this productive with that group and he had a lot of great years. Harrison was great but not close to Rice. He had a couple great years and a lot of good years. You are hyping him too much imo. Manning had the group you are discussing in his prime too. Wayne is the only one who is noticably better than the Bronco he is being compared to.
If we are comparing careers, I wouldn't put DT in the same breath as Wayne. If having either for a single season, it would be close. The size and speed of the Bronco group do make it easier on the QB though. Manning doesn't have the arm to throw deep a ton like he used to with Harrison and Wayne yet is still getting more production than he ever did.
wayninja
10-09-2013, 04:19 PM
You guys are discounting that Manning is more machine than man now. You are witnessing the dawn of the Cyborg QB.
Ravage!!!
10-09-2013, 04:21 PM
I would say the proof is in the pudding. Manning was never this productive with that group and he had a lot of great years. Harrison was great but not close to Rice. He had a couple great years and a lot of good years. You are hyping him too much imo. Manning had the group you are discussing in his prime too. Wayne is the only one who is noticably better than the Bronco he is being compared to.
You are looking at the numbers on a piece of paper if this is what you are saying. Harrison is a HoF WR..easily. I'm not hyping him up too much at all, he was THAT good when he was playing. To say that "Manning didn't put up this kind of production then..." is HUGELY deceiving. The rules have changed SOOO much, and this is not Manning's typical offense that he ran while in Indy. If you believe that Manning's production this season is purely because of the "elevated" talent at the skill positions... you are MAJORLY wrong.
If we are comparing careers, I wouldn't put DT in the same breath as Wayne. If having either for a single season, it would be close. The size and speed of the Bronco group do make it easier on the QB though. Manning doesn't have the arm to throw deep a ton like he used to with Harrison and Wayne yet is still getting more production than he ever did.
Harrison is better receiver than Wayne. If you are talking about putting them in prime vs prime, I don't think you could put DT over Wayne for a moment.
If DT does what he did last season for another 12 years, he is HoF too. You are penalizing guys because they are young and haven't played out their careers. What rule changes have happened in the last few years that are making it so much easier for Manning? It's not like he is getting hit, so it sure isn't the QB protection rules. The corners not being able to touch receivers has been around for a while.
He is having his best year, with a weaker arm, and you are claiming he has less talent around him. I find that kind of silly. None of his previous offenses, or any other offense, have made it look as easy as this team is making it look. Guys are running around wide open and getting tons of yac because of it.
Ravage!!!
10-09-2013, 05:03 PM
If DT does what he did last season for another 12 years, he is HoF too. You are penalizing guys because they are young and haven't played out their careers. What rule changes have happened in the last few years that are making it so much easier for Manning? It's not like he is getting hit, so it sure isn't the QB protection rules. The corners not being able to touch receivers has been around for a while.
He is having his best year, with a weaker arm, and you are claiming he has less talent around him. I find that kind of silly. None of his previous offenses, or any other offense, have made it look as easy as this team is making it look. Guys are running around wide open and getting tons of yac because of it.
I said less talent because individually, the talent on that Colts team was better. I'm not "penalizing" anything or anyone. If at the end of DT's career he can prove to be as Great as Harrison was, then maybe things can be re-evaluated. But I'm saying that Harrison is better than DT.. and he was. I'm saying that Wayne is better than Decker.. and he is/was. That isn't hard to see unless you choose to ignore it.
As far as you saying Manning has a "weaker" arm. Where have you seen this? No one in the game is saying that Manning has a weaker arm, and I have not seen ANY signs of this "weaker" arm..... not to mention, the arm strength (weaker or not) doesn't have anything to do with the success of Manning...ever. He's always had a strong arm, and has a strong arm now. He has a strong ENOUGH arm now, even if you want to believe it's weaker.
As far as the "what rules have changed"...have you not seen the HUGE increase of QB productivity over the last few years?? Really? I think the number of 4000 yrd passers per season now is more than it used to be for the entire NFL career. Not to mention WRs can't be hit across the middle unless they are "known" to have caught it, QBs can't be hit, and DBs can't touch. I'm sorry that you don't see the differences in the NFL today than just a few years ago (not to mention 10 yrs ago), but you ought to catch up sometime and watch some older games and see just how much the NFL has changed. As you said, the WRs are runing WIDE open and getting tons of YaC.. you think that's because they are SOOOO much better than Wayne and Harrison???? Seriously??
The production that Manning is putting up this year is NOT because he has "more talent" then ever before. I guess if he doesn't match or increase his production next year with the same players....its because either they dropped down in talent, or Manning's "arm" just got so weak he coulnd't compete?
Manning threw for 49 TD passes and then the next year (2008) only threw for 28??? Did he lose 2-3 Wrs???:confused: Marino threw for 5000 yrds and 48 TDs his sophmore year, yet "only" threw for 4100 and 30 TDs the next with the same WRs. Maybe QBs just go through fluctuations in their seasons and just have "Great" years in others.
Things combine. Manning has a new offense this year, mixed in with a schedule that is "exactly" testing us, rules that don't allow the DBs a chance in this league, throw in a talented group of skill positions that cause a lot of match-up problems, and Manning is off to a record setting start.
But this "proof is in the pudding" stuff isn't realistic and is being blind as to all that encompasses a great season (or start of a season). We have a talented group of skill positions that is working out GREAT to how Manning is playing THIS year.
Ravage!!!
10-09-2013, 05:44 PM
wow... that's a long worded way of saying "if the proof is in the pudding, then we must have the greatest group of WRs ever assembled."
topscribe
10-09-2013, 07:51 PM
I would say DT is better than Harrison. The size and speed make him an easier target.
Stokley has never been close to Welker. There is no slight edge. That's like saying Manning gets a slight edge over Jake Plummer.
I dunno . . . Stokley in his prime was just uncoverable.
And DT is potentially better than Harrison, IMO. But right now? That's arguable.
.
topscribe
10-09-2013, 07:55 PM
wow... that's a long worded way of saying "if the proof is in the pudding, then we must have the greatest group of WRs ever assembled."
Lol - I had to look at the username to see whether that was Joel or G . . .
.
Lol - I had to look at the username to see whether that was Joel or G . . .
.
Saved me the trouble of saying pretty much all the same things, so I'm grateful. There was no Tom Brady Rule in '04, nor many of the others. Thomas, good as he is, isn't at the level Harrison was then, and Decker will almost certainly never reach Waynes (I bet he already has more career fumbles.) I might buy the argument Welker vs. Stokley's a wash, but not those two. If Thomas keeps going as he is I'd put him on part with Clark for at least this season, but he's only started 5 games, and teams know about him now.
As far as prejudice against our receivers youth: What they do/n't the rest of tehir careers has little bearing on what they do THIS season. Sad truth is, PFM won't be around for most of that anyway (and then we'll see how good they REALLY are as vets.) But even if they're all HoFers in 10 years, that doesn't help him or them any today. The proof may be in the pudding, but the pudding's only just coming to a boil.
You don't get this kind of production from lesser players. That is just a dumb argument. See Tom Brady and the 2013 Patriots...
This not only will be the first 600 point team, it's on pace to be the first 700 point team. They are setting all kinds of records every week. You don't have your best season ever with an all around worse supporting cast. That is a terrible argument.
Not that any of you could ever be taken seriously. People are actually arguing that Stokley = Welker. That may be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. There is no argument there. If you think Stokley compares to Welker, you don't know anything about football. All of you claiming HoF is the definitive talent evaluation are compketely contradicting yourselves here. Welker will be a HOF receiver. Stokley has 0 chance of being in the HoF.
MOtorboat
10-10-2013, 09:18 AM
Wayne's production through three years was almost identical to Decker's through three.
And Wayne didn't have Tebow throwing knucklers at him, he had Manning.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 09:22 AM
Wayne's production through three years was almost identical to Decker's through three.
And Wayne didn't have Tebow throwing knucklers at him, he had Manning.
Wayne also had to share with more people early on than Decker. While Decker did have Tebow throwing him knucklers, he got (I would assume, not looking at the numbers) a way higher percentage of Tebow's targets than Wayne got of Manning's.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 09:43 AM
Saved me the trouble of saying pretty much all the same things, so I'm grateful. There was no Tom Brady Rule in '04, nor many of the others. Thomas, good as he is, isn't at the level Harrison was then, and Decker will almost certainly never reach Waynes (I bet he already has more career fumbles.) I might buy the argument Welker vs. Stokley's a wash, but not those two. If Thomas keeps going as he is I'd put him on part with Clark for at least this season, but he's only started 5 games, and teams know about him now.
As far as prejudice against our receivers youth: What they do/n't the rest of tehir careers has little bearing on what they do THIS season. Sad truth is, PFM won't be around for most of that anyway (and then we'll see how good they REALLY are as vets.) But even if they're all HoFers in 10 years, that doesn't help him or them any today. The proof may be in the pudding, but the pudding's only just coming to a boil.
I am going to speak complete heresy here. For me, if I had to pick Harrison + Wayne, at their peak, or DT + Decker its an easy choice. DT + Decker, every time. Harrison was smallish, wasn't that hard to tackle, and wasn't great at YAC, and neither he nor Wayne blocked a lick. I think DT is clearly superior to either of those guys, because he can do everything they could do as well as they could, plus some. I think Decker is only marginally less good than DT - a little less pure speed, and a little less reliable, but probably runs better routes. Harrison and Wayne benefitted hugely from having PMFM throw to them virtually their entire careers.
Throw in Welker and JT and Manning has better weapons now than then.
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:06 AM
I am going to speak complete heresy here. For me, if I had to pick Harrison + Wayne, at their peak, or DT + Decker its an easy choice. DT + Decker, every time. Harrison was smallish, wasn't that hard to tackle, and wasn't great at YAC, and neither he nor Wayne blocked a lick. I think DT is clearly superior to either of those guys, because he can do everything they could do as well as they could, plus some. I think Decker is only marginally less good than DT - a little less pure speed, and a little less reliable, but probably runs better routes. Harrison and Wayne benefitted hugely from having PMFM throw to them virtually their entire careers.
Throw in Welker and JT and Manning has better weapons now than then.
Then you could take away nearly ALL of Jerry Rice's records and accomplishments, because he had Joe Montana and Steve Young throwing to him.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 10:09 AM
Then you could take away nearly ALL of Jerry Rice's records and accomplishments, because he had Joe Montana and Steve Young throwing to him.
I wasn't talking about Rice. I was just never all that impressed with Harrison, really. Throw enough accurate passes at any WR at a Pro level and he'll rack up pure numbers. Its a good measure, but not the only or even the best measure.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 10:10 AM
Then you could take away nearly ALL of Jerry Rice's records and accomplishments, because he had Joe Montana and Steve Young throwing to him.
Why? I don't recall him saying you could take away anything? Stats are stats, there is no asterix based on who is throwing to you, but to say who is throwing to you doesn't matter is silly.
I think a lot of guys out there have mad talent, but if they don't get the ball, they may never be truly recognized. The opposite is also true. Where is Brandon Lloyd again?
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:16 AM
Why? I don't recall him saying you could take away anything? Stats are stats, there is no asterix based on who is throwing to you, but to say who is throwing to you doesn't matter is silly.
I think a lot of guys out there have mad talent, but if they don't get the ball, they may never be truly recognized. The opposite is also true. Where is Brandon Lloyd again?
Well, I tried to get in an 'edit' that to "discount" his records since he obviously had 2 HoF QBs throughout his career.
There are two ways to look at what Dread says. You are better because of who's throwing to you...which is true to a point but could discount everything Rice accomplished unless you accept #2... which is.... you can see the reason the QB threw the ball to you was because you were good/great....open.
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:18 AM
I wasn't talking about Rice. I was just never all that impressed with Harrison, really. Throw enough accurate passes at any WR at a Pro level and he'll rack up pure numbers. Its a good measure, but not the only or even the best measure.
Exactly. I won't base any judgement on a person's talent on numbers alone. Which is why I think jhns claim that this MUST be a better group of WRs because we are putting up record numbers. If that is the basis of his claim, then we MUST have the greatest group of WRs in the histoyr of the NFL.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:21 AM
If that is the basis of his claim, then we MUST have the greatest group of WRs ever on any team throughout history.
I mean...we might? Welker is the best slot WR ever. DT is a top 5 talent at WR in the NFL right now. Decker is one of the best #2 WRs in the league. JT is looking like a top 5 TE so far. And on top of all that we have two above-average receiving threats from the RB position. This honestly might be one of the best sets of receiving weapons a team has ever put together. Maybe that's hyperbole, but if the stats we are on pace for carry out over the season it will be a hard point to argue against.
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:23 AM
I mean...we might? Welker is the best slot WR ever. DT is a top 5 talent at WR in the NFL right now. Decker is one of the best #2 WRs in the league. JT is looking like a top 5 TE so far. And on top of all that we have two above-average receiving threats from the RB position. This honestly might be one of the best sets of receiving weapons a team has ever put together. Maybe that's hyperbole, but if the stats we are on pace for carry out over the season it will be a hard point to argue against.
That is if you want to look at stats alone. Are our WRs better than Julio Jones, White, Gonzalez, with Jackson in the backfield?
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 10:24 AM
Exactly. I won't base any judgement on a person's talent on numbers alone. Which is why I think jhns claim that this MUST be a better group of WRs because we are putting up record numbers. If that is the basis of his claim, then we MUST have the greatest group of WRs in the history of the NFL.
Yes. I am beginning to think so. They are certainly in the conversation
Are our WRs better than Julio Jones, White, Gonzalez, with Jackson in the backfield?
Yes
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:26 AM
That is if you want to look at stats alone. Are our WRs better than Julio Jones, White, Gonzalez, with Jackson in the backfield?
I think Welker is what really puts us over the top. Lots of teams have had two big time WRs, a great TE, and a good pass catching back. We have that along with a HoF slot WR and a second back who is pretty good at catching passes.
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:26 AM
Really?????? wow. Ok. So is Jamal Lewis and Chris Johnson in the conversation for being in the top 7 Running backs of all time?
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:27 AM
Yes. I am beginning to think so. They are certainly in the conversation
Yes
In the conversation of having one of the greatest seasons....or in the conversation of having the most talent?? I mean, are you guys looking at this through orange goggles?
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 10:28 AM
Really?????? wow. Ok. So is Jamal Lewis and Chris Johnson in the conversation for being in the top 7 Running backs of all time?
No. I don't think so
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:28 AM
Really?????? wow. Ok. So is Jamal Lewis and Chris Johnson in the conversation for being in the top 7 Running backs of all time?
Rav, no one is only basing this argument on stats. Notice I said DT is a top 5 TALENT. JT is playing like a top 5 TALENT. Welker is the most TALENTED slot WR in the league. Yes, I said the stats they are on pace for would make them hard to argue against. But I am also saying they are all super talented as well. I base this on watching them play. Give us a little more credit than only reading a stat sheet.
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 10:31 AM
Rav, no one is only basing this argument on stats. Notice I said DT is a top 5 TALENT. JT is playing like a top 5 TALENT. Welker is the most TALENTED slot WR in the league. Yes, I said the stats they are on pace for would make them hard to argue against. But I am also saying they are all super talented as well. I base this on watching them play. Give us a little more credit than only reading a stat sheet.
I am. I'm saying that based on the STATS they could be in the conversation... but I asked if our TALENT is as good as Julio Jones, White, Gonzalez, and Jackson? That's just a team that is in the league THIS year.
I think the stats that the team is putting up is puting an orange tint over that talent. But I want to be VERY clear that I'm not saying we do NOT have talent on our field..because I absolutely DO! But I'm not willing to say they are the most talented group of WRs in NFL history....records or not.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:34 AM
I am. I'm saying that based on the STATS they could be in the conversation... but I asked if our TALENT is as good as Julio Jones, White, Gonzalez, and Jackson? That's just a team THIS year.
I think the stats that the team is putting up is puting an orange tint over that talent. But I want to be VERY clear that I'm not saying we do NOT have talent on our field..because I absolutely DO! But I'm not willing to say they are the most talented group of WRs in NFL history....records or not.
I'm just saying they might be in the conversation. Notice I said "they might be?" in my post earlier. I'm not saying definitively they are the best ever. But if they keep playing like this, I don't think it would be out of left field to put them in the conversation.
I get your point of QBs having peaks and valleys in their seasons and some being better than others. But this season isn't just on pace to be a peak. Manning is on pace to shatter every passing record. Either he has hit the peak of his talent at the ripe old age of 37, or just maybe he has the best supporting cast he's ever had.
Now obviously these stats could fall off and his final numbers could finish more on track with things he has done before. But for now, we can only judge based on what we've seen through 5 weeks. And from what I have seen, I can't think of a whole lot of sets of offensive talent I have seen that are on par with this one.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 10:37 AM
In the conversation of having one of the greatest seasons....or in the conversation of having the most talent?? I mean, are you guys looking at this through orange goggles?
Conversation of best lineups of receivers on a football team, period. Best as in, the guys I would most want on my team, based upon skills, ability, temperment (none are ball hogs who bitch and moan a la Keyshawn Johnson when other guys get catches), work ethic (they don't goldbrick and take plays off, like Randy Moss), understanding of the offense and their role in it. None are freakin showboats or Prima Donnas, (a la Chad Ochocinco or Terrell Owens or Michael Irvin). These guys can do all the stuff those others could, and have none of the down sides.
I don't think any one is quite as good as Calvin Johnson, or maybe A.J. Green, but that is all I would concede. As a group they are superb, and they are lethal
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:39 AM
Also, I would not trade our offensive skill players for Atlanta's. Last year I probably would have, but I still maintain that Welker vaults our group over theirs on the whole. I seriously think he is the piece that puts our skill players in this conversation.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 10:41 AM
Conversation of best lineups of receivers on a football team, period. Best as in, the guys I would most want on my team, based upon skills, ability, temperment (none are ball hogs who bitch and moan a la Keyshawn Johnson when other guys get catches), work ethic (they don't goldbrick and take plays off, like Randy Moss), understanding of the offense and their role in it. None are freakin showboats or Prima Donnas, (a la Chad Ochocinco or Terrell Owens or Michael Irvin). These guys can do all the stuff those others could, and have none of the down sides.
I don't think any one is quite as good as Calvin Johnson, or maybe A.J. Green, but that is all I would concede. As a group they are superb, and they are lethal
I dunno, I think if we had Eddie Mac, Rod Smith and Shannon Sharpe, in place of DT, Decker and Orange J, we'd be doing just as well if not better. And no prima donna's in that group either. Well, maybe Sharpe is a bit...
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:43 AM
I dunno, I think if we had Eddie Mac, Rod Smith and Shannon Sharpe, in place of DT, Decker and Orange J, we'd be doing just as well if not better. And no prima donna's in that group either. Well, maybe Sharpe is a bit...
Why do people keep ignoring Welker in this analysis? Even if you want to say those groups are even (and I would debate that), Welker puts the current group in the lead.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 10:48 AM
Why do people keep ignoring Welker in this analysis? Even if you want to say those groups are even (and I would debate that), Welker puts the current group in the lead.
I'm not ignoring him, I just don't have a convincing corollary, so I left him out.
I dunno, I think if we had Eddie Mac, Rod Smith and Shannon Sharpe, in place of DT, Decker and Orange J, we'd be doing just as well if not better. And no prima donna's in that group either. Well, maybe Sharpe is a bit...
While I love those guys, this is completely wrong. Those guys weren't capable of this. They weren't as big or as fast as the current guys. They never made it look as easy as these guys do. None of the groups being mentioned make it look as easy as these guys. They all have speed. All but one has great size. They all block for each other after catches. They are all getting wide open more than any group I have ever seen. Making it look easy is the easiest way to judge NFL talent and no other group has ever made it look this easy in the passing game. None throughout history.
What exactly do you guys consider when talking talent? Why do you think this set is less talented than the ones you are arguing for? What exactly are they lacking in your view?
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:53 AM
I'm not ignoring him, I just don't have a convincing corollary, so I left him out.
Well, that's mighty convenient isn't it? The fact that you can't even think of another player on that offense to compare to him is exactly why this unit is better. If you only looked at DT/Decker/JT then yeah, lots of other teams have had receiving groups that could match or surpass that. But when you throw in Welker, the amount of groups you can compare plummets pretty drastically.
I would take DT over Rod Smith. Smith was a really good player, but DT is a superstar talent. Eddie I would take over Decker because of consistency issues. Sharpe you'd definitely have to take over JT, but JT is making that comparison more interesting every week. So yeah, the 1998 group gets a slight edge over ours if you just take those three players. But with Welker, I just don't see how you could put this group behind that one.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 10:58 AM
While I love those guys, this is completely wrong. Those guys weren't capable of this. They weren't as big or as fast as the current guys. They never made it look as easy as these guys do. None of the groups being mentioned make it look as easy as these guys. They all have speed. All but one has great size. They all block for each other after catches. They are all getting wide open more than any group I have ever seen. Making it look easy is the easiest way to judge NFL talent and no other group has ever made it look this easy in the passing game. None throughout history.
What exactly do you guys consider when talking talent? Why do you think this set is less talented than the ones you are arguing for? What exactly are they lacking in your view?
I think Bronco fans REALLY overrate Rod Smith. Don't get me wrong, he was a really good player who was consistent for many years. But he was never an elite why who struck fear into defenses. He had two really good years in 2000 and 2001 when he had over 100 catches and 1300 yards both years. But other than that, he was a guy who would give you 1000-1200 yards a year. Definitely nice production from your #1 guy, but his talent is just not on the level of DT.
These are the guys in Smith's own era who have more career receiving yards than he does: Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, Chris Carter, Reggie Wayne, Torry Holt, Andre Reed, Irving Fryar, Jimmy Smith, Hines Ward, Derrick Mason, Michael Irvin, Andre Johnson, Steve Smith, and Mushin Muhammad.
That's 18 guys in Smith's own era with more productive careers than he had. And there are Broncos fans who think he should be in the Hall of Fame.
(But according to Rav I only look at things through orange-colored glasses)
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 12:11 PM
Why do people keep ignoring Welker in this analysis? Even if you want to say those groups are even (and I would debate that), Welker puts the current group in the lead.
Its not ignoring him. My point is simply that if Julio Jones is better than DT, and Roddy is better than Decker, and Gonzalez is better then Julius, and Jackson is better than Moreno.... then that is 4 out of 5 that are better on their team. Welker is obviously a HUGE boon to the offense. But if we are talking about he POSSIBILITY of placing this group of WRs in the GREATEST EVER... then you can't say that 3 of the 4 guys aren't even the best on a single team. That's my point.
I think wayninja could be right. I think that if we had Eddie Mac and Rod smith with Shannon sharp... put in Terrell Davis..... that's a more talented group.
But what seems to be the "blinding light" in the conversation, is the stats that are being put up. As if the stats are what determines "talent."
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 12:14 PM
I
(But according to Rav I only look at things through orange-colored glasses)
It's this total bs that you throw out that makes people not want to discuss things with you. Take the comment for what it was, and stop this "I'm being attacked" BULL SHIT. For one, the comment about tinting wasn't directed AT you, learn to read. It was a blanket statement about the idea of putting THIS group of WRs in the conversation of "Greatest group" purely because of the stats being put up. You need to grow up.
Ravage!!!
10-10-2013, 12:14 PM
talk about over rated... Andre Johnson.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:18 PM
Its not ignoring him. My point is simply that if Julio Jones is better than DT, and Roddy is better than Decker, and Gonzalez is better then Julius, and Jackson is better than Moreno.... then that is 4 out of 5 that are better on their team. Welker is obviously a HUGE boon to the offense. But if we are talking about he POSSIBILITY of placing this group of WRs in the GREATEST EVER... then you can't say that 3 of the 4 guys aren't even the best on a single team. That's my point.
I think wayninja could be right. I think that if we had Eddie Mac and Rod smith with Shannon sharp... put in Terrell Davis..... that's a more talented group.
But what seems to be the "blinding light" in the conversation, is the stats that are being put up. As if the stats are what determines "talent."
Just because stats aren't the end of the discussion doesn't mean they aren't a part of it. If we wind up with 4 1000 yard pass catchers and Manning breaks every passing record, you have to at least put our receiving group in the discussion as the greatest ever put together.
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-10-2013, 12:19 PM
talk about over rated... Andre Johnson.
I heard someone talking about the Texans the other day. He was saying that the problems with the offense are Kubiak's fault as much as Schaub's. The plays they are calling are allowing CB's to cheat up to the LOS. Also, they're not just cheating due to the play calling. They're also cheating up because they don't respect Johnson's deep play ability anymore. Secondaries see him more as a possession receiver now. The analyst suggested Johnson has lost a step or two.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:20 PM
It's this total bs that you throw out that makes people not want to discuss things with you. Take the comment for what it was, and stop this "I'm being attacked" BULL SHIT. For one, the comment about tinting wasn't directed AT you, learn to read. It was a blanket statement about the idea of putting THIS group of WRs in the conversation of "Greatest group" purely because of the stats being put up. You need to grow up.
How about sticking to the topic instead of accusing fans of wearing orange colored glasses? All of the points made in favor of our WR group being the best in this thread have been relevant and well-reasoned. I think you are making good points in this thread, but accusing people who disagree with you of just wearing orange colored glasses isn't exactly the most mature way to discuss things either.
talk about over rated... Andre Johnson.
He's old, Rav. He's old and beat up.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 12:34 PM
While I love those guys, this is completely wrong. Those guys weren't capable of this. They weren't as big or as fast as the current guys. They never made it look as easy as these guys do. None of the groups being mentioned make it look as easy as these guys. They all have speed. All but one has great size. They all block for each other after catches. They are all getting wide open more than any group I have ever seen. Making it look easy is the easiest way to judge NFL talent and no other group has ever made it look this easy in the passing game. None throughout history.
What exactly do you guys consider when talking talent? Why do you think this set is less talented than the ones you are arguing for? What exactly are they lacking in your view?
It's not wrong. We won some superbowls with those those guys and another very good QB. It's hard to have a conversation with you when you take something completely subjective and tell me it's 'wrong' as though you are some sort of multi-dimensional visionary. Eddie is big and blocked well. Rod Smith isn't as fast as DT but he's a much better route runner. Shannon Sharpe is one of the best TE's of all time.
Peyton manning is making this look easier for these guys than it is.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 12:37 PM
Well, that's mighty convenient isn't it? The fact that you can't even think of another player on that offense to compare to him is exactly why this unit is better. If you only looked at DT/Decker/JT then yeah, lots of other teams have had receiving groups that could match or surpass that. But when you throw in Welker, the amount of groups you can compare plummets pretty drastically.
I would take DT over Rod Smith. Smith was a really good player, but DT is a superstar talent. Eddie I would take over Decker because of consistency issues. Sharpe you'd definitely have to take over JT, but JT is making that comparison more interesting every week. So yeah, the 1998 group gets a slight edge over ours if you just take those three players. But with Welker, I just don't see how you could put this group behind that one.
I'm not taking it as a whole, you don't need to be so aggressively all-or-nothing in your fantasy what if scenario. I left Welker out because I was assuming he would be part of either group. If you are using that as an argument to say that Welker is really the only piece that matters, then I think that is an entirely different argument. But 3/4 of the group being different and still playing at this level is convincing to me.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 12:41 PM
I think Bronco fans REALLY overrate Rod Smith. Don't get me wrong, he was a really good player who was consistent for many years. But he was never an elite why who struck fear into defenses. He had two really good years in 2000 and 2001 when he had over 100 catches and 1300 yards both years. But other than that, he was a guy who would give you 1000-1200 yards a year. Definitely nice production from your #1 guy, but his talent is just not on the level of DT.
These are the guys in Smith's own era who have more career receiving yards than he does: Jerry Rice, Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Isaac Bruce, Tim Brown, Marvin Harrison, Chris Carter, Reggie Wayne, Torry Holt, Andre Reed, Irving Fryar, Jimmy Smith, Hines Ward, Derrick Mason, Michael Irvin, Andre Johnson, Steve Smith, and Mushin Muhammad.
That's 18 guys in Smith's own era with more productive careers than he had. And there are Broncos fans who think he should be in the Hall of Fame.
(But according to Rav I only look at things through orange-colored glasses)
Am I confusing you with someone else or were you arguing that Stats aren't everything?
I don't need to see Rod's stats, I watched him play. He was one of the steadiest, smartest receivers of his day. Denver had great running games in his time, so he didn't need to carry the entire offensive load.
If there is one thing I'm learning from Denver's season this year is that intelligence is just as, if not more important than raw physical talent.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:41 PM
I'm not taking it as a whole, you don't need to be so aggressively all-or-nothing in your fantasy what if scenario. I left Welker out because I was assuming he would be part of either group. If you are using that as an argument to say that Welker is really the only piece that matters, then I think that is an entirely different argument. But 3/4 of the group being different and still playing at this level is convincing to me.
But the argument is whether or not we have the best group of receiving threats of all time. That means looking at the entirety of our receiving threats. Just assuming Welker would be on either team completely changes the discussions. This is by nature an all-or-nothing discussion. You can't just cherry pick certain players and compare them to the same group of players on another team.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:43 PM
Am I confusing you with someone else or were you arguing that Stats aren't everything?
Rav is arguing that more strongly than I am. I think stats are a pretty important tool in comparing players at skill positions. They aren't everything, but if there were 18 guys in your era who put up better stats than you, chances are you weren't an elite player in that era.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 12:47 PM
But the argument is whether or not we have the best group of receiving threats of all time. That means looking at the entirety of our receiving threats. Just assuming Welker would be on either team completely changes the discussions. This is by nature an all-or-nothing discussion. You can't just cherry pick certain players and compare them to the same group of players on another team.
Sure we can. We can do whatever we want when we play what-if scenarios. The whole point of cherry picking is really to show that stats don't equal talent. We can use whatever scenario we like to show that.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 12:49 PM
Rav is arguing that more strongly than I am. I think stats are a pretty important tool in comparing players at skill positions. They aren't everything, but if there were 18 guys in your era who put up better stats than you, chances are you weren't an elite player in that era.
That's a pretty obtuse way of looking at it. It's also a bit contradictory. Rod was an elite receiver. I don't care about his stats, I watched him play. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:50 PM
Sure we can. We can do whatever we want when we play what-if scenarios. The whole point of cherry picking is really to show that stats don't equal talent. We can use whatever scenario we like to show that.
But the point Dread, jhns, and I are making is that we might very well have the most talented set of receiving threats ever put together. We are looking at our entire group. By cherry-picking certain players you are changing the argument. Sure you can do that if you want, but it's not a valid response to the argument we are making.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:51 PM
That's a pretty obtuse way of looking at it. It's also a bit contradictory. Rod was an elite receiver. I don't care about his stats, I watched him play. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
If Rod Smith was elite, then what were Jerry Rice, TO, Randy Moss, Tim Brown, and Chris Carter? People really overuse the word "elite". Elite should only be used to describe the absolute best of the best. Those guys were the absolute best of the best. Rod Smith was very good, but he was not on that level.
For what it's worth, when I think of the team with the best receiving threats of all-time, the first team that pops into my head would be the Randy Moss and Cris Carter led Vikings.
The undefeated Patriots pop into my head as well.
As far as the talent debate goes with DT and Rod Smith, I would like to add this. Rod Smith was an undertalented guy who produced. I assert that he was undertalented as he was undrafted. Thomas was a hyper talented player who is producing. I assert that he is a hyper-talented player as he was a first round pick who was supposedly going to get drafted higher were it not for him being such a raw prospect.
That's all I got.
Slick
10-10-2013, 12:54 PM
How many of those 18 guys had TD in the backfield or a guy of his caliber?
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 12:59 PM
How many of those 18 guys had TD in the backfield or a guy of his caliber?
Just off the top of my head looking at that list, those guys played with the likes of Emmitt Smith, Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Roger Craig, Arian Foster, Eddie George, and Edgerrin James. Some pretty good backs on that list.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 01:01 PM
For what it's worth, when I think of the team with the best receiving threats of all-time, the first team that pops into my head would be the Randy Moss and Cris Carter led Vikings.
The undefeated Patriots pop into my head as well.
Neither of those groups had a top tier TE (Andrew Glover for the Vikes, Kyle Brady for the Pats). Plus, both were handicapped by having Randy Moss on the roster...yes, I know, an old old argument of ours. I just think he was so incomplete as a ballplayer he can't ever be considered as an elite player. Lazy, tempermental, sloppy, and sullen.
I suspect we will never convince the other on his value though.
It's not wrong. We won some superbowls with those those guys and another very good QB. It's hard to have a conversation with you when you take something completely subjective and tell me it's 'wrong' as though you are some sort of multi-dimensional visionary. Eddie is big and blocked well. Rod Smith isn't as fast as DT but he's a much better route runner. Shannon Sharpe is one of the best TE's of all time.
Peyton manning is making this look easier for these guys than it is.
Manning can't make it look this easy on his own. Again, look at Brady this year. You still need guys getting open and making catches.
We won SBs with a good defense and great run game... Those receivers weren't close to as talented as this group. Smith made a living by being the hardest worker and most determined player on the field. He was never the most talented.
You guys are arguing that this passing offense, which is quickly proving to be the best ever, isn't as talented as offenses that haven't done anything close to this. How do you not see how silly your arguments are?
Slick
10-10-2013, 01:06 PM
Just off the top of my head looking at that list, those guys played with the likes of Emmitt Smith, Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Roger Craig, Arian Foster, Eddie George, and Edgerrin James. Some pretty good backs on that list.
So about half.
What about the Steelers with Swann, Stallworth and Franco Harris? The Niners with Rice, Craig, and I forget that TE's name. Ugh.
Slick
10-10-2013, 01:19 PM
What about the Steelers with Swann, Stallworth and Franco Harris? The Niners with Rice, Craig, and I forget that TE's name. Ugh.
Dwight Clark. You also forgot John Taylor.
Dwight Clark. You also forgot John Taylor.
Thank ya, Slick. You are my crutch.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 01:39 PM
It's not wrong. We won some superbowls with those those guys and another very good QB. It's hard to have a conversation with you when you take something completely subjective and tell me it's 'wrong' as though you are some sort of multi-dimensional visionary. Eddie is big and blocked well. Rod Smith isn't as fast as DT but he's a much better route runner. Shannon Sharpe is one of the best TE's of all time.
Peyton manning is making this look easier for these guys than it is.
Manning can't make it look this easy on his own. Again, look at Brady this year. You still need guys getting open and making catches.
We won SBs with a good defense and great run game... Those receivers weren't close to as talented as this group. Smith made a living by being the hardest worker and most determined player on the field. He was never the most talented.
You guys are arguing that this passing offense, which is quickly proving to be the best ever, isn't as talented as offenses that haven't done anything close to this. How do you not see how silly your arguments are?
We are back to the argument that production equals talent and that simply isn't true. The way I see Peyton Manning orchestrating this offense, doesn't appear to require tons of superstar level talent. He is finding the mismatches and picking apart defenses. He isn't throwing lots of 50 yard bombs, or throwing balls up for grabs to let his receivers make plays on.
I'm not trying to take away from the talent level of our receivers, because I find them very talented. I just feel that you could plug-in on another group of competent receivers with Peyton Manning playing the way he is, and have similar production.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 01:51 PM
For what it's worth, when I think of the team with the best receiving threats of all-time, the first team that pops into my head would be the Randy Moss and Cris Carter led Vikings.
The undefeated Patriots pop into my head as well.
As far as the talent debate goes with DT and Rod Smith, I would like to add this. Rod Smith was an undertalented guy who produced. I assert that he was undertalented as he was undrafted. Thomas was a hyper talented player who is producing. I assert that he is a hyper-talented player as he was a first round pick who was supposedly going to get drafted higher were it not for him being such a raw prospect.
That's all I got.
Maybe a better argument would be that we have the deepest good receiving corps ever put together. We have 4 guys capable of putting up 1000 yard seasons. I can't think of another team who could claim that.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 01:56 PM
We are back to the argument that production equals talent and that simply isn't true. The way I see Peyton Manning orchestrating this offense, doesn't appear to require tons of superstar level talent. He is finding the mismatches and picking apart defenses. He isn't throwing lots of 50 yard bombs, or throwing balls up for grabs to let his receivers make plays on.
I'm not trying to take away from the talent level of our receivers, because I find them very talented. I just feel that you could plug-in on another group of competent receivers with Peyton Manning playing the way he is, and have similar production.
So your argument, then is that Peyton Manning is more talented now than he has ever been in his career? It's either that or he has his best group of talent around him ever. One of those two things has to explain why he is playing at a higher level than he ever has.
The argument that he exploits mismatches defeats itself. The mismatches occur because of the player that he is throwing to. Ergo, the talented positional player is clearly assisting him.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 02:09 PM
We are back to the argument that production equals talent and that simply isn't true. The way I see Peyton Manning orchestrating this offense, doesn't appear to require tons of superstar level talent. He is finding the mismatches and picking apart defenses. He isn't throwing lots of 50 yard bombs, or throwing balls up for grabs to let his receivers make plays on.
I'm not trying to take away from the talent level of our receivers, because I find them very talented. I just feel that you could plug-in on another group of competent receivers with Peyton Manning playing the way he is, and have similar production.
There is some truth here, in that, perhaps what Peyton Manning demands, and what showcases his own amazing talent best, is less things like speed and pure athletic ability but discipline, hard work, a very high football IQ, and the ability to see the same things Manning sees and to act accordingly. When you have multiple guys who can all do this you end up with guys open all day long all over the field. A single "shut down" CB becomes almost almost worthless, because there are three other receivers equally dangerous. Double teaming doesn't help. You have to cover too many guys to be able to blitz. Its frankly impossible. You have to hope you are lucky, and that's a poor strategy.
Now, our receiving corps also has a lot of physical talent, size, and speed, but that's just bonus and makes things even worse. What we don't have is any loafers who take plays off because they aren't the primary target, or who run lazy routes because they don't feel like doing it right because its harder or who run the wrong route because they are stupid. Those kind of WR's would not thrive in this offense.
We are back to the argument that production equals talent and that simply isn't true. The way I see Peyton Manning orchestrating this offense, doesn't appear to require tons of superstar level talent. He is finding the mismatches and picking apart defenses. He isn't throwing lots of 50 yard bombs, or throwing balls up for grabs to let his receivers make plays on.
I'm not trying to take away from the talent level of our receivers, because I find them very talented. I just feel that you could plug-in on another group of competent receivers with Peyton Manning playing the way he is, and have similar production.
Production does equal talent. You aren't going to produce the best numbers with mediocre talent. That is even true with a HoF QB leading the team. Again, look at the Patriots. Not throwing deep a lot is proof of this teams talent. Why do you think other teams can't make these easy completions all the time? It's because they don't constantly have receivers running open in the first 2.5 seconds of a play.
You can't put up all time great numbers without all time great talent. Period.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 04:35 PM
Production does equal talent. You aren't going to produce the best numbers with mediocre talent. That is even true with a HoF QB leading the team. Again, look at the Patriots. Not throwing deep a lot is proof of this teams talent. Why do you think other teams can't make these easy completions all the time? It's because they don't constantly have receivers running open in the first 2.5 seconds of a play.
You can't put up all time great numbers without all time great talent. Period.
Production equals talent? Tell that to Clinton Portis or Peyton Hillis. You can get good numbers at of mediocre talent IMHO. That's the only reason why Brandon Lloyd went to the pro-bowl. That's Belicheats bread-and-butter.
I'm not saying that you can't have any talent, just that you don't have to be a superstar if the rest of the pieces are clicking. If you get accurate passes thrown your way when mismatches are being exploited, then all you have to do is catch the ball for the most part.
I think other teams aren't doing it because they don't have PFM making the changes and reads for them. Poor them.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 04:37 PM
There is some truth here, in that, perhaps what Peyton Manning demands, and what showcases his own amazing talent best, is less things like speed and pure athletic ability but discipline, hard work, a very high football IQ, and the ability to see the same things Manning sees and to act accordingly. When you have multiple guys who can all do this you end up with guys open all day long all over the field. A single "shut down" CB becomes almost almost worthless, because there are three other receivers equally dangerous. Double teaming doesn't help. You have to cover too many guys to be able to blitz. Its frankly impossible. You have to hope you are lucky, and that's a poor strategy.
Now, our receiving corps also has a lot of physical talent, size, and speed, but that's just bonus and makes things even worse. What we don't have is any loafers who take plays off because they aren't the primary target, or who run lazy routes because they don't feel like doing it right because its harder or who run the wrong route because they are stupid. Those kind of WR's would not thrive in this offense.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. The production begins with Peyton manning, and the guys he's dishing the ball to are beneficiaries of what he is doing right now. DT and Decker are not all of sudden different receivers this year, they are producing more because things are clicking more, and that starts with the QB.
Our receivers are talented, I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying that with the way Peyton is playing, I think you could plug in many different competent receivers from other teams and get similar production. It simply isn't proof to me that this receiving corp is the best of all time. Not anymore so than Romo's receiving corp is the best of all time.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 04:41 PM
The argument that he exploits mismatches defeats itself. The mismatches occur because of the player that he is throwing to. Ergo, the talented positional player is clearly assisting him.
I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that is right. A mismatch isn't a necessarily a mismatch because of the talent level of the receiver. There are defensive schemes in man-on-man, blitz packages and zones that are vulnerable to certain routes and timing. Peyton is seeing those with a clarity that I don't think I've seen him play with before.
edit; Sorry for all the multiple posts, I took my boy to meet the mythbusters at the Denver Museum today and haven't had a chance to respond to all my antagonists in real time.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 04:43 PM
So your argument, then is that Peyton Manning is more talented now than he has ever been in his career? It's either that or he has his best group of talent around him ever. One of those two things has to explain why he is playing at a higher level than he ever has.
If I HAD to pick one of these, I would say that he is playing better than he ever has in his career, yes. And that's even considering his arm strength is nothing like it used to be.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 04:43 PM
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. The production begins with Peyton manning, and the guys he's dishing the ball to are beneficiaries of what he is doing right now. DT and Decker are not all of sudden different receivers this year, they are producing more because things are clicking more, and that starts with the QB.
Our receivers are talented, I'm not denying that. I'm simply saying that with the way Peyton is playing, I think you could plug in many different competent receivers from other teams and get similar production. It simply isn't proof to me that this receiving corp is the best of all time. Not anymore so than Romo's receiving corp is the best of all time.
That said, the ability to "click" with a guy like Manning is a form of talent all its own. Might not show up in 40 times or a verticle, but not everyone has that. Our receivers do have that. It takes a while to make it happen, and just plugging in a new guy isn't going to work all that well. Unless, maybe, his name is Wes Welker
wayninja
10-10-2013, 04:46 PM
That said, the ability to "click" with a guy like Manning is a form of talent all its own. Might not show up in 40 times or a verticle, but not everyone has that. Our receivers do have that. It takes a while to make it happen, and just plugging in a new guy isn't going to work all that well. Unless, maybe, his name is Wes Welker
I agree with this. I would make the caveat to my argument that Manning and whatever receiver you wish to fantasy-substitute get the same reps/game experience that current receivers have. Ceteris Paribus.
I'm not trying to say that you could make the changes to the receivers mid-game and expect the same chemistry, sorry if that wasn't clear.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 05:03 PM
But the point Dread, jhns, and I are making is that we might very well have the most talented set of receiving threats ever put together. We are looking at our entire group. By cherry-picking certain players you are changing the argument. Sure you can do that if you want, but it's not a valid response to the argument we are making.
You are doing that by plugging in different 'groups' of receivers to our current team. So you can do it, but I can't?
I guess if you are saying it's invalid to do that because it breaks up the group, I'll argue that it can't be done at all because it's changing QB's.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 05:30 PM
You are doing that by plugging in different 'groups' of receivers to our current team. So you can do it, but I can't?
I guess if you are saying it's invalid to do that because it breaks up the group, I'll argue that it can't be done at all because it's changing QB's.
Huh? I'm comparing our entire receiving group to the entire receiving groups of other teams. You're leaving out Welker in your comparisons because you can't find comparisons to him on other teams. This is where the disconnect is. You have to compare all of Manning's weapons to all of the weapons of another team to see which group is better. You can't just say "well Smith/EddieMac/Sharpe are better than DT/Decker/JT, so Elway had better weapons to work with". You have to throw in Welker and whoever Elway's other big receiving threat(s) was or it's not fully comparing the surrounding skill players. To be honest, I don't even remember who the 3rd WR on that team was.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 05:38 PM
Huh? I'm comparing our entire receiving group to the entire receiving groups of other teams. You're leaving out Welker in your comparisons because you can't find comparisons to him on other teams. This is where the disconnect is. You have to compare all of Manning's weapons to all of the weapons of another team to see which group is better. You can't just say "well Smith/EddieMac/Sharpe are better than DT/Decker/JT, so Elway had better weapons to work with". You have to throw in Welker and whoever Elway's other big receiving threat(s) was or it's not fully comparing the surrounding skill players. To be honest, I don't even remember who the 3rd WR on that team was.
My argument is that we could have equivalent production with different receivers. It's starting to sound like you are saying that the production we are getting proves that we have the best receivers of all time. I'm not going to start comparing teams because there is too many other variables, and I simply don't believe that numbers make the receivers the 'best'.
The last thought I'll leave you with. We aren't even half way through the season. If the trend continues, you may have a good argument, but not at 5 games.
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 05:43 PM
Huh? I'm comparing our entire receiving group to the entire receiving groups of other teams. You're leaving out Welker in your comparisons because you can't find comparisons to him on other teams. This is where the disconnect is. You have to compare all of Manning's weapons to all of the weapons of another team to see which group is better. You can't just say "well Smith/EddieMac/Sharpe are better than DT/Decker/JT, so Elway had better weapons to work with". You have to throw in Welker and whoever Elway's other big receiving threat(s) was or it's not fully comparing the surrounding skill players. To be honest, I don't even remember who the 3rd WR on that team was.
It was Willie Green in '98. He was OK. A pro. Not a stiff like Marcus Nash.
Just as a note, that "Classic" lineup of Smith, McCaffrey, and Sharpe only really played with Elway for 2 seasons, and Sharpe got hurt early in '99 and went to the Ratbirds in 2000. In 1996 Rod Smith was a benchwarmer, and McCaffrey was a clear 3rd choice after Sharpe and Anthony Miller.
It amazes me how I will tend to think of a lineup of guys (in any sport) as having been together for a long time, but when I actually look back it often was a pretty short window
Dreadnought
10-10-2013, 05:48 PM
My argument is that we could have equivalent production with different receivers. It's starting to sound like you are saying that the production we are getting proves that we have the best receivers of all time. I'm not going to start comparing teams because there is too many other variables, and I simply don't believe that numbers make the receivers the 'best'.
The last thought I'll leave you with. We aren't even half way through the season. If the trend continues, you may have a good argument, but not at 5 games.
That's where we differ. I think this bunch, in their third year together for the WR's and second with PMFM, is pretty unique. I don't think we could easily plug some other guy, even a very good guy, into this lineup after the season and not experience a dropoff in 2014. Assuming PMFM decides to hang around, God willing. Hopefully to try to repeat, if you get my meaning.
MOtorboat
10-10-2013, 05:49 PM
Demaryius Thomas is the most talented wide receiver to ever put on a Denver uniform. Pains me to say it, but I'd put Marshall at No. 2. On pure talent.
Now, Thomas has a ways to go before he's the best receiver Denver has ever had, but it won't be long playing at this level.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 05:52 PM
Demaryius Thomas is the most talented wide receiver to ever put on a Denver uniform. Pains me to say it, but I'd put Marshall at No. 2. On pure talent.
Now, Thomas has a ways to go before he's the best receiver Denver has ever had, but it won't be long playing at this level.
Completely agree. DT and Marshall are by far the two most talented WRs I have seen play here. Throwing in tight ends, I'd probably put Sharpe at #3.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 06:04 PM
Demaryius Thomas is the most talented wide receiver to ever put on a Denver uniform. Pains me to say it, but I'd put Marshall at No. 2. On pure talent.
Now, Thomas has a ways to go before he's the best receiver Denver has ever had, but it won't be long playing at this level.
As much as it pains me to say it, that's not much of an endorsement. It's not like Denver has been known for superstar receivers.
Having said that, I agree that he is probably one of the most physically talented receivers Denver has had, and he's not yet really all that close to being the best. He can be the best, but there's a lot of career left.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 06:05 PM
Completely agree. DT and Marshall are by far the two most talented WRs I have seen play here. Throwing in tight ends, I'd probably put Sharpe at #3.
Sharpe is more talented based on position than Marshall. In other words, Sharpe is more talented a TE than Marshall is a WR. At least as it stands now. I'm sure I'm in the minority as usual.
I am going to speak complete heresy here. For me, if I had to pick Harrison + Wayne, at their peak, or DT + Decker its an easy choice. DT + Decker, every time. Harrison was smallish, wasn't that hard to tackle, and wasn't great at YAC, and neither he nor Wayne blocked a lick. I think DT is clearly superior to either of those guys, because he can do everything they could do as well as they could, plus some. I think Decker is only marginally less good than DT - a little less pure speed, and a little less reliable, but probably runs better routes. Harrison and Wayne benefitted hugely from having PMFM throw to them virtually their entire careers.
Throw in Welker and JT and Manning has better weapons now than then.
I can see the argument for DT>Harrison, though the jury's still out since Thomas is at the start of his career. But not Decker>Wayne; no way. He may run better routes than DT (Harrison certainly did,) but not Wayne, and, again, Decker fumbles a LOT more. I got curious enough to look it up: Wayne has 9 career fumbles; Decker already has 6, and also drops more. Again I cite Bob Hayes: Worlds fastest man; hands like the Venus de Milo. And Decker's not nearly as fast.
If (IF) Welker's better than Stokley in his prime, it's not by much, and teams don't fear JT like they once did Clark. Maybe they will come December, but right now Orange Julius is more comparable to Aaron Hernandez a few years ago, and we all see how THAT'S going right now.
In the conversation of having one of the greatest seasons....or in the conversation of having the most talent?? I mean, are you guys looking at this through orange goggles?
Seems like that's often the operative question around here. Granted, more than a few folks prefer to see the glass as half empty so they don't get carried away (not that I know anyone like that,) but it feels like many DO get carried away with our undeniably impressive tools. We're just 5 games in; lots of things—good and bad—can and do lie ahead of us. One game at a time, marathon not a sprint, etc. etc.
Rav, no one is only basing this argument on stats. Notice I said DT is a top 5 TALENT. JT is playing like a top 5 TALENT. Welker is the most TALENTED slot WR in the league. Yes, I said the stats they are on pace for would make them hard to argue against. But I am also saying they are all super talented as well. I base this on watching them play. Give us a little more credit than only reading a stat sheet.
I did notice that; all our receivers being among the top 5 (or whatever) RIGHT NOW=/=our receivers collectively being the best ever. It's really hard to imagine a scenario where a team had the best receiving corps ever without at least one head and shoulders above everyone else playing his position at the time. Which, incidentally, probably excludes the '04 Colts, though the case could be made Harrison was the NFLs best WR then. Having scanned the rest of the thread now, it looks like Rav made the same point, so I'll just say, "ditto."
talk about over rated... Andre Johnson.
Hold on now, that's unfair. Most of his career Johnson WAS Houstons passing game, and everyone knew it. That meant he was constantly double covered, jammed at the line and leveled on receptions. Since this follows someone elses claim Rod Smith being overrated, a convenient comparison is to Rod in the Plummer era, when our #2s were very fast but unreliable wash outs. I still contend Plummers flutterballs leading Rod into LBs and safeties prematurely ended his career: That IS Johnson's career. It's gotten better recently, but that kind of pounding takes a toll; small wonder he's not what he once was.
Just off the top of my head looking at that list, those guys played with the likes of Emmitt Smith, Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, Jerome Bettis, Roger Craig, Arian Foster, Eddie George, and Edgerrin James. Some pretty good backs on that list.
Sure, but most weren't at Davis' rarefied level. Based on playoff performance, none were, though Smith and Craig came close. They Thomas and MAYBE Faullk are the only one's near Davis' level.
What about the Steelers with Swann, Stallworth and Franco Harris? The Niners with Rice, Craig, and I forget that TE's name. Ugh.
Much as I hate that group, I'd probably have to give it to the '9ers, and not just because it puts Montana in perspective (and makes Rice that much more jaw-dropping to post THOSE numbers with THAT kind of competition for the ball.) Dallas had a good group with Irvin, Harper, Novacek and Smith, too, and with Pearson, Hill, Dupree and Dorsett, but very few teams have had stellar talent in three different WRs, a TE and a RB all at once. The late '80s/early '90s Oilers had tons of great WRs, but no TEs (literally) and nothing like that at RB.
I dunno; "best ever" covers an increasingly large group. Are any of our guys, or Harrison or Wayne, even Rice, better than, say, Mac Speedie, or Don Hutson? Heaven knows, but probably no one else; how many people have seen all of them play? Let's just stick to the ones (Peyton) Manning saw from field level; much fewer variables to identify, let alone define.
It's hard to convincingly argue DT, Decker, Wesler, JT and Moreno are better, collectively, than Harrison, Wayne, Stokley, Clark and James. Scanning the roster, they had a pretty good #2 TE in Marcus Pollard, too (then again, Dreesen would be a #1 on any other team; he was in Houstons high-powered passing game.) If they are, it wasn't by much, and as good or better an argument can be made the other way.
The real bottom line is those other guys were REALLY good, went 12-4, hung 49 pts on us in the playoffs—and lost to the Pats by 17 in the divisional round. Only managed a FG, in fact. Eyes on the prize.... ;)
TXBRONC
10-10-2013, 06:21 PM
Why? I don't recall him saying you could take away anything? Stats are stats, there is no asterix based on who is throwing to you, but to say who is throwing to you doesn't matter is silly.
I think a lot of guys out there have mad talent, but if they don't get the ball, they may never be truly recognized. The opposite is also true. Where is Brandon Lloyd again?
Well, I tried to get in an 'edit' that to "discount" his records since he obviously had 2 HoF QBs throughout his career.
There are two ways to look at what Dread says. You are better because of who's throwing to you...which is true to a point but could discount everything Rice accomplished unless you accept #2... which is.... you can see the reason the QB threw the ball to you was because you were good/great....open.
Guys all this attention you're showing Dread is going to go to his head. :D
wayninja
10-10-2013, 06:30 PM
Meh, it's nice to talk to someone who can look at it from your perspective and doesn't have to flatly call you dumb or wrong.
MOtorboat
10-10-2013, 06:33 PM
As much as it pains me to say it, that's not much of an endorsement. It's not like Denver has been known for superstar receivers.
Having said that, I agree that he is probably one of the most physically talented receivers Denver has had, and he's not yet really all that close to being the best. He can be the best, but there's a lot of career left.
After I wrote that, I thought to myself, someone's going to come back with someone I forgot, so I looked on pro-football-reference...and no...Denver hasn't had the most talented receivers in the league.
That said, it may not be an endorsement compared to the receivers in the history of this team, but he ranks up there with the most talented receivers in the league right now, and I think currently the league has the best receivers its ever seen, in terms of depth of talent.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 06:36 PM
After I wrote that, I thought to myself, someone's going to come back with someone I forgot, so I looked on pro-football-reference...and no...Denver hasn't had the most talented receivers in the league.
That said, it may not be an endorsement compared to the receivers in the history of this team, but he ranks up there with the most talented receivers in the league right now, and I think currently the league has the best receivers its ever seen, in terms of depth of talent.
I think DT is easily in the top 4 in current WR talent along with CJ, AJ, and Julio. As far as physical gifts at the WR position go, those guys are the creme of the crop right now.
BroncoWave
10-10-2013, 06:38 PM
You can throw in Dez too. Forgot about him.
I'm no expert, but I'm not sure that is right. A mismatch isn't a necessarily a mismatch because of the talent level of the receiver. There are defensive schemes in man-on-man, blitz packages and zones that are vulnerable to certain routes and timing. Peyton is seeing those with a clarity that I don't think I've seen him play with before.
edit; Sorry for all the multiple posts, I took my boy to meet the mythbusters at the Denver Museum today and haven't had a chance to respond to all my antagonists in real time.
A mismatch typically occurs because the player guarding the offensive player can't deal the scenario. While I wouldn't debate that your point is void of merit, because I think your point DOES have merit to it, the player is the one whose skillset forces the existence of the mismatch. Let's say that the WR is just too quick to jam with press coverage. That's because of the player. Or let's say that the player just too tall for a superb, albeit shorter corner, corner to cover. The list could go on and on. Again, I understand your point, and it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss it.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 11:17 PM
A mismatch typically occurs because the player guarding the offensive player can't deal the scenario. While I wouldn't debate that your point is void of merit, because I think your point DOES have merit to it, the player is the one whose skillset forces the existence of the mismatch. Let's say that the WR is just too quick to jam with press coverage. That's because of the player. Or let's say that the player just too tall for a superb, albeit shorter corner, corner to cover. The list could go on and on. Again, I understand your point, and it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss it.
That's true, maybe my problem was saying 'mismatch'. That very word implies an imbalance of skill between offense and defense.
I don't think I know the word. What is it when Manning knows the defense will blitz and audibles a Screen (where there really is no one defending the catch), that goes for 60 yards?
Manning is certainly dialing up mismatches, but he's also finding receivers that are simply uncovered. That's not a 'mismatch', that's an outright manipulation of the defensive scheme. Again, we have lots of talent, and I qualify again that I'm a fan of football, not a football expert, but what I'm seeing seems to be the Peyton Manning show. No disrespect to the the receivers, but Manning is on another level right now. If you take into consideration that his arm looks basically as weak or weaker than I've ever seen it, that means he's doing it all with his acquired knowledge and intuition. He's simply playing chess out there and crushing defenses.
That's true, maybe my problem was saying 'mismatch'. That very word implies an imbalance of skill between offense and defense.
I don't think I know the word. What is it when Manning knows the defense will blitz and audibles a Screen (where there really is no one defending the catch), that goes for 60 yards?
Manning is certainly dialing up mismatches, but he's also finding receivers that are simply uncovered. That's not a 'mismatch', that's an outright manipulation of the defensive scheme. Again, we have lots of talent, and I qualify again that I'm a fan of football, not a football expert, but what I'm seeing seems to be the Peyton Manning show. No disrespect to the the receivers, but Manning is on another level right now. If you take into consideration that his arm looks basically as weak or weaker than I've ever seen it, that means he's doing it all with his acquired knowledge and intuition. He's simply playing chess out there and crushing defenses.
I think I know what you mean. In this instance, Peyton is so attuned to the defense's strategy that he knows what the perfect counter is. Therefore, it might not matter who the player is, so long as they can perform the basic task of being a WR, or a TE, etc etc etc. Where you and I differ is how much the talent of the player matters. Peyton might audible the play in a manner that calls for a quick speedy WR, or Welker. Or, it might be a physically imposing bruiser, like Thomas. Or, it could be a play that needs a little of both, like Decker. Regardless, I often think that when he does this, he has the play in mind, and the type of player that best accentuates the play.
I also believe that with so many weapons, this makes it easier for Manning. If you note my examples above in regards to the skillsets and abilities of the players, your team seems to have them all covered. We cannot divorce this reality from the scenario.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 11:35 PM
That's where we differ. I think this bunch, in their third year together for the WR's and second with PMFM, is pretty unique. I don't think we could easily plug some other guy, even a very good guy, into this lineup after the season and not experience a dropoff in 2014. Assuming PMFM decides to hang around, God willing. Hopefully to try to repeat, if you get my meaning.
Well, that's why I said that I'm assuming the same reps with Manning. So if I could have plugged in any receiver, of any era, in 2011, to come out playing in 2013, it's unlikely that I'd choose the corp we have now. That's really all I'm saying.
There are guys out there with more raw physical skill than the guys we have now. The guys we have now are posting sick numbers because Manning is posting sick numbers. Normally I'd call this a chicken and egg argument, but it'll be tough to convince me the Manning doesn't come before the DT.
The fact that any 'group' goes down as the greatest largely depends on their stats and their success. Which have many more variables than just the raw talent of the physical receivers. You might convince me that 'raw talent' wise, DT and Welker stand out in our corp, but they are hardly leaps and bounds above other receivers just in this era. That's not to say that you could just plug in any schmoe off the street and see 7 TD games. I'm just saying you could've plugged in a number of 'different' receivers in 2011 and come out with the same production we are seeing now. I don't want to name those receivers, because I think the list is longer than people want to give it credit for.
wayninja
10-10-2013, 11:38 PM
I think I know what you mean. In this instance, Peyton is so attuned to the defense's strategy that he knows what the perfect counter is. Therefore, it might not matter who the player is, so long as they can perform the basic task of being a WR, or a TE, etc etc etc. Where you and I differ is how much the talent of the player matters. Peyton might audible the play in a manner that calls for a quick speedy WR, or Welker. Or, it might be a physically imposing bruiser, like Thomas. Or, it could be a play that needs a little of both, like Decker. Regardless, I often think that when he does this, he has the play in mind, and the type of player that best accentuates the play.
I also believe that with so many weapons, this makes it easier for Manning. If you note my examples above in regards to the skillsets and abilities of the players, your team seems to have them all covered. We cannot divorce this reality from the scenario.
Yes, absolutely, and this comes back to where I said that talent isn't irrelevant, just that I think that Peyton could do this with a good number of competent receivers playing today. I'm not saying that you could just plug someone in tomorrow and get that production, but I am saying that I think you could have plugged them in in 2011 and be getting that production now. Chemistry, timing, 'being on the same page' and knowing the others mind doesn't happen over night.
Really good quarterbacks have a tendency to make their receivers look good. That's not to say that they AREN'T actually good, just that you need to temper your analysis with the fact that you are being led by possibly the greatest QB of all time playing at his absolute best.
Yes, absolutely, and this comes back to where I said that talent isn't irrelevant, just that I think that Peyton could do this with a good number of competent receivers playing today. I'm not saying that you could just plug someone in tomorrow and get that production, but I am saying that I think you could have plugged them in in 2011 and be getting that production now. Chemistry, timing, 'being on the same page' and knowing the others mind doesn't happen over night.
Really good quarterbacks have a tendency to make their receivers look good. That's not to say that they AREN'T actually good, just that you need to temper your analysis with the fact that you are being led by possibly the greatest QB of all time playing at his absolute best.
We have reached a respectful concurrence that is coupled with a respectful dissent. This discussion was thoroughly enjoyable.
Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-11-2013, 12:33 AM
I'm inclined to agree with Kings concept. If teams weren't always rolling safeties to DT the middle of the field wouldn't be so wide open.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.