PDA

View Full Version : Broncos to rev run game using fuel from fullback



Denver Native (Carol)
04-05-2015, 08:05 PM
Howard Griffith navigated another long drive last week, rumbling toward Purdue as part of his Big Ten Network coverage. He was lost in anonymity as chunks of yards disappeared underneath him. It was just like old times when he served as the fullback for Terrell Davis in the Broncos' vaunted rushing attack.

When the Broncos hired Gary Kubiak, it was not just a blast from the past. It was a Blast! from the past. As part of Kubiak's zone-blocking offense, the fullback will return to the roster. The Broncos haven't featured a true fullback on their 53-man roster since Chris Gronkowski in 2012, and Spencer Larsen boasted the last part-time role in the running game in 2008.

Twenty-three NFL teams used fullbacks last season. The Broncos will join the group this season with Juwan Thompson and Joe Don Duncan, signed last month, the current candidates to fill the vacancy. Kubiak also will look to add depth through the draft, which starts April 30, or with a street free agent. Griffith, who ran an offense guided by Kubiak in Denver that won two Super Bowls, reacted to the news with delight.

rest - http://www.dailycamera.com/broncos-nfl/ci_27851592/broncos-rev-run-game-using-fuel-from-fullback?source=rss

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-05-2015, 10:33 PM
I like the idea of Thompson at FB because he's also a playmaker. I just don't know if he can take the pounding.

Tned
04-06-2015, 11:31 PM
I can't wait to see the fullback swing pass brought back.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

Mike
04-07-2015, 07:49 AM
Not crazy about Thompson as the FB. He is the 2nd best RB on the team and they should use him there.

broncofaninfla
04-07-2015, 10:12 AM
I like the thought of Thompson and Anderson on the field at the same time.

dogfish
04-07-2015, 07:47 PM
somewhere, bosco is outraged. . .

Timmy!
04-07-2015, 10:15 PM
Offset I, twins left on first down.....I might cry in joy.

Simple Jaded
04-07-2015, 11:17 PM
I like the thought of Thompson and Anderson on the field at the same time.

I like the idea of Thompson staying at RB better, he's only 225 lbs iirc and a good runner in his own right. Hillman is gone next offseason so he's in line to be no lower than 3rd on the depth chart going into next season anyway.

Ziggy brought up the idea of Fowler at FB in the draft, I like that idea a lot better.

Btw the title of the thread got me thinking bout Rev Run, "it's tricky to rock a rhyme, that's right on time. . .it's tricky. Tricky, tricky tricky"

Canmore
04-07-2015, 11:45 PM
I thought he weighed more than that, but he doesn't. Howard Griffith only went 230.

Ziggy
04-08-2015, 02:12 AM
I thought he weighed more than that, but he doesn't. Howard Griffith only went 230.

Yeah, but that was in the 90's. Griffith wasn't facing linebackers that weigh 250 and can run a 4.5. I'm in favor of the bigger fullbacks. I still think Elway gets one in the draft or after. I'm hoping for the freight train from Bama.

Valar Morghulis
04-08-2015, 03:13 AM
Yeah, but that was in the 90's. Griffith wasn't facing linebackers that weigh 250 and can run a 4.5. I'm in favor of the bigger fullbacks. I still think Elway gets one in the draft or after. I'm hoping for the freight train from Bama.

I would consider grabbing him a round above projection as I think full back could be key to this offense. also the dude is about 260lbs he would run over the top of plenty of LB then with CJ and Juwans ability to get yards after contact, it could be glorious to watch, and teams would need to respect our run, therefore #18 won't be left with long down field throws or bubble screens

I would use the picks BPA in each of these positions in this order, unless someone like Melvin Gordon has slipped significantly out of the first.

OL - Collins - LSU
ILB - McKinney - Mississippi State
FB - Fowler - Bama
FS - Grant - Ohio State
TE - James - Penn State
QB - Mannion - Oregon State

And I would still look to get something done with either Myers or Wiesinovski or both.

elsid13
04-08-2015, 04:26 AM
Yeah, but that was in the 90's. Griffith wasn't facing linebackers that weigh 250 and can run a 4.5. I'm in favor of the bigger fullbacks. I still think Elway gets one in the draft or after. I'm hoping for the freight train from Bama.

You read the article , you would see the irony in your post.

SR
04-08-2015, 06:47 AM
Yeah, but that was in the 90's. Griffith wasn't facing linebackers that weigh 250 and can run a 4.5. I'm in favor of the bigger fullbacks. I still think Elway gets one in the draft or after. I'm hoping for the freight train from Bama.

I think he was also like 5'9".

TXBRONC
04-08-2015, 07:44 AM
somewhere, bosco is outraged. . .

He's on Facebook venting to his buddy Josh McDaniels.

TXBRONC
04-08-2015, 07:52 AM
Yeah, but that was in the 90's. Griffith wasn't facing linebackers that weigh 250 and can run a 4.5. I'm in favor of the bigger fullbacks. I still think Elway gets one in the draft or after. I'm hoping for the freight train from Bama.

Ziggy even in the 90s defenses had linebackers that were in that range. Levon Kirkland was listed at 290 lbs iirc. That said Thompson doubling as a back up fullback might be the only way to keep him on the team.

DenBronx
04-08-2015, 01:54 PM
This just seems like a step backwards. I like 2 TEs on the field and more WRs.

Ziggy
04-08-2015, 03:45 PM
I think he was also like 5'9".

Howard Griffith- 6'0 230
Jalston Fowler- 5'11 254

SR
04-08-2015, 03:47 PM
Howard Griffith- 6'0 230 Jalston Fowler- 5'11 254
In my face

Zweems56
04-08-2015, 05:47 PM
Meh. Sign me up for Aaron Ripkowski as an UDFA. I'd really rather have a true fullback than these BS conversion projects. We wouldn't need to burn a pick on Ripkowski (unless a compensatory 7th) and I really don't see him that far behind Fowler. He really showed up at his pro day as well.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-08-2015, 06:51 PM
This just seems like a step backwards. I like 2 TEs on the field and more WRs.

It's sexy, but how balanced has it been? I'm excited to see where the old but new look takes us.

DenBronx
04-08-2015, 09:22 PM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

Simple Jaded
04-09-2015, 01:11 AM
Ziggy even in the 90s defenses had linebackers that were in that range. Levon Kirkland was listed at 290 lbs iirc. That said Thompson doubling as a back up fullback might be the only way to keep him on the team.

I get the feeling that they like Thompson a lot, plus he plays on ST's.

dogfish
04-09-2015, 02:33 AM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

dude. . . check arian foster's stats. . . then andre johnson's-- and then tell me what they could have done with PFM instead of freakin' schaub, and sanders instead of all those scrubs they had at WR2. . . then go see what green bay gets accomplished with an offense that still incorporates a fullback. . . we'll be fine. . . it's not like we brought back dan reeves, and we're going to run a base 2-wide set 95% of the time. . .

DenBronx
04-09-2015, 04:45 AM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

dude. . . check arian foster's stats. . . then andre johnson's-- and then tell me what they could have done with PFM instead of freakin' schaub, and sanders instead of all those scrubs they had at WR2. . . then go see what green bay gets accomplished with an offense that still incorporates a fullback. . . we'll be fine. . . it's not like we brought back dan reeves, and we're going to run a base 2-wide set 95% of the time. . .

Last year? Foster and Johnson, nothing. Johnsons done dude and Foster has been getting hurt alot. Id much rather have the offense that we had 2 years ago, 1000x more! Proof is we handled NE. That is the blue print of beating them, not the sorry ass ZBS with a fullback.

Traveler
04-09-2015, 05:00 AM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

Pretty evident teams have also figured out how to defend Manning too. I agree that going back to ZBS is unsettling, but I'm willing to give it a chance. My hope id that they don't go back to relying on getting smaller unknown OL later in the draft. Get some studs early and often!

SR
04-09-2015, 05:42 AM
Last year? Foster and Johnson, nothing. Johnsons done dude and Foster has been getting hurt alot. Id much rather have the offense that we had 2 years ago, 1000x more! Proof is we handled NE. That is the blue print of beating them, not the sorry ass ZBS with a fullback.

Johnson had a good year last year. News flash: Arian Foster has ALWAYS gotten hurt a lot.

Rick
04-09-2015, 08:44 AM
not the sorry ass ZBS with a fullback.

That same exact sorry ass ZBS with a fullback almost beat them in the playoffs this past season.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-09-2015, 10:19 AM
Last year? Foster and Johnson, nothing. Johnsons done dude and Foster has been getting hurt alot. Id much rather have the offense that we had 2 years ago, 1000x more! Proof is we handled NE. That is the blue print of beating them, not the sorry ass ZBS with a fullback.

Look at what Justin Forsett and the Ravens offense did last year. Forsett had one of the best ypc in the league last year and one was one of the league leaders in yards prior to contact.

Ziggy
04-09-2015, 12:09 PM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

Yeah Kubes was horrible for the Ravens. What a crap system. He came in to a team that averaged 20 points/game in 2013 and increased their scoring to 25.6 points/game. Oh, and did I mention that it happened to be the highest scoring offense in Ravens franchise history? That darned old sluggish offense.

Ziggy
04-09-2015, 12:10 PM
I get the feeling that they like Thompson a lot, plus he plays on ST's.

I like him too, as a running back. I have yet to hear from Elway or any coaches that he's going to play FB.

DenBronx
04-09-2015, 12:47 PM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

Pretty evident teams have also figured out how to defend Manning too. I agree that going back to ZBS is unsettling, but I'm willing to give it a chance. My hope id that they don't go back to relying on getting smaller unknown OL later in the draft. Get some studs early and often!

Oh God I hope we don't get small OL guys again. That would be a mistake. Already pissed off about losing Franklin.

DenBronx
04-09-2015, 12:50 PM
Smh...this might be an ugly look for our offense. Just be prepared. I'm not excited for us to go in this direction. This is an old sluggish offense that most teams figured out. That's why teams did away with the FB.


How did we get here in just 2 short years? Like what the hell man...

Yeah Kubes was horrible for the Ravens. What a crap system. He came in to a team that averaged 20 points/game in 2013 and increased their scoring to 25.6 points/game. Oh, and did I mention that it happened to be the highest scoring offense in Ravens franchise history? That darned old sluggish offense.

Yeah but our offense was averaging well over 30 points a game. We were embarrassing teams. Why fck with that?

Zweems56
04-09-2015, 12:53 PM
Yeah but our offense was averaging well over 30 points a game. We were embarrassing teams. Why fck with that?

That's very much a different argument than one focusing on whether or not we will carry a FB on our roster. Leading arguments here being that our offense did not translate well to playoff football. Also we cleared out our coaches, including our OC, so that kind of has a hand in the whole... changing the offense thing.

DenBronx
04-09-2015, 12:59 PM
Yeah but our offense was averaging well over 30 points a game. We were embarrassing teams. Why fck with that?

That's very much a different argument than one focusing on whether or not we will carry a FB on our roster. Leading arguments here being that our offense did not translate well to playoff football. Also we cleared out our coaches, including our OC, so that kind of has a hand in the whole... changing the offense thing.

2 TE sets work better than 1 TE/1 FB. I think the passing attack has way more options that way. We do need to run the ball but not at the cost of losing the passing attack.

For the record, I wasn't in favor of gutting our coaching staff.

Zweems56
04-09-2015, 01:01 PM
2 TE sets work better than 1 TE/1 FB. I think the passing attack has way more options that way. We do need to run the ball but not at the cost of losing the passing attack.

Depending on the type of running game, I would severely disagree with that. If you're talking the broncos running game last year? Yes. 2TE is better than 1TE 1FB. If you're talking about in a zone blocking scheme with a legit fullback, you could not possibly be more wrong.

DenBronx
04-09-2015, 01:28 PM
2 TE sets work better than 1 TE/1 FB. I think the passing attack has way more options that way. We do need to run the ball but not at the cost of losing the passing attack.

Depending on the type of running game, I would severely disagree with that. If you're talking the broncos running game last year? Yes. 2TE is better than 1TE 1FB. If you're talking about in a zone blocking scheme with a legit fullback, you could not possibly be more wrong.

I agree that a FB is essential for the ZBS. Not sure where you got that from. But to trade the offense we had 2 years ago for that? That's where we differ. You have to gut alot of things, coaches and players. Like I said earlier, don't be suprised if our offense looks sluggish again.

Zweems56
04-09-2015, 01:30 PM
I agree that a FB is essential for the ZBS. Not sure where you got that from. But to trade the offense we had 2 years ago for that? That's where we differ. You have to gut alot of things, coaches and players. Like I said earlier, don't be suprised if our offense looks sluggish again.

We did gut a lot of things. Coaches and players. A lot of those coaches were going to leave when Fox was fired whether they were gutted or not, and a lot of those players were going to leave due to huge paydays that we couldn't afford. The gutting is done.

dogfish
04-09-2015, 08:59 PM
Last year? Foster and Johnson, nothing. Johnsons done dude and Foster has been getting hurt alot. Id much rather have the offense that we had 2 years ago, 1000x more! Proof is we handled NE. That is the blue print of beating them, not the sorry ass ZBS with a fullback.

no, not last year. . . i meant the years when kubiak was the coach there. . .

Ziggy
04-10-2015, 02:11 AM
Yeah but our offense was averaging well over 30 points a game. We were embarrassing teams. Why fck with that?

Because it didn't work.

MOtorboat
04-10-2015, 02:17 AM
Because it didn't work.

You and I have different definitions of "didn't work."

Valar Morghulis
04-10-2015, 02:18 AM
Because it didn't work.

Yeah. I loved that year. The same way I loved the Tebow year.

Great memory, but it was never a long term option.

I honestly think this year we can balance the passing and running game.

Once our run game commands respect, and opposing Ds can no longer leave it up to their pass rushers to hurry Manning in the pistol every snap whilst cutting off his short and intermediate options, I think Manning torches a lot of team's this year.

Ziggy
04-10-2015, 02:23 AM
You and I have different definitions of "didn't work."

I'm pretty sure we always have. That offensive system was great for putting up points during the regular season. Trying to win with it against elite teams in the playoffs and the Super Bowl has always been a different story.

MOtorboat
04-10-2015, 02:24 AM
Yeah. I loved that year. The same way I loved the Tebow year.

Great memory, but it was never a long term option.

I honestly think this year we can balance the passing and running game.

Once our run game commands respect, and opposing Ds can no longer leave it up to their pass rushers to hurry Manning in the pistol every snap whilst cutting off his short and intermediate options, I think Manning torches a lot of team's this year.

Comparing the luck shit Tebow offense and one of the best all time offenses ever that went to a Super Bowl, and saying that offense isn't a sustainable tactic is (sorry dude) idiotic.

Scoring point = not sustainable. Really?

MOtorboat
04-10-2015, 02:25 AM
I'm pretty sure we always have. That offensive system was great for putting up points during the regular season. Trying to win with it against elite teams in the playoffs and the Super Bowl has always been a different story.

That team physically dominated two opponents in the playoffs and made a Super Bowl. To say it "didn't work" is just insulting (and stupid).

MOtorboat
04-10-2015, 02:28 AM
Do you think Patriots fans say the 2007 offense "didn't work?"

Valar Morghulis
04-10-2015, 02:32 AM
Do you think Patriots fans say the 2007 offense "didn't work?"

It's that rare I disagree with you, I don't really know how to react to this!

MOtorboat
04-10-2015, 02:38 AM
It's that rare I disagree with you, I don't really know how to react to this!

I just really have to take pause at these statements about how things "didn't work." Because that implies things will work with Kubiak. But they "didn't work" for Baltimore and they REALLY "didn't work" for Houston, so :whoknows:.

DenBronx
04-10-2015, 03:09 AM
Yeah but our offense was averaging well over 30 points a game. We were embarrassing teams. Why fck with that?

Because it didn't work.

Up until we met Seattle? One game??? So that justifies ripping the team up and going in a different direction on the offense?

Not sure Kubiak has done since he's been on his own that is so special that supercedes the offense we had?? We had a very exciting offense, one I was confident that could get us back to the SB had we concentrated on other areas.

I like the run game and think CJ was a bright spot but one think Moreno provided when he was here was a security blanket as a pass catching back. Manning works best with those types of backs and TEs. I like a bruiser back when needed but I also like a back that is elusive and has hands, like a Reggie Bush or Sproles...at least in the prior offense we were running. In the ZBS....not so much, give me a TD type of back all day.

DenBronx
04-10-2015, 03:13 AM
Another thing is what in the hell kind of offense is Brock going to get if he's still here??? I think had we kept some of the key players we had it would have been an easier transition for him or whoever post Manning. If DT isn't here because contract negotiations fall through next year then we're so screwed. And we know anything can happen when it comes to those type of things.

Valar Morghulis
04-10-2015, 06:15 AM
I think the finesse offense of 2013 is easy to stop with an average offensive line and an aging manning, especially in the cold.

Well coached defences would make our juggernaut offence inept.

I think this move will incorporate the best of that offense with a well a balanced and feared run game.

As for kubes, I don't think he needs to do much with the group of players that he and Wade have - they just need to avoid making them stale ala Fox. I think he can do that.

I think he will set the tone, the players will follow.

Don't get me wrong, I loved 2013, I also enjoyed the first 8 weeks of last year, but I think if you don't change - you get found out very quickly.

Whilst we could still average 35 points a game and win 12 games - I just think the top class team's and well coached team's would have our number.

sneakers
04-10-2015, 06:26 AM
What is a fullback?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
04-10-2015, 08:55 AM
What is a fullback?

It's someone with a lot of junk in the trunk.

Valar Morghulis
04-10-2015, 09:29 AM
What is a fullback?

Soccer player who plays on the left or right hand side of defence?

Buff
04-10-2015, 11:16 AM
http://twocentstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/revrun.jpg

Traveler
04-11-2015, 08:30 AM
Yeah but our offense was averaging well over 30 points a game. We were embarrassing teams. Why fck with that?

What do we have to show for it? Stacks of regular season wins and records, but embarrassing blowouts and lackluster performances when it counts the most. I'm willing to have them try something else that's more balanced.

SoCalImport
04-11-2015, 09:00 AM
Another thing is what in the hell kind of offense is Brock going to get if he's still here??? I think had we kept some of the key players we had it would have been an easier transition for him or whoever post Manning. If DT isn't here because contract negotiations fall through next year then we're so screwed. And we know anything can happen when it comes to those type of things.

I'm pretty sure the best case scenario for any young/inexperienced QB is to have a strong running game and a stout D.
What Manning does is not something we should expect Brock (or anyone else really) to be able to emulate.

DenBronx
04-11-2015, 11:37 AM
We just signed another crappy TE. Doesn't deserve it's own thread. Don't even remember his name.


Woooohoooooo SuperBowl!!!!!

DenBronx
04-11-2015, 11:42 AM
Ok so its Casey, TE/FB.

Simple Jaded
04-11-2015, 12:12 PM
We just signed another crappy TE. Doesn't deserve it's own thread. Don't even remember his name.


Woooohoooooo SuperBowl!!!!!

You be illin!

Ziggy
04-11-2015, 12:18 PM
We just signed another crappy TE. Doesn't deserve it's own thread. Don't even remember his name.


Woooohoooooo SuperBowl!!!!!

Are you just here to troll every single thread or what? Casey is a solid signing. He played mostly FB in Philly, grading out well both years with PFF.

Northman
04-11-2015, 12:20 PM
Because it didn't work.

Beat me to it. 43-8 is a pretty good reason why we needed to change things. But, you know, its all about pretty stats.

Northman
04-11-2015, 12:23 PM
Do you think Patriots fans say the 2007 offense "didn't work?"

I think they would probably tell you they would gladly trade some of those 50 pt regular season games for another ring.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 12:29 PM
I think they would probably tell you they would gladly trade some of those 50 pt regular season games for another ring.

That doesn't mean it didn't work.

I like how Broncos fans are taking Super Bowl appearances for granted.

Northman
04-11-2015, 12:34 PM
That doesn't mean it didn't work.

I like how Broncos fans are taking Super Bowl appearances for granted.

No one's taking them for granted, just how they played out when it came to Denver. I wouldnt be nearly as pissed if we had actually made a game of it.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 12:35 PM
That doesn't mean it didn't work.

I like how Broncos fans are taking Super Bowl appearances for granted.

MO, can I ask.

If we stayed with the finesse offence and arial attack - with manning and his limitations and his proven inability to carry a team in the post season......and we played a full strength Seattle or New England, that we would ever win?

Because I don't.

I think elite teams had our number.

That is why I am embracing the change.

Was it good, yeah, it was awesome. Could it be better - sure.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 12:42 PM
MO, can I ask.

If we stayed with the finesse offence and arial attack - with manning and his limitations and his proven inability to carry a team in the post season......and we played a full strength Seattle or New England, that we would ever win?

Because I don't.

I think elite teams had our number.

That is why I am embracing the change.

Was it good, yeah, it was awesome. Could it be better - sure.

Denver had a better ground game than New England last year. New England won the Super Bowl. The Patriots had all of 57 rushing yards in the Super Bowl. Seattle had 162. The narrative being set up in this thread and across this board is just false.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 12:43 PM
No one's taking them for granted, just how they played out when it came to Denver. I wouldnt be nearly as pissed if we had actually made a game of it.


Then you fooled me, because it sure sounds like it.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 12:51 PM
Denver had a better ground game than New England last year. New England won the Super Bowl. The Patriots had all of 57 rushing yards in the Super Bowl. Seattle had 162. The narrative being set up in this thread and across this board is just false.

MO - that never answered my question. I asked if you think we would ever beat the other elite teams, and well coached defences in the post season with that offense, with Manning's arm.

You raised the point that our run game was better than NE's last season, thats great - i am not saying we should ground and pound! I am acknowleging that we would never win the big one with mannings limitations.

I have been a staunch defender of manning, even as a colt, i also said his poor post season form was over stated - i used to argue that if it was not for him, the colts would not have been in the post season so often, i used to say that he could play just as well in the cold. I no longer believe these things.

I think Manning is a Top 5 all time Qb - i think he will shred all defences up to Elite level - at that level, i think he over thinks things, confuses himself and his O-Line, and this is now coupled with his physical limitations - therefore i support the move to be more balanced, not just in play count - but in the threat our Run game poses becomes equal to that of our passing game

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 12:58 PM
P
MO - that never answered my question. I asked if you think we would ever beat the other elite teams, and well coached defences in the post season with that offense, with Manning's arm.

You raised the point that our run game was better than NE's last season, thats great - i am not saying we should ground and pound! I am acknowleging that we would never win the big one with mannings limitations.

I have been a staunch defender of manning, even as a colt, i also said his poor post season form was over stated - i used to argue that if it was not for him, the colts would not have been in the post season so often, i used to say that he could play just as well in the cold. I no longer believe these things.

I think Manning is a Top 5 all time Qb - i think he will shred all defences up to Elite level - at that level, i think he over thinks things, confuses himself and his O-Line, and this is now coupled with his physical limitations - therefore i support the move to be more balanced, not just in play count - but in the threat our Run game poses becomes equal to that of our passing game

Yes. Denver dominated New England in every facet of the game to make the Super Bowl. Denver made a Super Bowl. I know it doesn't sound like that if you read this board, but they did. Of course they could beat elite teams and of course they can beat elite teams. They did something the last three years that's only been done 7 times in league history, but look at everyone just taking it for granted.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 01:04 PM
P

Yes. Denver dominated New England in every facet of the game to make the Super Bowl. Denver made a Super Bowl. I know it doesn't sound like that if you read this board, but they did. Of course they could beat elite teams and of course they can beat elite teams. They did something the last three years that's only been done 7 times in league history, but look at everyone just taking it for granted.

You are certainly misrepresenting my opinion, and i presume lots of peoples on this board.

Maybe it would be helpful if you told me what moves you think the Broncos should have made this off season in order to improve ?

Would you be happy if you were a Bengals fan?

Edited to add - that NE team that we dominated was not at full strength (although we did put on a clinic that day!)

Northman
04-11-2015, 01:04 PM
Ill say it again, having a high powered aerial assault didnt do much for us in the game that counted. 2 of the 3 years that awesome offense failed to get the team past the first round of the playoffs. People like to forget that without Holliday's heroics we are never in the Baltimore game for Moore to screw up. Yes, its time to try another way of getting a championship. This nonsense that we need to air it out every single play is just flat out stupid. It only took this team so far, its time to try a different avenue especially with an aging QB. Its really only common sense at this point.

Northman
04-11-2015, 01:05 PM
You are certainly misrepresenting my opinion, and i presume lots of peoples on this board.



He does that shit a lot.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 01:07 PM
He does that shit a lot.

Normally i find MOseph to be very agreeable, just not on this issue!

TXBRONC
04-11-2015, 01:23 PM
That doesn't mean it didn't work.

I like how Broncos fans are taking Super Bowl appearances for granted.
Well yes it does mean it didn't work. The goal was to win the Super Bowl and they didn't and besided that they played poorly in the playoffs.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 01:26 PM
You are certainly misrepresenting my opinion, and i presume lots of peoples on this board.

Maybe it would be helpful if you told me what moves you think the Broncos should have made this off season in order to improve ?

Would you be happy if you were a Bengals fan?

Edited to add - that NE team that we dominated was not at full strength (although we did put on a clinic that day!)

What am I misrepresenting? When you say things like making a Super Bowl and winning three straight division titles is "not working," you're just setting yourself up for disappointment and you're taking it for granted that Denver will immediately return to that situation, despite a massive amount of change. And don't tell me to go root for someone else because I disagree with you.

What moves? Maybe not letting a shit ton of talent leave the last two years might help, and alienating your best remaining skill player, not making your quarterback take a pay cut just so you can sign a pair of tight end scrubs? There's a lot of bad decisions I see happening. I hope I'm wrong, but it's not easy to duplicate what happened here the last few years.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 01:27 PM
Well yes it does mean it didn't work. The goal was to win the Super Bowl and they didn't and besided that they played poorly in the playoffs.

I don't accept that Denver has only had two seasons out of 64 that have "worked."

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 01:28 PM
He does that shit a lot.

**** off.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 01:33 PM
What am I misrepresenting? When you say things like making a Super Bowl and winning three straight division titles is "not working," you're just setting yourself up for disappointment and you're taking it for granted that Denver will immediately return to that situation, despite a massive amount of change. And don't tell me to go root for someone else because I disagree with you.

What moves? Maybe not letting a shit ton of talent leave the last two years might help, and alienating your best remaining skill player, not making your quarterback take a pay cut just so you can sign a pair of tight end scrubs? There's a lot of bad decisions I see happening. I hope I'm wrong, but it's not easy to duplicate what happened here the last few years.

Jeezus MO - i am not telling you to go support another team- that would be ridiculous. The bengals have won their division the last 3 years - but been one and done in the play offs each year. All i was doing was asking if you would be happy with that record?

As for the moves, you gave a very irate answer LOL, I am not trying to anger you!

Anyway -

Would you have let Fox go - or tried to keep him?

After he went - would you have appointed Kubes or someone else?

Now we have Kubes - would you move to a ZBS and change our offense?

Would you have paid JT the 10 mil?

The only thing that i am frustrated with is the lack of investment into the O-Line. I would have re-signed Franklin and made moves for one of the better guards in FA.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 01:37 PM
I don't accept that Denver has only had two seasons out of 64 that have "worked."

Neither do I. I don't measure success solely on Super bowl wins, but i don't think that we should be content with perennial post season appearances either - we should strive for excellence.

To continue in an approach that torched average teams, beat good teams, but failed (quite catastrpohically) against the top tier, just seems crazy.

Ziggy
04-11-2015, 01:43 PM
That team physically dominated two opponents in the playoffs and made a Super Bowl. To say it "didn't work" is just insulting (and stupid).

One and done in the playoffs 2 out of 3 seasons. In the other, they were completely humiliated in the super bowl. An overall record of 2-3 in the postseason. It didn't work. Regular season success means nothing when you suck in the big games.

Did Kubiak's system work in Baltimore or Houston? No. But he also didn't have Manning and 10 other pro bowlers. You can keep your regular season success Mo. A lot of us here are embracing the change toward a more balanced offense that has a chance to be successful in the postseason.

SR
04-11-2015, 01:53 PM
What am I misrepresenting? When you say things like making a Super Bowl and winning three straight division titles is "not working," you're just setting yourself up for disappointment and you're taking it for granted that Denver will immediately return to that situation, despite a massive amount of change. And don't tell me to go root for someone else because I disagree with you. What moves? Maybe not letting a shit ton of talent leave the last two years might help, and alienating your best remaining skill player, not making your quarterback take a pay cut just so you can sign a pair of tight end scrubs? There's a lot of bad decisions I see happening. I hope I'm wrong, but it's not easy to duplicate what happened here the last few years.

For some people, anything less than winning the super bowl equates to "not working". It's an opinion. Live with it.

Northman
04-11-2015, 01:58 PM
For some people, anything less than winning the super bowl equates to "not working". It's an opinion. Live with it.

Personally I actually think most people on here have done a good job of explaining that they enjoyed the success we had but that it was time for a change since that particular team setup failed to accomplish what the organization wants to accomplish. For me, much like the Tebow year you can enjoy something but understand that its going to take something different to get the ring.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 02:15 PM
For some people, anything less than winning the super bowl equates to "not working". It's an opinion. Live with it.

I disagree. Live with it.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 02:17 PM
One and done in the playoffs 2 out of 3 seasons. In the other, they were completely humiliated in the super bowl. An overall record of 2-3 in the postseason. It didn't work. Regular season success means nothing when you suck in the big games.

Did Kubiak's system work in Baltimore or Houston? No. But he also didn't have Manning and 10 other pro bowlers. You can keep your regular season success Mo. A lot of us here are embracing the change toward a more balanced offense that has a chance to be successful in the postseason.

I just hope they get there. Can't lose in the playoffs without the regular season success. This team doesn't have 10 pro bowlers any more. At least three of them, off the top of my head, are gone.

Ziggy
04-11-2015, 02:22 PM
I just hope they get there. Can't lose in the playoffs without the regular season success. This team doesn't have 10 pro bowlers any more. At least three of them, off the top of my head, are gone.

Denver Broncos 2014 Pro Bowlers-
Ryan Clady
Peyton Manning
CJ Anderson
Julius Thomas
Demaryius Thomas
Emmanuel Sanders
TJ Ward
Aquib Talib
Chris Harris
DeMarcus Ware
Von Miller

I count 10 still on the roster with only Julius Thomas gone.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 02:23 PM
Denver Broncos 2014 Pro Bowlers-
Ryan Clady
Peyton Manning
CJ Anderson
Julius Thomas
Demaryius Thomas
Emmanuel Sanders
TJ Ward
Aquib Talib
Chris Harris
DeMarcus Ware
Von Miller

I count 10 still on the roster with only Julius Thomas gone.

You got me. I was wrong about the pro bowlers because I don't watch it. Team is still losing lots of talent.

Northman
04-11-2015, 02:25 PM
Lmao

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 02:28 PM
So, I'm guessing you guys expect a Super Bowl victory next season, and anything less is unacceptable?

That's a question, because that's what I believe you're suggesting. If that's not what your suggesting, then that's what you are insinuating.

Ziggy
04-11-2015, 02:32 PM
So, I'm guessing you guys expect a Super Bowl victory next season, and anything less is unacceptable?

That's a question, because that's what I believe you're suggesting. If that's not what your suggesting, then that's what you are insinuating.

Hoping for one Mo. Like every other year. And yes, there should be only one expectation for this team as long as Manning is on it. A super bowl win. If the Broncos don't win it, then it didn't work. Feel better?

BroncoWave
04-11-2015, 02:32 PM
I think most people would agree that Denver, New England, and Seattle have been the 3 top franchises in the NFL over the last 3 seasons for the most part. Against those other 2 teams in that time frame, Denver sports a 1-5 record. And the one win was over a very banged up Pats team without Gronk playing.

Yes what we have been doing the last few years is good enugh to destroy 90% of the teams in the league, but the Pats and Seahawks are more than capable and have proven that they can stop us. So the answer is to either hope to get lucky and have other teams take them out in the playoffs, or to try something a little different.

That's not to say that the last 3 years have not worked. They have worked very well. But that doesn't mean you just ignore any issues you have and keep doing the exact same thing. With the limitations Manning has now, I think you are just being stubborn to suggest that him airing it out 50 times a game is still the way to go.

That's not to say we should become a running team, but why the hell are you so against trying to add just a LITTLE balance? You just aren't being logical IMO.

Northman
04-11-2015, 02:32 PM
So, I'm guessing you guys expect a Super Bowl victory next season, and anything less is unacceptable?

That's a question, because that's what I believe you're suggesting. If that's not what your suggesting, then that's what you are insinuating.


As Shannon Sharpe once said, anything less than a SB is failure and he actually played the game. Every team every year goes into the season wanting to win the SB, doesnt mean they dont have "good" years. It only means they didnt achieve the ultimate goal, without that desire to win the ultimate goal why bother playing? Do i expect a SB next year? Nope. I hope we get one but dont expect it. But so as long as we keep trying and dont try to force the square peg into the round hole than im content with that. For a long time Shanahan kept trying to do the same things year in and year out and although he had some success he ultimately couldnt get another ring. As a team we simply cant become complacent.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 02:33 PM
So, I'm guessing you guys expect a Super Bowl victory next season, and anything less is unacceptable?

That's a question, because that's what I believe you're suggesting. If that's not what your suggesting, then that's what you are insinuating.

No definitely not.

I am expecting a solid season, in which we don't lie down to anyone. And when we get beat, we leave it all out on the field, we go balls out, we play with pride - for 4 quarters.

Getting to the off season for me is a result. But getting there and being totally out-played in our final game of each of the last three years - suggests to me that what we had would not get us over the hump. This new approach might not either - and i am fine with that, but for me that is better than doing something that the blueprint to beat has been well established - and while not every team has the ability to carry off that blue print - the good ones do.

Change was needed IMO.

MOtorboat
04-11-2015, 02:42 PM
Lots of mixed signals.

Ziggy
04-11-2015, 03:16 PM
Lots of mixed signals.

Might be time to dial in your receiver a little better.

SR
04-11-2015, 03:32 PM
I disagree. Live with it.

That's fine. You're free to. I feel the same way you do. You're also free to wash the sand out.

SR
04-11-2015, 03:34 PM
Hoping for one Mo. Like every other year. And yes, there should be only one expectation for this team as long as Manning is on it. A super bowl win. If the Broncos don't win it, then it didn't work. Feel better?

Why is the the expectation with Peyton? It's less realistic to expect that now than ever. He's a year older, a year more brittle, and in a new system. I think winning the division is a given. A first round bye is a leap. Making it to the big game is a big, big stretch. My opinion of course.

TXBRONC
04-11-2015, 03:58 PM
Lots of mixed signals.

It doesn't mean you're getting mixed signals just because answers more nuauncied than you would like them to be.

BroncoWave
04-11-2015, 04:11 PM
Why is the the expectation with Peyton? It's less realistic to expect that now than ever. He's a year older, a year more brittle, and in a new system. I think winning the division is a given. A first round bye is a leap. Making it to the big game is a big, big stretch. My opinion of course.

I don't even know that winning the division is a complete given this year. Would not shock me to see us go something like 10-6 and be in a real battle for the division.

Valar Morghulis
04-11-2015, 04:27 PM
I don't even know that winning the division is a complete given this year. Would not shock me to see us go something like 10-6 and be in a real battle for the division.

I don't think the bolts or the chiefs have got better to the point they will trouble us for the division.

The faiders have, but it is too early for them this year.

I would not be surprised if we went 7-1 in the division, possibly losing in San Diego. Which is German for a whales vagina

Simple Jaded
04-11-2015, 08:36 PM
Go **** yourself San Diego.

tomjonesrocks
04-11-2015, 09:55 PM
Why is the the expectation with Peyton? It's less realistic to expect that now than ever. He's a year older, a year more brittle, and in a new system. I think winning the division is a given. A first round bye is a leap. Making it to the big game is a big, big stretch. My opinion of course.

Pretty much exactly as I see it. 9-7 / 10-6 and a quick playoff exit seems pretty likely. But who knows, maybe it all comes together late in the year. I doubt we have to worry about peaking too soon this season though as happened last year.

dogfish
04-11-2015, 11:55 PM
all you can really ask for is a chance at it. . . we do have enough pieces that things could break right. . . key guys all stay healthy, hit on a couple of draft picks, von plays like the old von and wade makes the D better. . . probably won't happen, but that's life-- not everybody gets to be frontrunners going in. . .

Ziggy
04-11-2015, 11:58 PM
Why is the the expectation with Peyton? It's less realistic to expect that now than ever. He's a year older, a year more brittle, and in a new system. I think winning the division is a given. A first round bye is a leap. Making it to the big game is a big, big stretch. My opinion of course.

Because Peyton is a proven super bowl winner on the most talented team in the league. Yes, he's a year older. He's also playing for a completely different coaching staff. The last 3 years he's played for coaches that won in the regular season because of the talent on the team. This year, he'll be playing for coaches that won in the regular season despite the talent playing on the team in their Houston days. Now we get to combine the two and see how far they can go.

MOtorboat
04-12-2015, 12:18 AM
It doesn't mean you're getting mixed signals just because answers more nuauncied than you would like them to be.

No, it's mixed signals. Pretty thoroughly mixed and inconsistent. All you have to do is read.

SR
04-12-2015, 08:23 AM
Because Peyton is a proven super bowl winner on the most talented team in the league. Yes, he's a year older. He's also playing for a completely different coaching staff. The last 3 years he's played for coaches that won in the regular season because of the talent on the team. This year, he'll be playing for coaches that won in the regular season despite the talent playing on the team in their Houston days. Now we get to combine the two and see how far they can go.

But Peyton is a career big game flopper. What about that?

TXBRONC
04-12-2015, 08:26 AM
No, it's mixed signals. Pretty thoroughly mixed and inconsistent. All you have to do is read.

I have read and it doesn't seem to be mixed or inconsistent.

Ziggy
04-12-2015, 01:56 PM
But Peyton is a career big game flopper. What about that?

I would argue that the offenses Peyton has run have always been pass dependent and therefore not as effective in cold weather and against elite defenses. Folks around here forget, but Elway was known as more of a big game flopper before Shanny came along with a balanced offense and commitment to the run.

SR
04-12-2015, 02:12 PM
I would argue that the offenses Peyton has run have always been pass dependent and therefore not as effective in cold weather and against elite defenses. Folks around here forget, but Elway was known as more of a big game flopper before Shanny came along with a balanced offense and commitment to the run.

Peyton was a flopper indoors with Indy too.

Elway was bad in cold and wet weather because he had hands the size of MO's. That's why in the winter he struggled.

dogfish
04-12-2015, 02:17 PM
http://twocentstv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/revrun.jpg

this should have gotten more high-fives. . .


also, what the hell did you guys do to get MO all worked up?

Ziggy
04-12-2015, 02:21 PM
Peyton was a flopper indoors with Indy too.

Elway was bad in cold and wet weather because he had hands the size of MO's. That's why in the winter he struggled.

Elway didn't struggle in the winter. I said that he was known as more of a big game flopper than Peyton before his super bowl wins. It doesn't mean that he was one. He lost 3 super bowls because he carried 3 bad teams on his back to them. None of the first 3 super bowl teams he played on had any business being there. For those of us who watched the Broncos back then, it was painfully obvious.

I also said that Peyton's offenses struggle in weather and against elite defenses. The second element doesn't change in a dome.

Ziggy
04-12-2015, 02:21 PM
this should have gotten more high-fives. . .


also, what the hell did you guys do to get MO all worked up?

We disagreed with him.

Northman
04-12-2015, 02:56 PM
Because Peyton is a proven super bowl winner on the most talented team in the league. Yes, he's a year older. He's also playing for a completely different coaching staff. The last 3 years he's played for coaches that won in the regular season because of the talent on the team. This year, he'll be playing for coaches that won in the regular season despite the talent playing on the team in their Houston days. Now we get to combine the two and see how far they can go.

Thats a fantastic way to put it Ziggy. Well done.

Northman
04-12-2015, 02:57 PM
also, what the hell did you guys do to get MO all worked up?

He's always worked up.

MOtorboat
04-12-2015, 04:17 PM
this should have gotten more high-fives. . .


also, what the hell did you guys do to get MO all worked up?

I made the mistake of coming into the Broncos forum where the last three years were apparently miserable.

BroncoWave
04-12-2015, 05:34 PM
I made the mistake of coming into the Broncos forum where the last three years were apparently miserable.

I ask you this every time you make this strawman and you haven't been able to answer it yet, but maybe this time.

Who exactly is saying the last three years were miserable and where exactly did they say it? Please cite specific posts.

TXBRONC
04-12-2015, 06:34 PM
I made the mistake of coming into the Broncos forum where the last three years were apparently miserable.

So any kind critical comments equates to people saying the last three years have been miserable? I don't think so.

Simple Jaded
04-12-2015, 10:38 PM
I thought the last 3 seasons worked like a mother****er.

TXBRONC
04-13-2015, 07:37 AM
I don't know why it bother some people that Denver is going to make use of a fullback. Even though Denver will use one I doubt this offense will use one as much as it did in the mid '90s.

BroncoWave
04-13-2015, 05:30 PM
I ask you this every time you make this strawman and you haven't been able to answer it yet, but maybe this time.

Who exactly is saying the last three years were miserable and where exactly did they say it? Please cite specific posts.

Well, Mo? Anything? No?