PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: Julius Thomas is critical piece in Broncos offense



Denver Native (Carol)
01-06-2015, 05:50 PM
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. – The most important Denver Broncos offensive player in Sunday's divisional playoff game against the Indianapolis Colts isn't Peyton Manning.

Yes, Manning will again generate the most buzz as he heads into his third game against his former team, this time with far bigger stakes than the prior two regular-season games.

But for Manning to snap out of his late-season passing slump, he desperately needs Julius Thomas to return to his early-season form.

AND


It is not a coincidence that Manning's slump – six interceptions and only one game with more than 300 passing yards in the last six weeks -- coincided with Thomas suffering an ankle injury early in a loss to the St. Louis Rams on Nov. 16. Thomas missed three games, and didn't score in the three games since he returned. He has only three catches for 33 yards since first injuring the ankle.

full article - http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/broncos/2015/01/06/denver-peyton-manning-julius-thomas-divisional-round-analysis/21349205/

Joel
01-06-2015, 05:57 PM
Someone tell Lindsay she misspelled "Virgil Green." Badly. :tongue:

GEM
01-06-2015, 05:59 PM
Someone tell Lindsay she misspelled "Virgil Green." Badly. :tongue:

Don't let Clay do it!

GEM
01-06-2015, 06:01 PM
They're both keys to the offense, Joel. Maybe we could let all the top paid offensive wr's/te's go, grab all offensive line and hope that the offensive line can put 35 on the board on their own.

:laugh:

Joel
01-06-2015, 06:31 PM
It's happened plenty of times for plenty of teams; remember Olandis Gary? No one outside Denver does. ;)

I get and appreciate your point, but the trenches are the LAST place any winning team chooses as unavoidable slough stat. Everyone needs playmakers, but the only place it's a good idea to START wth them is Madden and fantasy football: In the real thing, it all starts (or doesn't) at the line. Denvers All Pro line won repeat SBs when maybe the greatest all around QB EVER couldn't. Mediocre QBs like Starr and Bradshaw won multiple SBs riding lines that shut out the Doomsday D and Purple People Eaters. Dallas had a the Triplets a long time after they lost their linemen—but no more SBs, nor even appearances.

Think of it this way: Remember how we spent a decade or more screaming for legit DTs and pass rushers (OK, I was just screaming for the DTs; not the point.) Well, who keeps those stud "DL" from stuffing even the best offense for 60 solid minutes? Think Seattles front four dominates our '97 line from kickoff to gun WITHOUT EVEN BLITZING?! And a line really is only as strong as its weakest link; a team can have four All Pros, but the whole front seven will just pour through that ONE hole and right over the poor scrub failing to fill it.

Coaches can compensate for deficiencies at one or two "skill" positions by leaning more heavily on strengths at others, but if the line can't block well enough to produce a decent passing game, it's not like the coach can just air it out behind blocking that's still every bit as bad. Great running can carry great passing or vice versa: NOTHING can carry bad blocking, because EVERYTHING depends on blocking.

GEM
01-06-2015, 06:33 PM
Where do you get them is the question, Joel? On short notice how do you replace them? You've moaned all year about the offensive line...how do you fix it?

turftoad
01-06-2015, 06:39 PM
Joel, for Christ sakes, there are receiving TE's and blocking TE's. They have different roles on their own teams. There are very, very few that do both great. Same with RB's.
Shannon Sharpe wasn't the best blocker but man could he catch the ball. We may have not won any Championships without him.
Ya know, you bring most of your backlash apon yourself.

Joel
01-06-2015, 06:45 PM
Where do you get them is the question, Joel? On short notice how do you replace them? You've moaned all year about the offensive line...how do you fix it?
I'm no draftnik, but from last years playoffs till Draft Day everyone who DOES follow that stuff said that draft was loaded with offensive line talent. They all said the same thing of 2012s guards, more than a few of whom guards are starting on playoff teams. Remember when everyone laughed at Dallas drafting a CENTER in the 1st? They're the only NFCE team laughing now.

There were a ton of good FA linemen available last year, too; I still like Asamoah best because he's a road grader inside, and Schwartz because he's been a quality starter at both guard and OT, and those are just the guys we could've raided from ONE DIVISION RIVAL for $2 million/yr. Above average guards are often available cheap because everyone's so focused on passing now they shell out for OTs but ignore guards (with the notable exception of Vasquez, we've done that, so tons of scrub OTs warm our bench, but the next man up at guard's a converted DT who's barely been in the NFL.)

There were PLENTY of fine options in the last TWO drafts AND free agency: We weren't forced to decline all of them but Vasquez, it was a calculated decision. One made all the more inexplicably inexcusable since the coaches have both publically said and proven by shuffling they KNEW last years shoddy line cost us a championship—why reshuffle a hand KNOWN to be bad when there are many better options?

Joel
01-06-2015, 06:50 PM
Joel, for Christ sakes, there are receiving TE's and blocking TE's. They have different roles on their own teams. There are very, very few that do both great. Same with RB's.
Shannon Sharpe wasn't the best blocker but man could he catch the ball. We may have not won any Championships without him.
Ya know, you bring most of your backlash apon yourself.
Even receiving TEs can get in the way for a second or two, especially when 6½' tall and 250 lbs. We have multiple All Pro WRs: What we NEED is an All Pro TE. Orange Julius not only isn't our best blocking TE, he's not even our best blocking THOMAS; I just don't see the massive value in a guy trying to DTs job better than him when DT does both jobs far better. If he wants to be a WR, fine: Let's make him the #3/4 WR he is, pay him accordingly, and spend the difference on an ACTUAL TE.

Putting it altogether: Maybe we could get away with a "possession TE" or "red zone threat" who "can't block the sun out of his eyes" (to quote Shannon, since you brought him up)—IF we had five solid blockers on the line; instead, we end up shouting "PASS!" every time we send out Orange Julius and "RUN!" every time we send out Virgil Green and a 6th OT to make up for lacking a 2nd G. Might as well hand opponents our playbook. Same reason I don't want the "one-two punch" of a RB who runs but can't pick up blitzers or catch alternating with one who does those things but can't run: Predictable=dead.

turftoad
01-06-2015, 07:09 PM
Even receiving TEs can get in the way for a second or two, especially when 6½' tall and 250 lbs. We have multiple All Pro WRs: What we NEED is an All Pro TE. Orange Julius not only isn't our best blocking TE, he's not even our best blocking THOMAS; I just don't see the massive value in a guy trying to DTs job better than him when DT does both jobs far better. If he wants to be a WR, fine: Let's make him the #3/4 WR he is, pay him accordingly, and spend the difference on an ACTUAL TE.

Putting it altogether: Maybe we could get away with a "possession TE" or "red zone threat" who "can't block the sun out of his eyes" (to quote Shannon, since you brought him up)—IF we had five solid blockers on the line; instead, we end up shouting "PASS!" every time we send out Orange Julius and "RUN!" every time we send out Virgil Green and a 6th OT to make up for lacking a 2nd G. Might as well hand opponents our playbook. Same reason I don't want the "one-two punch" of a RB who runs but can't pick up blitzers or catch alternating with one who does those things but can't run: Predictable=dead.

Man, it's to bad we can't just have 53 All Pro's on the team. :tsk:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-06-2015, 07:22 PM
I don't care about Manning's stats. I care about the fact we're 5-0 when Virgil is featured, and 7-4 when Thomas is featured.

GEM
01-06-2015, 07:25 PM
Yea cause so many teams hit on every single one of other draft picks. :laugh:

Joel, this is football...not some book of football. Everything you say sounds good in a book, but it's not how it really goes. Good players in college bust in the NFL, it happens. If you think that the Broncos could have built an all pro at every position on oline and dline with a few all pro FA's in two years...you're smoking crack. That's the only way to say it and it be real.

GEM
01-06-2015, 07:26 PM
I don't care about Manning's stats. I care about the fact we're 5-0 when Virgil is featured, and 7-4 when Thomas is featured.

Why can't we feature both? How is the record when Julius was healthy and Virgil was healthy at the same time. We can have 2 TE's on the field, it's not completely unheard of.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
01-06-2015, 07:34 PM
Why can't we feature both? How is the record when Julius was healthy and Virgil was healthy at the same time. We can have 2 TE's on the field, it's not completely unheard of.

I lIke the idea of using him solely as a receiver. He should only be out wide or in the slot.

Joel
01-06-2015, 07:50 PM
Man, it's to bad we can't just have 53 All Pro's on the team. :tsk:
Just not see this, or choose to ignore it? http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/595414-Analysis-Julius-Thomas-is-critical-piece-in-Broncos-offense?p=2294864#post2294864

The cap and FA force every team to prioritize; those who don't prioritize the trench get high draft picks to correct that error next year.

Yea cause so many teams hit on every single one of other draft picks. :laugh:
This isn't about Franklin being a bust (though I'm always happy to discuss that.) Sure, draft picks can and often are busts: At EVERY position, including the all-important "skill" positions that trump linemen in every fantasy league and no ACTUAL league. But it's like the lottery: The odds are always bad, but they're 0 for people who DON'T BUY A TICKET. I can't guarantee we'll get a stud guard or OT if we draft one early in the 1st or 2nd—but YOU can't guarantee we'll get a stud WR, QB, RB, DE, CB or whatever there. The only thing drafting one of those spots does is guarantee it WON'T be a stud guard.

Drafting a projected RT with the THIRD ROUNDS next to LAST pick in a draft STACKED with linemen isn't "buying a ticket," it's "cashing out." NO quality OTs in a linemen-deep passing leagues draft last for 95 picks; maybe Schofield will become a star EVENTUALLY, but not before PFM's spending gameday on his couch. You asked where to get starting quality linemen: I told you three different places in the last two seasons; they offered no more guarantees than Latimer did, but with MANY fine choices there was a good chance of getting a good one with decent scouting.

Then there's the quality FAs like Asamoah and Schwartz; we don't have to wonder what they'll do in the NFL, since they'd been doing it against US twice/season for several years.


Joel, this is football...not some book of football. Everything you say sounds good in a book, but it's not how it really goes. Good players in college bust in the NFL, it happens. If you think that the Broncos could have built an all pro at every position on oline and dline with a few all pro FA's in two years...you're smoking crack. That's the only way to say it and it be real.
Right: It's REAL football, not some fantasy league where teams consist solely of QBs, RB, receivers and "defense," and not some Madden Franchise Mode that can just grab a Pro Bowl QB, WR, CB and DE, edit their stats to 99 and win 10 straight SBs with no line. Blocking MATTERS in reality, more than any other single thing, because it's the ONLY single thing on which the whole offense relies. That doesn't just come from books, though every book since Instant Replay says the same. Starr was before my time, but I didn't cite Bradshaw, Elway and Aikmans records from books: I watched them HAPPEN. In reality.

Sure, I've done my share of reading: Everything on this SITE'S reading about football, though I only wish all of it were as astute as other things. I've read and watched pro football extensively for three decades or more; isn't it a little backward to suggest that IMPAIRS rather than INCREASES understanding? Who do you think WROTE all those books, Costas, or PLAYERS?

No, I've never played anything but pickup games; my HS wasn't bad enough the freshman team needed 12-year-olds, and they won't let seniors play on the freshman team. What can I say; I'm sorry I tested at a post-HS reading level before halfway through third grade, and at least 3 grades higher in ALL subjects. Wait, no: I'm not sorry at all, just bemused at the notion it's some twisted proof of idiocy and/or madness.

7DnBrnc53
01-06-2015, 07:59 PM
It's happened plenty of times for plenty of teams; remember Olandis Gary? No one outside Denver does. ;)

I get and appreciate your point, but the trenches are the LAST place any winning team chooses as unavoidable slough stat. Everyone needs playmakers, but the only place it's a good idea to START wth them is Madden and fantasy football: In the real thing, it all starts (or doesn't) at the line. Denvers All Pro line won repeat SBs when maybe the greatest all around QB EVER couldn't. Mediocre QBs like Starr and Bradshaw won multiple SBs riding lines that shut out the Doomsday D and Purple People Eaters. Dallas had a the Triplets a long time after they lost their linemen—but no more SBs, nor even appearances.

Think of it this way: Remember how we spent a decade or more screaming for legit DTs and pass rushers (OK, I was just screaming for the DTs; not the point.) Well, who keeps those stud "DL" from stuffing even the best offense for 60 solid minutes? Think Seattles front four dominates our '97 line from kickoff to gun WITHOUT EVEN BLITZING?! And a line really is only as strong as its weakest link; a team can have four All Pros, but the whole front seven will just pour through that ONE hole and right over the poor scrub failing to fill it.

Coaches can compensate for deficiencies at one or two "skill" positions by leaning more heavily on strengths at others, but if the line can't block well enough to produce a decent passing game, it's not like the coach can just air it out behind blocking that's still every bit as bad. Great running can carry great passing or vice versa: NOTHING can carry bad blocking, because EVERYTHING depends on blocking.

I remember Madden 01 for the Playstation and using Gary and TD with Brian Griese at QB and Desmond Clark at TE. Those were the days (lol).

As for your point about the line, expansion teams like Houston in 02 and the 99 Browns learned that the hard way when they started out with a QB #1 overall without putting anything around them first. And, what hurts even more is that Couch and Carr weren't transcendent players like Elway, Manning, or even Luck (heck, a year before the 02 draft, The Sporting News thought that John Henderson would be #1 overall. David Carr wasn't a top prospect heading into the 2001 college season).

As for the 90's Cowboys, though, losing Haley and Novacek hurt as much as the fall of the Great Wall of Dallas. If they didn't have those two, I don't know if they win anything. It also didn't hurt that the AFC was developmentally challenged in the early-90's, either.

Joel
01-06-2015, 08:02 PM
Why can't we feature both? How is the record when Julius was healthy and Virgil was healthy at the same time. We can have 2 TE's on the field, it's not completely unheard of.
Sure we can do it, but there's little point, because we're limited to 5 eligible receivers, so if they're BOTH out there we either:

1) Go empty backfield (so no run threat apart from a QB draw NONE of us want to see, and thus no point in a blocking TE) or
2) Bench DT, Sanders or Welker because we want Orange Julius AND a decent blocker on the field.

Oh, and remember those 3 OT sets we're seemingly incapable of running without? One of them's technically a 2nd TE in the formation, so if we have ALSO have Green and JT we're down to either a pair of WRs or no RB (which, again, is the whole point of having Virgil Green and a 3rd OT out there in the first place.) This is why TEs aren't just WRs or OTs, and that didn't come from a book, but from watching live as countless one-dimensional TEs failed. Even the best receivers need to at least be speed bumps in the running game. It's an axiom that WRs don't start if they can't block a little—but TIGHT ENDS DO?! :confused:

Sure, maybe Orange Julius is Welkers successor in the slot: He better be if we're gonna PAY him like he is, because he's sure as HELL not a TE; it's painfully obvious he always wanted to play WR. There's a reason NFL coaches quit using ends as pure receivers OR pure blockers half a century ago: Because they only get 11 players, with just 5 eligible (not counting QBs,) so versatility trumped specialization at the end position, just as it's come to do so at RB. Coaches didn't get that (just) out of books either: They saw it firsthand.

MOtorboat
01-06-2015, 08:15 PM
Good grief.

Joel
01-06-2015, 08:37 PM
I remember Madden 01 for the Playstation and using Gary and TD with Brian Griese at QB and Desmond Clark at TE. Those were the days (lol).

As for your point about the line, expansion teams like Houston in 02 and the 99 Browns learned that the hard way when they started out with a QB #1 overall without putting anything around them first. And, what hurts even more is that Couch and Carr weren't transcendent players like Elway, Manning, or even Luck (heck, a year before the 02 draft, The Sporting News thought that John Henderson would be #1 overall. David Carr wasn't a top prospect heading into the 2001 college season).
I've often seen David Carr used as a byword for how to permanently wreck a talented QBs career by throwing him to the lions on a team that only GOT the #1 overall pick because their line was Swiss cheese.

The Hidden Game of Football cited Plunkett, noting he was the "can't miss" QB of his day when NE drafted him #1 overall. Yet they were always league whipping boy pre-Belicheat, their miserable lin got Plunkett shelled, and two teams and two years on the bench later he was widely considered a bust. But the Raiders had a line worthy of the name and made the effort to nurse him into a QB who didn't jump at his own shadow, so he wound up leading them to two SBs (winning MVP of the first.) If only NE had had a QB like Brady. Or Plunkett. Or Grogan. Or Eason. Or five "unskilled" players HALF as good.


As for the 90's Cowboys, though, losing Haley and Novacek hurt as much as the fall of the Great Wall of Dallas. If they didn't have those two, I don't know if they win anything. It also didn't hurt that the AFC was developmentally challenged in the early-90's, either.
Dallas' front four was far more than just Charles Haley; Russell Maryland was deservedly a #1 overall pick, Tony Tolbert was stud despite only making the Pro Bowl the year AFTER Dallas' last SB, and Jim Jeffcoat and Tony Casillas were also excellent, even if Jeffcoat had fallen to a situational player by the SB years. All left during or soon after the SB years though, and Leon Lett was the only starter from those teams after '97. It wasn't just Haley.

My best friend still loves insisting Novacek wasn't a "real" TE because he didn't block, but I still insist just as strongly that's not so; Novacek was never mistaken for Larry Allen when the team went out for lunch, but he could, would and did get in the way a little when Emmitt took off with the ball.

He didn't get pushed into his QB when asked to pass block, have Aikman yelling at him as they left the field after 3rd down because he decided to "get open" when he was supposed to block for a screen, and never got his All Pro LT called for a chop because he decided to engage the guys assignment, then changed his mind. Novacek was Dallas' McAffrey, but McAffrey wouldn't have started in Denver as a liability on Terrell Davis' runs: The most famous play of his CAREER was pancaking a LB so Howard Griffith could reach the GB 8 and set up SB XXXIIs game-winning score.

Blocking wins football but, ironically, it's probably the most common thing non-players DON'T get. It's gotten better since the last Cowboys dynasty made OTs sexy, and our repeat winners and 1000 yd rusher assembly line spotlighted them, but my impression is most people still think "blocking" means "the LT who protects the QBs blindside." Yet all those A-Gap blitzes that work against elite pocket passers like Brady and Manning when NOTHING else does? Guess who has to stop them (hint: NOT an OT.) Some say we need a FB; maybe if we had pulling G, we wouldn't.

Oh, and the AFC wasn't just developmentally challenged in the early '90s: The AFL was developmentally challenged PRE-97. Nature of the beast: The NFL had the prestige to draw all the top rookies in dual drafts, and it's easier to find one strong-armed QB and a couple fast WRs to play sandlot than to find five smart, strong, quick linemen and a fast RB to drill Packer Sweeps till they can do it in their sleep. So the AFL was a flashy passing league and the NFL a boringly reliable running league, and the gap was so big it took the AFL 30 years to catch up.

Other than the two Dolphins and three cheating Raiders teams, SB winners were pretty much NFL teams or FORMER NFL teams like Pitt and Baltimore. The Jets and Chiefs had a fluke season each, but I'm hard pressed to recall any others: It was an old school NFL SB nearly every year until Denver changed everything.

MOtorboat
01-06-2015, 08:44 PM
It's nice to have a Pro Bowl tight end again.

turftoad
01-07-2015, 11:17 AM
To bad none of the rest of us know anything about football.

I'm not sure but, I think what Joel is trying to say is that Green is a better blocker than Thomas but I'm not sure. :confused:

silkamilkamonico
01-07-2015, 02:20 PM
Get JT out on the field as much as possible, just not at the expense of Green. Green needs to be out there for all plays with exception of obvious passing ones.

Joel
01-07-2015, 06:15 PM
To bad none of the rest of us know anything about football.

I'm not sure but, I think what Joel is trying to say is that Green is a better blocker than Thomas but I'm not sure. :confused:
Why unsure? MANNING'S a better blocker than Julius Thomas.


Get JT out on the field as much as possible, just not at the expense of Green. Green needs to be out there for all plays with exception of obvious passing ones.
Green's shown he can make nice catches, and not just in garbage time vs. Oakland; Orange Julius HASN'T shown he can even be a speed bump as a blocker. Start a TE at TE, not a WR.

MOtorboat
01-07-2015, 06:23 PM
Julius Thomas was fourth in the NFL in touchdowns. Fourth in the entire league.

But, hey just bench the guy. He sucks.

TXBRONC
01-07-2015, 06:29 PM
Why unsure? MANNING'S a better blocker than Julius Thomas.


Green's shown he can make nice catches, and not just in garbage time vs. Oakland; Orange Julius HASN'T shown he can even be a speed bump as a blocker. Start a TE at TE, not a WR.

Whine when I call you out for your ignorance but as turftoad said you bring it on yourself. This isn't 1965 tight are not used in the same way today as they were then If you actually closed your chops every once in while you might learn something.

7DnBrnc53
01-08-2015, 12:20 AM
Dallas' front four was far more than just Charles Haley; Russell Maryland was deservedly a #1 overall pick, Tony Tolbert was stud despite only making the Pro Bowl the year AFTER Dallas' last SB, and Jim Jeffcoat and Tony Casillas were also excellent, even if Jeffcoat had fallen to a situational player by the SB years. All left during or soon after the SB years though, and Leon Lett was the only starter from those teams after '97. It wasn't just Haley.

Maryland was solid, but not great. Lett was good, and so were Hennings, Jeffcoat, Casillas, and Tolbert. However, they didn't have the elite pass rusher until Haley got there. It was like when Fred Dean went to SF in 1981.


Oh, and the AFC wasn't just developmentally challenged in the early '90s: The AFL was developmentally challenged PRE-97. Nature of the beast: The NFL had the prestige to draw all the top rookies in dual drafts, and it's easier to find one strong-armed QB and a couple fast WRs to play sandlot than to find five smart, strong, quick linemen and a fast RB to drill Packer Sweeps till they can do it in their sleep. So the AFL was a flashy passing league and the NFL a boringly reliable running league, and the gap was so big it took the AFL 30 years to catch up.

Other than the two Dolphins and three cheating Raiders teams, SB winners were pretty much NFL teams or FORMER NFL teams like Pitt and Baltimore. The Jets and Chiefs had a fluke season each, but I'm hard pressed to recall any others: It was an old school NFL SB nearly every year until Denver changed everything.

As for Miami, they needed Shula from the NFL Colts to make them winners. Even the great Bear Bryant (who almost took the job) wouldn't have done what Shula did there. The Raiders were kind of like what NE is today: Benefactor of an iffy division (from 1972-76). If Denver would have gotten a Bert Jones in 1973, Oakland's reign ends earlier.

As for the Broncos, those 97-98 teams are still the beat AFC Teams since the Steel Curtain dynasty. The Bills were good, but not as strong up front. Denver would run through them all day. The Pats cheated, and their championships (especially in 2001 and 03) were flukes. Today's Broncos are the closest to those teams, but their O-line isn't as good.