PDA

View Full Version : Depth Chart Banter



MOtorboat
07-29-2016, 12:14 PM
This is what I think the depth chart will look like for the start of the season, not necessarily what the first released depth chart will look like (when is that, next week?).

QB: Sanchez, Siemien, Lynch
RB: Anderson, Hillman, Booker
FB: Janovich
WR: Thomas, Taylor
WR: Sanders, Latimer
Slot: Norwood, Fowler
TE: Heuerman, Green, Coble
LT: Okung, Sambrailo
LG: Garcia, McGovern
C: Paradis, Ferentz
RG: Myers, McGovern
RT: Stephenson, Sambrailo

DE: Wolfe, Walker
NT: Williams, Kilgo, Moala
DE: Crick, Gotsis
OLB: Miller, Barrett
OLB: Ray, Ware, Nelson
ILB: Davis, Yarbrough
ILB: Marshall, Anderson
CB: Talib, Webster
CB: Harris, Roby, Doss
S: Stewart, Parks, Nixon
S: Ward, Simmons

K: McManus
P: Dixon
LS: Kreiter

Lots of backups probably wrong.

I think offensive line is probably the area where no one knows yet who's going to start in the interior and I know that definitely isn't right above. There's not a lot of positions where we don't know the starters, which is a good thing.

Your guess is as good as mine at backup inside linebacker.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
07-29-2016, 12:28 PM
I think Sambraillo will be at RG.

MOtorboat
07-29-2016, 12:33 PM
I think Sambraillo will be at RG.

I thought about that too. Probably kept too few lineman up there, too.

turftoad
07-29-2016, 12:35 PM
I think it looks good Mo. The O line is in question depending on where they play Sambrailo and I think Booker takes Hillmans job.

MOtorboat
07-29-2016, 12:36 PM
I think it looks good Mo. The O line is in question depending on where they play Sambrailo and I think Booker takes Hillmans job.

I think Booker backs up Anderson and starts when Anderson gets hurt. I don't think Hillman's job as the change of pace guy is really in jeopardy, to be honest. There wasn't really a way to show that on a depth chart list.

TXBRONC
07-29-2016, 12:49 PM
I think Sambraillo will be at RG.

My understanding is that Sambrailo is the starting right guard atp.

BroncoWave
07-29-2016, 01:42 PM
You just pissed UR off MO!

MOtorboat
07-29-2016, 01:46 PM
You just pissed UR off MO!

Yeah, I know. He'll want to bet me.

BroncoWave
07-29-2016, 01:47 PM
Yeah, I know. He'll want to bet me.

I mean, I guess he has a point. RBs notoriously take a long time to develop. You never see a RB start and play well right off the bat. :D

Dapper Dan
07-29-2016, 01:59 PM
I forgot about Crick. I'm still excited about him.

underrated29
07-29-2016, 03:11 PM
Yeah, I know. He'll want to bet me.



No I wont. Wanna bet I wont?

DenBronx
07-29-2016, 03:14 PM
Sooo this Taylor guy is impressing during camp eh? I bet he beats out Latimer and makes the team. Latimer has been nothing but a disappointment.

underrated29
07-29-2016, 03:55 PM
Sooo this Taylor guy is impressing during camp eh? I bet he beats out Latimer and makes the team. Latimer has been nothing but a disappointment.

Nah. He will beat out fowler or norwood or brown but latimer will be 3

TXBRONC
07-29-2016, 04:11 PM
Nah. He will beat out fowler or norwood or brown but latimer will be 3

Norwood or Brown seem possible but not Fowler.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
07-29-2016, 04:51 PM
I don't think Norwood is slot #1. His catching radius is small, and there are better blockers for the running game.

Norwood in the game tells the defense it's likely a pass.

NightTerror218
07-29-2016, 05:03 PM
Latomer will make the team for his ST play. He may become the ST ace.

DenBronx
07-29-2016, 05:12 PM
Norwood, Fowler and Taylor over Latimer. All day erry day.

Valar Morghulis
07-29-2016, 05:13 PM
Latimer is going beast this year. I know it in my bones!!

NightTerror218
07-29-2016, 05:14 PM
Norwood, Fowler and Taylor over Latimer. All day erry day.

As receivers but as backups they need to be good ST tacklers and players. No question latimer was great in KO and PR coverage last year. The other 3 are fighting for #3 WR and others must be good on ST.

NightTerror218
07-29-2016, 05:15 PM
Another comment is that your roster leaves out Keyvon Webster who is our ST ace now.

MOtorboat
07-29-2016, 05:43 PM
Another comment is that your roster leaves out Keyvon Webster who is our ST ace now.

He's there.

gregbroncs
07-29-2016, 06:01 PM
I think it looks good Mo. The O line is in question depending on where they play Sambrailo and I think Booker takes Hillmans job.I'm expecting Booker to compete for Anderson's job. I would be really disappointed if he can't surpass Hillman.

Simple Jaded
07-29-2016, 07:24 PM
One thing could be said for making Sampro a swing T is that if his future is at T at least he's developing at that position. Plus he may not have the strength to play G atm, coming off shoulder injury and being soft to begin with.

But I doubt that happens, he's gotta be on the field even if it means moving Stephenson to G.

Btw, MO, I think you got Corey Nelson and Eddie Yarborough reversed. I'd be interested to know if that's how you see it happening.

DenBronx
07-29-2016, 07:30 PM
Latimer is going beast this year. I know it in my bones!!

I see that statement every year. Lol

Simple Jaded
07-29-2016, 07:32 PM
I thought about that too. Probably kept too few lineman up there, too.

They probably keep another OL but I bet that's the 8 gameday active lineman.

OrangeHoof
07-30-2016, 04:28 AM
I don't see keeping six receivers. Heuerman better be a lot better than what I think of him or our TE play is going to suck badly this year. Colquitt will keep his job.

tomjonesrocks
07-30-2016, 10:07 AM
I think it looks good Mo. The O line is in question depending on where they play Sambrailo and I think Booker takes Hillmans job.

My thoughts exactly - I'm not sure Hillman makes the team.

TXBRONC
07-30-2016, 10:17 AM
I don't see keeping six receivers. Heuerman better be a lot better than what I think of him or our TE play is going to suck badly this year. Colquitt will keep his job.

Why are you so down Heuerman? Elway thinks pretty good prospect. Right now what will see from the tight end position a committee approach.

I don't know about Colquitt keeping his job.

OrangeHoof
07-30-2016, 11:25 AM
Why are you so down Heuerman?

What has he done? What were all his great accomplishments at Ohio State? Kubiak's offense needs good TEs and I don't see any on our roster.

TXBRONC
07-30-2016, 11:56 AM
What has he done? What were all his great accomplishments at Ohio State? Kubiak's offense needs good TEs and I don't see any on our roster.

As I also said in that same post Elway see something in him.

Simple Jaded
07-30-2016, 01:02 PM
Hoof you make it sound like the Broncos either get Mongo-like Impact or the TE's suck badly, if you go back Kubiak never had that. Owen Daniels, Garrett Graham and Joel Dreessen is the shoes that Heuerman has to fill.

Mid-to-late round white dude, that's what this offense needs.

Nomad
07-30-2016, 03:37 PM
MO....it's nice to see you're warming up to the idea of a fullback. I think Janovich is going to be a damn good addition.

MOtorboat
07-30-2016, 03:46 PM
MO....it's nice to see you're warming up to the idea of a fullback. I think Janovich is going to be a damn good addition.

This is what I think it will be, not what I would do. Fullback is a wasted roster spot in today's NFL.

Nomad
07-30-2016, 03:47 PM
This is what I think it will be, not what I would do. Fullback is a wasted roster spot in today's NFL.

We'll see.

MOtorboat
07-30-2016, 04:13 PM
We'll see.

I don't think there's any waiting to see whether they'll use him or not. They're going to use a fullback. I just think there are better, more efficient offenses. That's not what the Broncos are going to do moving forward, so my personal opinion of the offense I'd like to see is a moot point. This is the offense they're running.

Denver Native (Carol)
07-30-2016, 04:28 PM
Troy Renck ‏@TroyRenck 4h

#Broncos Kubiak said Hillman and Bibbs both will play on special teams. Have different roles but it will be part of the evaluation

Troy Renck ‏@TroyRenck 5h

#Broncos Kapri Bibbs on punt coverage. Smart move. More can do more chance to make team

OrangeHoof
07-30-2016, 04:32 PM
As I also said in that same post Elway see something in him.

Weak. Elway has had some good draft choices but he's also had some busts. You also haven't answered my question. What has he done?

Nomad
07-30-2016, 04:42 PM
I don't think there's any waiting to see whether they'll use him or not. They're going to use a fullback. I just think there are better, more efficient offenses. That's not what the Broncos are going to do moving forward, so my personal opinion of the offense I'd like to see is a moot point. This is the offense they're running.

OK. Let me elaborate....we'll see if it's a wasted roster spot in the NFL.

TXBRONC
07-30-2016, 05:27 PM
Weak. Elway has had some good draft choices but he's also had some busts. You also haven't answered my question. What has he done?

What is there to answer? He was a rookie last season and ended up on IR so obviously he did have chance to prove anything.

BroncoBuckeye73
07-30-2016, 06:58 PM
Heurman is going to be good to great this year. He was a great college TE at Ohio State 2 time all Big Ten. Lots of great TE come from the Big Ten Orange and he was a good blocker and good pass catcher. He will be great in Kubiak's offense by the end of the year and i think he may end up a great weapon down the seam.

Joel
07-31-2016, 02:11 AM
I don't think there's any waiting to see whether they'll use him or not. They're going to use a fullback. I just think there are better, more efficient offenses. That's not what the Broncos are going to do moving forward, so my personal opinion of the offense I'd like to see is a moot point. This is the offense they're running.
If you're gonna start being all realistic and stuff there's no point in even talking with you anymore. :(

Joel
07-31-2016, 02:43 AM
I think Booker backs up Anderson and starts when Anderson gets hurt. I don't think Hillman's job as the change of pace guy is really in jeopardy, to be honest. There wasn't really a way to show that on a depth chart list.
Sounds right: The starting/backup spot may be a free for all, but we have no true "change of pace backup," so that job's Hillmans by default as long as he's healthy.


I mean, I guess he has a point. RBs notoriously take a long time to develop. You never see a RB start and play well right off the bat. :D
They ARE notorious for needing a long time to learn NFL blocking, so more than a few talented runners have languished on the bench because they get the franchise QB killed on passing downs. It's the nature of the beast. There's ~800 NFL starter jobs in a country of >320 million people, so the guys who get them can't be either one-trick-pony specialists or jacks-of-all-trades who are master of none: Excelling at MOST things is a prerequisite for NFL starters.

That gives CJ and even Bibbs a huge edge over any rookie who's not a potential first ballot HoFer. Booker may or may not be the future, but CJ's more than proven himself as a runner, blocker and receiving back, so he's almost certain to be the work horse as long as our TBA line can keep him in one piece.


I don't think Norwood is slot #1. His catching radius is small, and there are better blockers for the running game.

Norwood in the game tells the defense it's likely a pass.
I still like Sanders for that job (which I believe he had in Pitt) since slot "possession" WR has become a starting rather than situational role. Also since CBs have gotten bigger and more physical to deal with outside WRs who've done the same: Fowler's got 2" and 30 lbs. on Sanders, so I'd rather have him outside and Sanders in the slot than the reverse.


One thing could be said for making Sampro a swing T is that if his future is at T at least he's developing at that position. Plus he may not have the strength to play G atm, coming off shoulder injury and being soft to begin with.

But I doubt that happens, he's gotta be on the field even if it means moving Stephenson to G.

Btw, MO, I think you got Corey Nelson and Eddie Yarborough reversed. I'd be interested to know if that's how you see it happening.
GOTTA? Why? Because we're so thin on the line in the first place? I will say that it looks like we have more reliable RT alternatives than RG alternatives; I think we'll miss Vasquez by seasons end, even if he was a better pass blocker than mauling inside run blocker.

As usual, I feel like the offensive line's the most uncertain part of the team, so I can't rule out any possibilities (except maybe benching a healthy Okung.) Garcia's a good run blocker, but both he and Paradis struggled in pass protection and against ANY kind of deception like stunts and delayed blitzes last year; if that's still an issue, so are they. We've seen all of 3 games from Sambrailo, Stephenson only occasionally when playing KC, and the rest not at all. Anything could happen....

Frankly, MO's either dead on target or has lost his mind, because I can't disagree with him much (this time.... ;)) Mostly on little things, specifically:

1) The aforementioned matter of leaving Sanders outside and putting Norwood in the slot instead of moving Sanders inside and putting Fowler outside,
2) Ray ahead of Ware, who I expect to start; how long his back lets him REMAIN the starter's a big question though, so maybe that's why MO listed them as he did,
3) Unless Thompson worked into the starting RB rotation or he just CAN'T block, I'd bet on him at FB, because he's a bruiser who runs well but likes hitting people.

Again, little things; maybe more a question of emphasis than accuracy. Davis and Nelson still strike me as safeties impersonating LBs, but what's our other option?

TXBRONC
07-31-2016, 07:47 AM
Heurman is going to be good to great this year. He was a great college TE at Ohio State 2 time all Big Ten. Lots of great TE come from the Big Ten Orange and he was a good blocker and good pass catcher. He will be great in Kubiak's offense by the end of the year and i think he may end up a great weapon down the seam.

I hope he will be. I won't write him off as a bust just because he missed last season.

I would like to see him and Green become a nice tandem but to date Green hasn't been used much in the passing game.

Valar Morghulis
07-31-2016, 08:06 AM
In the 2014 season, the loss of virgin green was huge for us. His absence nullified our run game.

I see a big time role for him now. But not just as a blocker, next to latimer, he is one of my favorite under the radar players

OrangeHoof
07-31-2016, 08:59 AM
To be fair to Heuerman, I went back and looked at YouTube highlights of him at OSU and what I saw was a guy with above average speed with a knack for being totally ignored in pass coverage and making the ridiculously wide open catch. For a TE, the blocking was somewhat suspect, particularly since these were supposed to be highlight videos. I was hoping to see the tough catch with defenders draped over him but OSU must have had so many weapons that the QB never threw to him except when he was completely uncovered. So, I'm still not sure we have an NFL tight end. We have a large receiver with above average speed who seems to make himself invisible to safeties more worried about other weapons on the field.

dogfish
07-31-2016, 12:04 PM
Btw, MO, I think you got Corey Nelson and Eddie Yarborough reversed. I'd be interested to know if that's how you see it happening.

yea, i didn't understand why he flipped those guys. . . nelson played inside last year, and yarbrough is primarily a pass rusher. . .

i'll be surprised and disappointed if fowler isn't the number three. . . and super disappointed if booker can't beat out sorry ass hillman. . .

i kind of expect walker to start at DE-- anybody know who's running with the ones in that spot at practice?

MOtorboat
07-31-2016, 12:25 PM
yea, i didn't understand why he flipped those guys. . . nelson played inside last year, and yarbrough is primarily a pass rusher. . .

i'll be surprised and disappointed if fowler isn't the number three. . . and super disappointed if booker can't beat out sorry ass hillman. . .

i kind of expect walker to start at DE-- anybody know who's running with the ones in that spot at practice?

Again, it's not really Hillman "beating out" Booker, it's that Hillman is going to play change of pace and Booker is going to back up Anderson. That's how I see it going down.

dogfish
07-31-2016, 12:35 PM
Again, it's not really Hillman "beating out" Booker, it's that Hillman is going to play change of pace and Booker is going to back up Anderson. That's how I see it going down.

i understand. . . me and U29 are holding out hope for bibbs in that role. . . :D


and historically, kubes has favored giving one back most of the touches-- CJ just hasn't proven himself capable of handling the workload. . .

MOtorboat
07-31-2016, 12:44 PM
Btw, MO, I think you got Corey Nelson and Eddie Yarborough reversed. I'd be interested to know if that's how you see it happening.

Eh, couldn't remember which was which. I hope I never see either.

MOtorboat
07-31-2016, 12:44 PM
i understand. . . me and U29 are holding out hope for bibbs in that role. . . :D


and historically, kubes has favored giving one back most of the touches-- CJ just hasn't proven himself capable of handling the workload. . .

The practice squad running back is always popular. :2thumbs:

Ziggy
07-31-2016, 02:53 PM
I think Norwood locks up the #3 receiver spot this season. Sanders and DT will stay on the outside with Norwood in the slot, and Fowler coming in as the 4th WR. Latimer was a special teams stud last year, so I think he sticks as the 5th WR. The last spot or two is completely up in the air.

Ziggy
07-31-2016, 02:54 PM
This is what I think it will be, not what I would do. Fullback is a wasted roster spot in today's NFL.

Not when they are a stud on special teams.

TXBRONC
07-31-2016, 07:29 PM
I think Norwood locks up the #3 receiver spot this season. Sanders and DT will stay on the outside with Norwood in the slot, and Fowler coming in as the 4th WR. Latimer was a special teams stud last year, so I think he sticks as the 5th WR. The last spot or two is completely up in the air.

I think Fowler is the better receiver.

Joel
07-31-2016, 08:07 PM
I think Fowler is the better receiver.
He's the more dangerous receiver, from what I've seen. Norwood gets open and snags balls, but so does Fowler (when targeted) and my impression is that he's far better at MAKING things happen, especially after the catch. For what it's worth, Norwoods EXACTLY the same size as Sanders (5'11", 180) but Fowler's significantly bigger (6'1", 212.) Maybe that explains why I remember Fowler doing more damage after first contact (or maybe it's just subjective bias.)

For what THAT'S worth, here are the combine results:
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/bennie-fowler?id=2543612
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/jordan-norwood?id=71417

In measurable, Norwood's quicker and has a slightly better vertical, but Fowler's both bigger AND a full tenth of a second faster (his 126" broad jump was also 5th among WRs in 2014; Byron Jones set the world record at 147" in least years combine.) Given a choice, I'd rather keep smaller shiftier Norwood as our primary return man (which is how he made the 2014 team) and let Fowler run by and over people as #3 WR.

dogfish
07-31-2016, 08:08 PM
The practice squad running back is always popular. :2thumbs:

especially when there's a guy ahead of him who sucks. . . ;) :2thumbs: :welcome:

dogfish
07-31-2016, 08:10 PM
I think Fowler is the better receiver.

yep. . . he's younger, bigger, and probably more talented overall. . . norwood may not make the roster if one of our young guys can step up and actually show some return ability. . . if hillman's so fast and such a great runner, maybe he can do something back there. . . i doubt it, though. . .

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
07-31-2016, 08:31 PM
yep. . . he's younger, bigger, and probably more talented overall. . . norwood may not make the roster if one of our young guys can step up and actually show some return ability. . . if hillman's so fast and such a great runner, maybe he can do something back there. . . i doubt it, though. . .

The idea of Hillman fielding punts scares me. I'm probably not the only person it scares or they would have tried it by now.

Dapper Dan
07-31-2016, 08:36 PM
The idea of Hillman fielding punts scares me. I'm probably not the only person it scares or they would have tried it by now.

I'm sure they've looked at it. I remember in 2014 at the Bengals game he was practicing with the return team before the game. I have pictures. :lol:

dogfish
07-31-2016, 08:51 PM
The idea of Hillman fielding punts scares me. I'm probably not the only person it scares or they would have tried it by now.

i meant kickoff returns, but yea-- the idea of hillman doing anything scares me. . . i'll be happier if he doesn't make the team. . . however, if we do have to use a roster spot on him again, you may as well at least try to get what you can out of it. . .

Dapper Dan
07-31-2016, 09:01 PM
I hope we cut Colquitt and Hillman to sign Tebow.

dogfish
07-31-2016, 09:11 PM
I hope we cut Colquitt and Hillman to sign Tebow.

after all MO's done for you??


:tsk:

Dapper Dan
07-31-2016, 09:29 PM
after all MO's done for you??


:tsk:

He still comes up short.

MOtorboat
07-31-2016, 09:44 PM
I hope we cut Colquitt and Hillman to sign Tebow.

It's my understanding the team needs a punt protector.

TXBRONC
07-31-2016, 10:06 PM
yep. . . he's younger, bigger, and probably more talented overall. . . norwood may not make the roster if one of our young guys can step up and actually show some return ability. . . if hillman's so fast and such a great runner, maybe he can do something back there. . . i doubt it, though. . .

Norwood has been sure handed in punt returns but if Denver can find someone a little more explosive that would be best. His return Super Bowl was nice but a returner with just a little more speed may not have been caught from behind.

Dapper Dan
07-31-2016, 10:10 PM
It's my understanding the team needs a punt protector.

No one knows punt protection like Rex Ryan.

Simple Jaded
07-31-2016, 11:21 PM
GOTTA? Why? Because we're so thin on the line in the first place? I will say that it looks like we have more reliable RT alternatives than RG alternatives; I think we'll miss Vasquez by seasons end, even if he was a better pass blocker than mauling inside run blocker.

As usual, I feel like the offensive line's the most uncertain part of the team, so I can't rule out any possibilities (except maybe benching a healthy Okung.) Garcia's a good run blocker, but both he and Paradis struggled in pass protection and against ANY kind of deception like stunts and delayed blitzes last year; if that's still an issue, so are they. We've seen all of 3 games from Sambrailo, Stephenson only occasionally when playing KC, and the rest not at all. Anything could happen...
He's gotta be on the field because he's one of their 5 best OL, even if you're encouraged by the starting 5 on paper you have to admit that the depth is shit.

Joel
08-01-2016, 02:27 AM
He's gotta be on the field because he's one of their 5 best OL, even if you're encouraged by the starting 5 on paper you have to admit that the depth is shit.
Okay, if that's all you meant, I can't dispute it. If only because there's so little data to make any kind of case either way: PARADIS got a VET day?! I don't begrudge it, but wasn't he a PS rookie just two years ago? His SINGLE season on the active roster must've taught him a Hell of a lot if he can afford to skip practices.

Anyway: When HAVEN'T I admitted our OL depth is shit? ;)

VonDoom
08-01-2016, 03:42 PM
He's gotta be on the field because he's one of their 5 best OL, even if you're encouraged by the starting 5 on paper you have to admit that the depth is shit.

I was working on an early 53 man roster, but I hadn't broken it out by depth chart positions, and after looking through this thread, I agree that OL depth is an issue. I've been thinking of our starting five as Okung/Garcia/Paradis/Sambrailo/Stephenson, which looks much better than last year. But that leaves us precious little as a backup swing tackle. I pretty much don't want to see Schofield again, but I currently have him making the team in that role. If Sambrailo was the swing tackle, what does that do for G depth? I guess Myers would start in that case, with McGovern as the backup to both positions? I'd rather see Sambrailo out there somewhere starting, since he's likely one of the five best OL, as Jaded said.

NightTerror218
08-01-2016, 05:14 PM
I was working on an early 53 man roster, but I hadn't broken it out by depth chart positions, and after looking through this thread, I agree that OL depth is an issue. I've been thinking of our starting five as Okung/Garcia/Paradis/Sambrailo/Stephenson, which looks much better than last year. But that leaves us precious little as a backup swing tackle. I pretty much don't want to see Schofield again, but I currently have him making the team in that role. If Sambrailo was the swing tackle, what does that do for G depth? I guess Myers would start in that case, with McGovern as the backup to both positions? I'd rather see Sambrailo out there somewhere starting, since he's likely one of the five best OL, as Jaded said.

I put my money on McGovern to be our 2nd best G on the roster. I think he will become a road grader on running downs. He has the strength the sambrilo is missing. Already saw reports of sambrilo getting pushed around by the DTs.

NightTerror218
08-01-2016, 06:17 PM
Tweet from cecil lammey on mvgovern

a power player who did a good job inside with the 1s today. think a healthy Vasquez (at rookie's best) #Broncos https://t.co/TCVlbeSJ3E

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-01-2016, 08:56 PM
Tweet from cecil lammey on mvgovern

a power player who did a good job inside with the 1s today. think a healthy Vasquez (at rookie's best) #Broncos https://t.co/TCVlbeSJ3E

If he was as good as a healthy Vasquez he wouldn't have lasted that long. That's a bit of a reach.

Simple Jaded
08-01-2016, 09:17 PM
I put my money on McGovern to be our 2nd best G on the roster. I think he will become a road grader on running downs. He has the strength the sambrilo is missing. Already saw reports of sambrilo getting pushed around by the DTs.

I'm inclined to agree, McGovern is no Vasquez but he's got G strength with good athletic ability. Sampro hasn't had the chance to work on his strength as a Pro yet so it's not surprising that he's getting knocked around, he's gonna have to get stronger to move to G. He's probably going to be needed at T sooner or later anyway.

Knock on wood.

NightTerror218
08-01-2016, 10:13 PM
If he was as good as a healthy Vasquez he wouldn't have lasted that long. That's a bit of a reach.

All rookies have a lro comparison. I am happy with another vasquez if we are lucky. Dude is also coming off injury too which could be his case for a slide. But guards in general slide in draft.

underrated29
08-01-2016, 11:44 PM
McGovern impressed me at camp. Same with that ferentz guy

BroncoWave
08-01-2016, 11:55 PM
Hillman impressed me at camp. Not the same with that Bibbs guy

I knew you would come around! :D

Joel
08-02-2016, 01:33 AM
I was working on an early 53 man roster, but I hadn't broken it out by depth chart positions, and after looking through this thread, I agree that OL depth is an issue. I've been thinking of our starting five as Okung/Garcia/Paradis/Sambrailo/Stephenson, which looks much better than last year. But that leaves us precious little as a backup swing tackle. I pretty much don't want to see Schofield again, but I currently have him making the team in that role. If Sambrailo was the swing tackle, what does that do for G depth? I guess Myers would start in that case, with McGovern as the backup to both positions? I'd rather see Sambrailo out there somewhere starting, since he's likely one of the five best OL, as Jaded said.
Part of the problem is that our best "swing" candidates are also most likely starters. Most talk I've seen is of whether Sambrailo or Stephenson should start inside, but the big takeaway from that is that NEITHER of them will be able to backup either position (much less both) if they're already starting. Maybe it's as simple as sticking one of them at RG, the other at RT and letting the healthy one slide over at the first injury while McGovern subs for injured RGs and Schofield for injured RTs. But given our luck with sliding RG/T back and forth in recent years, that "solution" is less than encouraging.

dogfish
08-02-2016, 03:49 AM
If he was as good as a healthy Vasquez he wouldn't have lasted that long. That's a bit of a reach.

yea, really. . .

vasquez went in the THIRD round, dumbasses!!!

dogfish
08-02-2016, 03:57 AM
seriously, though. . . y'all ain't wrong, but. . . at the risk of joel's heart, let's be honest. . . the O-line just isn't the priority it used to be. . . a good LT is still a luxury, but you can win without one. . . the run game most certainly isn't obsolete, but it also ain't what it was a decade or so ago. . .and even pass protection isn't paramount when good QBs can consistently get it out on three steps, or find somewhere to throw it for a flag. . .

it's not a coincidence that teams with garbage OLs have still won the super bowl the last three years. . .

MOtorboat
08-02-2016, 04:00 AM
seriously, though. . . y'all ain't wrong, but. . . at the risk of joel's heart, let's be honest. . . the O-line just isn't the priority it used to be. . . a good LT is still a luxury, but you can win without one. . . the run game most certainly isn't obsolete, but it also ain't what it was a decade or so ago. . .and even pass protection isn't paramount when good QBs can consistently get it out on three steps, or find somewhere to throw it for a flag. . .

it's not a coincidence that teams with garbage OLs have still won the super bowl the last three years. . .

More efficient to throw the ball...:coffee:

Simple Jaded
08-02-2016, 11:22 PM
Dubstep is efficient, only need one person with zero talent to make that.

slim
08-03-2016, 08:45 AM
More efficient to throw the ball...:coffee:

Not if your QB is constantly turning it over

TXBRONC
08-03-2016, 09:00 AM
Not if your QB is constantly turning it over

Well said Slim.

Quite honestly running the ball isn't inefficient in and of itself.

MOtorboat
08-03-2016, 10:40 AM
Not if your QB is constantly turning it over

Not really, but I don't feel like arguing. I just hope the 90s offense works, or Kubiak has evolved it.

BroncoJoe
08-03-2016, 11:23 AM
Not really, but I don't feel like arguing. I just hope the 90s offense works, or Kubiak has evolved it.

I'd guess that Kubiak is young enough where his playbook is a breathing document.

He did just fine as OC for the Ravens in 2014. Last year's fall off (IMO) was Peyton, and having to KISS while Brock was starting.

MOtorboat
08-03-2016, 11:25 AM
I'd guess that Kubiak is young enough where his playbook is a breathing document.

He did just fine as OC for the Ravens in 2014. Last year's fall off (IMO) was Peyton, and having to KISS while Brock was starting.

I don't think the offense will look anything like it did last year. Maybe a little like some of those games with Osweiler, but Manning ran his own offense, essentially.

Slick
08-03-2016, 11:55 AM
A smashmouth offense might be pretty effective going against defenses that are built to stop the pass.

My biggest questions are how the O line shakes out, the TE position and 3 and 4 WR. I think it's pretty safe to assume the defense stays the same.

slim
08-03-2016, 12:14 PM
Not really, but I don't feel like arguing. I just hope the 90s offense works, or Kubiak has evolved it.

Okay, let's not argue then.

I am looking forward to watching Paxton play this preseason...

VonDoom
08-03-2016, 02:02 PM
A smashmouth offense might be pretty effective going against defenses that are built to stop the pass.

I was actually thinking this earlier. I'm not a big fan of the (potentially) antiquated offense that we're planning to run, but if it works, I don't care. And defenses are built to counteract the spread offense now - it's why 220 safety/LB hybrids are becoming all the rage. If you can pound it at smaller guys, the offense could be quite effective.

Buff
08-03-2016, 02:41 PM
So you guys are buying into Mike Mularky ball? That's what he's been selling in Tennessee - talking about how more and more teams are in nickel defense more often which lends itself to exploiting with smashmouth ball.

I still think they key is versatility. The thing that's made Brady and the Patriots so successful is that they can adapt their offense to any defensive scheme and make them defend the entire field. Basically the opposite of our offense last year, which had virtually zero element of surprise.

Mike
08-03-2016, 02:48 PM
So you guys are buying into Mike Mularky ball? That's what he's been selling in Tennessee - talking about how more and more teams are in nickel defense more often which lends itself to exploiting with smashmouth ball.

I still think they key is versatility. The thing that's made Brady and the Patriots so successful is that they can adapt their offense to any defensive scheme and make them defend the entire field. Basically the opposite of our offense last year, which had virtually zero element of surprise.

I expect the same type of versatility as last year. Maybe Dookie can run a more effective bootleg, but my fear that it still going to be run/run/pass type of plans and let the defense win the games.

VonDoom
08-03-2016, 03:03 PM
So you guys are buying into Mike Mularky ball? That's what he's been selling in Tennessee - talking about how more and more teams are in nickel defense more often which lends itself to exploiting with smashmouth ball.

I still think they key is versatility. The thing that's made Brady and the Patriots so successful is that they can adapt their offense to any defensive scheme and make them defend the entire field. Basically the opposite of our offense last year, which had virtually zero element of surprise.

I can agree with that. I just think we're building a run first team, partially by choice, partially by necessity. We don't have a QB that can sling it all over the field and open things up (at least not yet - maybe that guy is Lynch, but I don't expect him to be able to do that this year). So ball control, grind it out, let the defense win it looks like what we're doing. I want them to be more versatile as well - anytime you can predict the play call from your couch repeatedly has little chance of success.

The Patriots are successful because a) Brady is an all time great QB and b) Belichick has always been the master of exploiting things that other coaches haven't figured out yet. One of those things is coming to an end when birthday boy Brady ages out soon.

dogfish
08-03-2016, 03:11 PM
I expect the same type of versatility as last year. Maybe Dookie can run a more effective bootleg, but my fear that it still going to be run/run/pass type of plans and let the defense win the games.

as opposed to what, letting sanchez or a rookie throw it forty or more times a game?

:noidea:

with this defense, and the options we currently have at quarterback, of course we're going to play conservative and rely on the defense. . . worked pretty well last year, right? i'm sure john elway of all people doesn't bring a dan reeves mentality to the table. . . i highly doubt we'd be running GK's offense if we still had manning from 2012. . . gotta work with what's on hand at the moment, though. . .

Mike
08-03-2016, 03:18 PM
as opposed to what, letting sanchez or a rookie throw it forty or more times a game?

:noidea:

with this defense, and the options we currently have at quarterback, of course we're going to play conservative and rely on the defense. . . worked pretty well last year, right? i'm sure john elway of all people doesn't bring a dan reeves mentality to the table. . . i highly doubt we'd be running GK's offense if we still had manning from 2012. . . gotta work with what's on hand at the moment, though. . .

No, but something more imaginative than run on 1st down 99% of the time would be a plus. I don't mind a run oriented offense, but I am opposed to an easy to read offense.

dogfish
08-03-2016, 03:33 PM
No, but something more imaginative than run on 1st down 99% of the time would be a plus. I don't mind a run oriented offense, but I am opposed to an easy to read offense.

so, throw in a shovel pass here and there?

:D


in all seriousness, i'll be pretty disappointed if we don't see some play action on first down. . . i think we will. . .

MOtorboat
08-03-2016, 04:44 PM
So you guys are buying into Mike Mularky ball? That's what he's been selling in Tennessee - talking about how more and more teams are in nickel defense more often which lends itself to exploiting with smashmouth ball.

I still think they key is versatility. The thing that's made Brady and the Patriots so successful is that they can adapt their offense to any defensive scheme and make them defend the entire field. Basically the opposite of our offense last year, which had virtually zero element of surprise.

No. Not buying it at all. Just don't feel like arguing the point right now. Besides, not much I can do about it, that appears to be what Kubiak is doing.

Dapper Dan
08-03-2016, 08:21 PM
so, throw in a shovel pass here and there?

:D


in all seriousness, i'll be pretty disappointed if we don't see some play action on first down. . . i think we will. . .

Two words. Bubble Screens.

Simple Jaded
08-03-2016, 08:33 PM
There's nothing antiquated about running the ball, I have blogs to prove it.

BroncoWave
08-03-2016, 08:34 PM
Oh goody, we have reached that time of year where Mo begins fighting everyone over the merits of passing vs rushing. Lemme go get my popcorn!

MOtorboat
08-03-2016, 11:00 PM
Oh goody, we have reached that time of year where Mo begins fighting everyone over the merits of passing vs rushing. Lemme go get my popcorn!

Yay! Running!

dogfish
08-03-2016, 11:02 PM
Yay! Running!

wait. . . do you actually hate running, or something?

BroncoWave
08-03-2016, 11:11 PM
wait. . . do you actually hate running, or something?

I think Mo would be happy if we didn't use a RB at all and just went straight air raid. :D

Simple Jaded
08-03-2016, 11:16 PM
wait. . . do you actually hate running, or something?

Not really, far as I can tell, as long as it's run out of shotgun.

MOtorboat
08-03-2016, 11:20 PM
wait. . . do you actually hate running, or something?

No. People like to exaggerate my feelings on the subject. I just find it funny how giddy people get about running the football. I'd advocate for 58/42 56/44 mix, myself.

MOtorboat
08-03-2016, 11:21 PM
I think Mo would be happy if we didn't use a RB at all and just went straight air raid. :D

Just imagine how badass that would be.

BroncoWave
08-03-2016, 11:24 PM
Just imagine how badass that would be.

It would certainly be entertaining to see attempted.

Joel
08-04-2016, 01:13 AM
No. Not buying it at all. Just don't feel like arguing the point right now. Besides, not much I can do about it, that appears to be what Kubiak is doing.
Who are you and what have you done with MO?!:scared:


I don't know what Mularkey or whoever else is doing, but a big part of what makes football fascinating and fun (if sometimes frustrating) is that it's an ADAPTIVE chess match. There's an offense/defense pendulum and a pass/run pendulum, and if the long term trend is toward the first half of those two paradigms, it's also toward BALANCE. Any and every time the pendulum swings too far in any direction someone comes along and exploits that by going the other way and winning a few championships "playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers." That leads to similarly successful innovators and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Sometimes it's less important what PARTICULAR philosophy a coach uses than whether he's leading or following the pack.

It's also important to remember "run first" doesn't mean just handing it off on a line plunge, hoping the RB has enough momentum to move two tons of offensive and defensive linemen. Runs can be creative and high risk/reward, but the running version of "high risk" is the equivalent of a sack, not a pick-six. Anyone who thinks Kubiaks offense is just a glorified Packer Sweep for three yards and a cloud of dust needs to go re-watch our first two championships.

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 02:04 AM
Who are you and what have you done with MO?!:scared:


I don't know what Mularkey or whoever else is doing, but a big part of what makes football fascinating and fun (if sometimes frustrating) is that it's an ADAPTIVE chess match. There's an offense/defense pendulum and a pass/run pendulum, and if the long term trend is toward the first half of those two paradigms, it's also toward BALANCE. Any and every time the pendulum swings too far in any direction someone comes along and exploits that by going the other way and winning a few championships "playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers." That leads to similarly successful innovators and the whole cycle starts all over again.

Sometimes it's less important what PARTICULAR philosophy a coach uses than whether he's leading or following the pack.

It's also important to remember "run first" doesn't mean just handing it off on a line plunge, hoping the RB has enough momentum to move two tons of offensive and defensive linemen. Runs can be creative and high risk/reward, but the running version of "high risk" is the equivalent of a sack, not a pick-six. Anyone who thinks Kubiaks offense is just a glorified Packer Sweep for three yards and a cloud of dust needs to go re-watch our first two championships.

If they run the ball more than 50 percent, they aren't ahead of any damn curve or playing chess, they're stuck in the stone ages. In terms of your turnover bullshit. It's pretty much that, just bullshit. League average for interceptions is 2.2 percent. 2.2 percent of passes end in interception. 60-65, and sometimes good quarterbacks 70 percent, end in 11 yards per play. The turnover mularkey is just pure nonsense from the 1960s when no one was collecting data. For as smart as you claim to be, you'd think you'd be a little further ahead of the curve.

Joel
08-04-2016, 05:55 AM
If they run the ball more than 50 percent, they aren't ahead of any damn curve or playing chess, they're stuck in the stone ages. In terms of your turnover bullshit. It's pretty much that, just bullshit. League average for interceptions is 2.2 percent. 2.2 percent of passes end in interception. 60-65, and sometimes good quarterbacks 70 percent, end in 11 yards per play. The turnover mularkey is just pure nonsense from the 1960s when no one was collecting data. For as smart as you claim to be, you'd think you'd be a little further ahead of the curve.
A 2.2% turnover percentage is awful compared to a 0.5% turnover percentage. And it's even worse than THAT, because the number of fumbles on sacks and receptions is higher than the number on actual runs. Again: If a starting QB has 6 turnovers he goes to the Pro Bowl; if a starting RB does he goes on waivers.

That's not data from the 1960s (when the AFL was the ultimate PASSERS league, incidentally; that's how they won the ratings war so handily the establishment NFL came begging for a merger.) It's data from 2014; the world hasn't changed THAT much in a SINGLE season.

If we're getting first/touchdowns I don't really care if it's through the air or on the ground. I do PREFER doing it on the ground though, because it keeps the #1 D rested and fresh and those gunslinging opposing QBs impotently benched, while wearing down the defenses we face. Even the fastest striking offense can't score from the sideline. Let the passing game get us to the end zone and red zone once our running's gashed the bad guys so consistently and often they MUST sell out on stopping it.

"Run 'em out of the Cover 2" invented in the late 1990s isn't a 1960s phrase (even if "run to establish the pass" is.) When John Lynch says, "you have to earn the right to rush the passer" that's not based on his experience as a 1960s NFL player. There's nothing new under the sun.

TXBRONC
08-04-2016, 09:02 AM
No. People like to exaggerate my feelings on the subject. I just find it funny how giddy people get about running the football. I'd advocate for 58/42 56/44 mix, myself.

Who has advocated for running the ball more than 50% of time? We used a mix like that when Manning was still at the top of him and didn't quite pan out as well as everyone had hoped.

Slick
08-04-2016, 09:21 AM
Mo wants to see the Sanchize throw it 50+ times a game.

Mike
08-04-2016, 09:30 AM
Mo wants to see the Sanchize throw it 50+ times a game.

:rain:

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 12:20 PM
Mo wants to see the Sanchize throw it 50+ times a game.

Speaking of those exaggerations.

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 12:30 PM
A 2.2% turnover percentage is awful compared to a 0.5% turnover percentage. And it's even worse than THAT, because the number of fumbles on sacks and receptions is higher than the number on actual runs.

If I told you something would go bad 2.2 percent of the time, right 70 percent of the time and nothing would happen 27.8 percent of the time, you wouldn't spend so much time worrying about the 2.2 percent. But since you read some outdated book from the 60s, you obsess over it.

slim
08-04-2016, 12:35 PM
Mo wants to see the Sanchize throw it 50+ times a game.

He hates the running game....HATES it.

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 12:39 PM
He hates the running game....HATES it.

I prefer the word "loathe."

NightTerror218
08-04-2016, 01:00 PM
Even in houston the offense did not rush 50% so why would it jump to overover that. While it was close to 50/50 still favored the pass. Kubiaks system loves play action passes. I am excited to see what a mobile QB can do with that. He has never had a really mobile atheletic QB. Flacco, manning, Oz, all the guys in houston.

Thus offense will be fun to watch once it gets going. If our TE turn i to great pass acatches defenses who now load up on pass coverage safties for nickle defense will be disadvantage for a ground and pound. They put in coverage LB instead of safties then a good receiving TE could be licking chops. Last year when Oz played the middle of field opened up so much like against the Pats. I expect similiar to happen with this offense.

dogfish
08-04-2016, 01:40 PM
Mo wants to see the Sanchize throw it 50+ times a game.

60+. . .


:cool:

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 01:43 PM
60+. . .


:cool:

6,000 passing yards and I guarantee 40 touchdowns.

dogfish
08-04-2016, 01:47 PM
6,000 passing yards and I guarantee 40 touchdowns.

yea, but how many interceptions, MO? did you ever stop to think of that? did you?!

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 01:57 PM
yea, but how many interceptions, MO? did you ever stop to think of that? did you?!

Nope.

Dapper Dan
08-04-2016, 02:26 PM
6,000 passing yards and I guarantee 40 touchdowns.

Yeah, but what about 6,000 rushing yards?

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 02:56 PM
Yeah, but what about 6,000 rushing yards?

Not attainable.

:coffee:

BroncoJoe
08-04-2016, 03:14 PM
Is no one going to post their own depth chart outlook, or are we just supposed to tear MO apart?

I mean I'm fine with either, just want to make sure what the point of the thread is.

Slick
08-04-2016, 03:27 PM
Is no one going to post their own depth chart outlook, or are we just supposed to tear MO apart?

I mean I'm fine with either, just want to make sure what the point of the thread is.

I tried to post my outlook not bag on Mo although I took an opportunity to tease him about passing the ball 50+ times a game.

The only real questions within the depth chart is how the Oline shakes out and who starts at TE. I think we pretty much know how the rest shakes out.

I think Mo pretty much nailed it in the original post.

BroncoJoe
08-04-2016, 04:24 PM
I tried to post my outlook not bag on Mo although I took an opportunity to tease him about passing the ball 50+ times a game.

The only real questions within the depth chart is how the Oline shakes out and who starts at TE. I think we pretty much know how the rest shakes out.

I think Mo pretty much nailed it in the original post.

Yeah, my post was in jest, more or less.

I have read through this thread, and don't think anyone else posted their own depth chart. I certainly won't do that - personally I could care less, but thought it was interesting the banter didn't really contain anything other than criticism. No one else stepped up and posted their own. That I know of, anyway.

NightTerror218
08-04-2016, 04:52 PM
Offense (25)

QB Sanchez, Siemen, Lynch
RB Anderson, Booker, Bibbs
FB - Thompson, Janovich
WR1- thomas, Lattimore
WR2- Sanders, Fowler
WR3- Taylor, Addison
TE- Green, Graham, Heurman
OT- Okung, Stephenson, Sambrailo
C- paradis, day
G- Garcia, McGovern, Schofield

Defense (26)
DT williams, peko, kilgo
DE wolfe, crick, gotsis, walker
ILB marshal, davis, zaire anderson
OLB miller, ware, ray, barrett
CB1 talib, roby, nixon
CB2 harris, webster, doss
SS ward, parks, keo
FS stewart, simmons

Special teams (3)
K McManus
LS kreiter
P dixon

OL is basically a wash, these are rhe guys i think make it, even if they play different positions. Schofield and Sambrailo have played OT and OG in training camp.

I listed starters and then whoever would be a backup, no particular order. I did give advantage to guys from last years roster making it over UDFA. I have not heard of too many names flying about UDFA this year.

I think Dixon will make rostwr as a cheaper Colquitt and a guy who is more athletic can add to they fake punk option for other teams to have to consider.

Anunike did not make it since he can not seem to stay on the field....ever.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-04-2016, 04:55 PM
Offense (25)

QB Sanchez, Siemen, Lynch
RB Anderson, Booker, Bibbs
FB - Thompson, Janovich
WR1- thomas, Lattimore
WR2- Sanders, Fowler
WR3- Taylor, Addison
TE- Green, Graham, Heurman
OT- Okung, Stephenson, Sambrailo
C- paradis, day
G- Garcia, McGovern, Schofield

Defense (26)
DT williams, peko, kilgo
DE wolfe, crick, gotsis, walker
ILB marshal, davis, zaire anderson
OLB miller, ware, ray, barrett
CB1 talib, roby, nixon
CB2 harris, webster, doss
SS ward, parks, keo
FS stewart, simmons

Special teams (3)
K McManus
LS kreiter
P dixon

OL is basically a wash, these are rhe guys i think make it, even if they play different positions. Schofield and Sambrailo have played OT and OG in training camp.

I listed starters and then whoever would be a backup, no particular order. I did give advantage to guys from last years roster making it over UDFA. I have not heard of too many names flying about UDFA this year.

I think Dixon will make rostwr as a cheaper Colquitt and a guy who is more athletic can add to they fake punk option for other teams to have to consider.

Anunike did not make it since he can not seem to stay on the field....ever.

You don't think Billy Winn will make the final roster?

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 05:44 PM
Is no one going to post their own depth chart outlook, or are we just supposed to tear MO apart?

I mean I'm fine with either, just want to make sure what the point of the thread is.

I thought everyone was pretty respectful except for Slick.

NightTerror218
08-04-2016, 06:23 PM
You don't think Billy Winn will make the final roster?

Does he play ST?

I think there is enough depth there. Between DL and pass rush in a 3-4 i think we are good.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-04-2016, 06:53 PM
Does he play ST?

I think there is enough depth there. Between DL and pass rush in a 3-4 i think we are good.

I think he's better than a couple guys you have making the final roster.

Dapper Dan
08-04-2016, 07:06 PM
I think he's better than a couple guys you have making the final roster.

Did he play for BSU?

MOtorboat
08-04-2016, 07:07 PM
I think he's better than a couple guys you have making the final roster.

Who would you put him above?

NightTerror218
08-04-2016, 07:41 PM
I think he's better than a couple guys you have making the final roster.

At DE? Who is he better then at DE? Wolfe, crick and walker all kniw the system? Draft pick gostis?

Poet
08-04-2016, 08:42 PM
I want to sign Foles.

dogfish
08-04-2016, 08:59 PM
The only real questions within the depth chart is how the Oline shakes out and who starts at TE. I think we pretty much know how the rest shakes out.



i have this creeping suspicion that we're gonna end up bringing owen daniels back. . . i haven't heard a word from camp about any of the TEs standing out, at all. . . it has to be the thinnest spot on the roster, IMO. . . daniels is old and slow, but at least they can rely on him to be in the right spot. . .

dogfish
08-04-2016, 09:00 PM
I want to sign Foles.

he signed with the chorfs. . .

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-04-2016, 09:05 PM
Who would you put him above?

Peko, Kilgo, and he's competitive with Crick.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-04-2016, 09:07 PM
At DE? Who is he better then at DE? Wolfe, crick and walker all kniw the system? Draft pick gostis?

I could see us rolling with 2 NT's, especially if he's a better player. I think he's probably as good as Crick as well.

Poet
08-04-2016, 09:10 PM
he signed with the chorfs. . .

This ruined my day.

TXBRONC
08-04-2016, 09:25 PM
I want to sign Foles.

Are you in need of a gardener?

Poet
08-04-2016, 09:32 PM
Are you in need of gardener?

When I tell you yes, I'm not actually kidding.

TXBRONC
08-04-2016, 09:34 PM
When I tell you yes, I'm not actually kidding.

Who said I was kidding?

Poet
08-04-2016, 09:38 PM
Who said I was kidding?

Not I!!!!

VonDoom
08-04-2016, 09:42 PM
i have this creeping suspicion that we're gonna end up bringing owen daniels back. . . i haven't heard a word from camp about any of the TEs standing out, at all. . . it has to be the thinnest spot on the roster, IMO. . . daniels is old and slow, but at least they can rely on him to be in the right spot. . .

Reports said Green had a huge day today. Kubiak even commented on it when he talked to the press. I really want him to break out, but I said that last year too, so ...

I wouldn't be shocked if Daniels came back. I just re-watched part of the AFCCG today, and he had those huge TD's early. I think the team hopes Heuerman can step up, though.

dogfish
08-04-2016, 09:58 PM
Reports said Green had a huge day today. Kubiak even commented on it when he talked to the press. I really want him to break out, but I said that last year too, so ...

I wouldn't be shocked if Daniels came back. I just re-watched part of the AFCCG today, and he had those huge TD's early. I think the team hopes Heuerman can step up, though.

i would agree that they're probably placing most of their hopes on heurmann to be the main receiving threat. . . i've always liked green's potential as well, but it just hasn't happened to this point. . . maybe this is finally the year, but i'm not going to hold my breath. . . it really seems like they're just more comfortable using him as a blocker-- and none of the QBs who have been through here in his time have made much effort to get him involved. . . we'll see-- i feel like TE and guard are the areas where we're most likely to be scanning the camp cuts and monitoring free agents. . .

NightTerror218
08-04-2016, 10:08 PM
i have this creeping suspicion that we're gonna end up bringing owen daniels back. . . i haven't heard a word from camp about any of the TEs standing out, at all. . . it has to be the thinnest spot on the roster, IMO. . . daniels is old and slow, but at least they can rely on him to be in the right spot. . .

Graham and green have. Each has had a good day.

NightTerror218
08-04-2016, 10:11 PM
Peko, Kilgo, and he's competitive with Crick.

You have positions wrong. Ours are NT, you cant replace Kilgo and Peko means you only have 2 NT and we had more then that last year.

I argue crick is better since he knows the system as a former texas and has worked with the 1s in camp.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-04-2016, 10:15 PM
You have positions wrong. Ours are NT, you cant replace Kilgo and Peko means you only have 2 NT and we had more then that last year.

I argue crick is better since he knows the system as a former texas and has worked with the 1s in camp.

Yes, I know who the NT's are. I'm suggesting we might only carry 2 this year.

Simple Jaded
08-04-2016, 10:21 PM
Bucs are down on Austin Seferian Jenkins, Broncos should try to bring him in.

Valar Morghulis
08-05-2016, 12:03 AM
i have this creeping suspicion that we're gonna end up bringing owen daniels back. . . i haven't heard a word from camp about any of the TEs standing out, at all. . . it has to be the thinnest spot on the roster, IMO. . . daniels is old and slow, but at least they can rely on him to be in the right spot. . .

I read Virgil green had a big day on the red zone yesterday

Valar Morghulis
08-05-2016, 12:05 AM
I read Virgil green had a big day on the red zone yesterday

Sorry, should have finished reading the thread before replying to the drunken masters musings about our te situation

MOtorboat
08-05-2016, 12:26 AM
Peko, Kilgo, and he's competitive with Crick.

I doubt he's better than Crick, but don't have much comment on the other two, and I'd be surprised to see Denver only keep two nose tackles.

Joel
08-05-2016, 12:35 AM
If I told you something would go bad 2.2 percent of the time, right 70 percent of the time and nothing would happen 27.8 percent of the time, you wouldn't spend so much time worrying about the 2.2 percent. But since you read some outdated book from the 60s, you obsess over it.
The only one talking about the '60s is you. One false stat at a time:

Passes don't go bad 2.2% of the time, they go CATASTROPHICALLY bad 3% of the time (you're still not counting fumbled receptions and strip-sacks, despite a pair of strip-sacks winning our SB.) Saying 3% is a really small number sounds good unless we consider 0.5% (i.e. the frequency of rushing turnovers) is SIX TIMES smaller.

An incomplete pass isn't "nothing," it's a lost down; a third of the way to three-and-out. Even a failed run nearly ALWAYS get a yard or two; a failed pass gets "nothing" but a lost down at best, but LOSES 5-10 yds AND the down at worst.

NO ONE completes 70% of passes; in the entire history of the NFL a total of 5 QBs have managed 70% for all of a SINGLE season (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_single_season.htm). But only Brees reached that mark twice, and ONLY twice. The others are Montana, Steve Young, Ken Anderson and Sammy Baugh: Unless you're a HoFer or playing in Walshs West Coast Offense (preferably both) it's not happening.

Incidentally, Baugh completed his 70.3% (tied with Young for 4th all time) in 1945. The other two are about as close to 1966 as 2016.

Fully a third of the time, passing on 1st and 10 accomplishes "nothing" but ELIMINATING even the OPTION of running for a first down at ANY point in the series. Elway could as easily have been speaking of pass-first offense when he says, "there is no Plan B:" If you go that route you go ONLY that route until it either works once or you punt; it'll only take three plays to find out which.

Run for even a yard or two on 1st down and you've still got plenty of options: You can come back with a 2nd and 8/9 pass that may well get your conversion, but you can just as easily come back with an average 4.2 yd run that leaves you in 3rd and 4 with your whole playbook available. You can pass any time you WANT, but aren't OBLIGED to run OR pass.

Maybe 20-30 years ago 1st and 10 passes made sense because defenses didn't expect them but, y'know, get with the times, MO. ;) "50/50" is a good description of what our 1st down play selection should be, because then every opponent must defend our whole playbook, not just drop 7 guys in coverage (i.e. SB XLVIII) or send 7 blitzers at our QBs head (i.e. every game Mike McCoys coached against Peyton Manning, who limped out of even the wins.)

Joel
08-05-2016, 12:44 AM
Is no one going to post their own depth chart outlook, or are we just supposed to tear MO apart?

I mean I'm fine with either, just want to make sure what the point of the thread is.
I hear what you're saying, but basically DID counteroffer "my own:" Surprisingly, my disagreements with (or different perspectives on) MOs depth chart are few and minor. I did state what they are, and why, but any more would only amount to copying and pasting his, then swapping all of three 1st and 2nd teamers (out of 53.)

MOtorboat
08-05-2016, 12:52 AM
The only one talking about the '60s is you. One false stat at a time:

Passes don't go bad 2.2% of the time, they go CATASTROPHICALLY bad 3% of the time (you're still not counting fumbled receptions and strip-sacks, despite a pair of strip-sacks winning our SB.) Saying 3% is a really small number sounds good unless we consider 0.5% (i.e. the frequency of rushing turnovers) is SIX TIMES smaller.

An incomplete pass isn't "nothing," it's a lost down; a third of the way to three-and-out. Even a failed run nearly ALWAYS get a yard or two; a failed pass gets "nothing" but a lost down at best, but LOSES 5-10 yds AND the down at worst.

NO ONE completes 70% of passes; in the entire history of the NFL a total of 5 QBs have managed 70% for all of a SINGLE season (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_cmp_perc_single_season.htm). But only Brees reached that mark twice, and ONLY twice. The others are Montana, Steve Young, Ken Anderson and Sammy Baugh: Unless you're a HoFer or playing in Walshs West Coast Offense (preferably both) it's not happening.

Incidentally, Baugh completed his 70.3% (tied with Young for 4th all time) in 1945. The other two are about as close to 1966 as 2016.

Fully a third of the time, passing on 1st and 10 accomplishes "nothing" but ELIMINATING even the OPTION of running for a first down at ANY point in the series. Elway could as easily have been speaking of pass-first offense when he says, "there is no Plan B:" If you go that route you go ONLY that route until it either works once or you punt; it'll only take three plays to find out which.

Run for even a yard or two on 1st down and you've still got plenty of options: You can come back with a 2nd and 8/9 pass that may well get your conversion, but you can just as easily come back with an average 4.2 yd run that leaves you in 3rd and 4 with your whole playbook available. You can pass any time you WANT, but aren't OBLIGED to run OR pass.

Maybe 20-30 years ago 1st and 10 passes made sense because defenses didn't expect them but, y'know, get with the times, MO. ;) "50/50" is a good description of what our 1st down play selection should be, because then every opponent must defend our whole playbook, not just drop 7 guys in coverage (i.e. SB XLVIII) or send 7 blitzers at our QBs head (i.e. every game Mike McCoys coached against Peyton Manning, who limped out of even the wins.)

I figured you'd have diarrhea of the mouth because I exaggerated the completion percentage. You always do. Replace it with 60-65 and the point is still valid. Quit obsessing over the 2.2 percent and worry about the 65. It's asinine to obsess over a percentage that small.

Traveler
08-05-2016, 04:49 AM
Bucs are down on Austin Seferian Jenkins, Broncos should try to bring him in.

link?

Joel
08-05-2016, 05:24 AM
I figured you'd have diarrhea of the mouth because I exaggerated the completion percentage. You always do. Replace it with 60-65 and the point is still valid. Quit obsessing over the 2.2 percent and worry about the 65. It's asinine to obsess over a percentage that small.
Is 85% small? That's the percent of turnovers caused by passes. Again, I love passing: But it's for reaching the red/end zone, not "matriculating the ball down the field." Use the pass for walk off TDs, or putting the ball so close to the goal line a 4 yd run IS a walkoff TD. But if merely moving the chains, there's a far more consistent AND safe way to "matriculate the ball down the field." One that gives our D more rest and theirs more fatigue than any one-play scoring drive can.

SEXTUPLING the risk is only worth it for similarly increased SCORING chances. Six times the turnovers just to get 2nd and 3 instead of 2nd and 6? No thanks, and that's what we're talking: Last years net passing yds/att was 6.4, rushing yds/att 4.1 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2015/#team_stats::20). LAST years (i.e. NOT 1960s.)

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-05-2016, 08:05 AM
I doubt he's better than Crick, but don't have much comment on the other two, and I'd be surprised to see Denver only keep two nose tackles.

I didn't say he was better than Crick. I said I thought he was competitive with him.

I'm just being hopeful, more than anything. I would say he has a 50/50 shot.

I wonder why he would choose Denver. It would seem as though he would choose someone with less depth if he was just concerned about making a roster.

slim
08-05-2016, 09:45 AM
I didn't say he was better than Crick. I said I thought he was competitive with him.

I'm just being hopeful, more than anything. I would say he has a 50/50 shot.

I wonder why he would choose Denver. It would seem as though he would choose someone with less depth if he was just concerned about making a roster.

Maybe he didn't have a lot of options?

Traveler
08-05-2016, 01:04 PM
Bucs are down on Austin Seferian Jenkins, Broncos should try to bring him in.

Did a little digging on this. Jenkins is currently running with the 2nd string. Coach says he's being outplayed by some lesser talented TE. Sounds like the coach is just trying to light a fire under him. No mention of them being so disgruntled as to get rid of him. Having said that, I personally wouldn't mind the DEN swapping Latimer for Jenkins if he were to become available. Both are 2nd round picks who have yet to make an impact on their respective teams, at their respective positions.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/jones-yes-bucs-te-seferian-jenkins-on-the-second-team-is-a-very-big-deal/2288252

NightTerror218
08-05-2016, 05:48 PM
I didn't say he was better than Crick. I said I thought he was competitive with him.

I'm just being hopeful, more than anything. I would say he has a 50/50 shot.

I wonder why he would choose Denver. It would seem as though he would choose someone with less depth if he was just concerned about making a roster.

Not sure what string Winn is playing but if he beefed up ge could be DT.

As of now peko has moved up to 2nd string and has received praise from Philips. Kilgo has been witg 2nd team and moved up to 1st when Williams was sidelined.

Winn was good for indy as a backup and could be good depth but nit sure about dropping NT for a DE.

Simple Jaded
08-05-2016, 07:28 PM
link?

http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/nfl/9400/austin-seferian-jenkins

There's links to local beat writers and such here.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-05-2016, 07:57 PM
Not sure what string Winn is playing but if he beefed up ge could be DT.

As of now peko has moved up to 2nd string and has received praise from Philips. Kilgo has been witg 2nd team and moved up to 1st when Williams was sidelined.

Winn was good for indy as a backup and could be good depth but nit sure about dropping NT for a DE.

Winn was a good rotational guy in Cleveland as well. He's 6'4" 300. He's about the same size as Walker.

Simple Jaded
08-05-2016, 08:18 PM
Winn looks like a real good fit as a 3-4 DE, from what I've read. Vance Walker has been getting reps at NT, I believe.

TXBRONC
08-05-2016, 09:05 PM
Winn looks like a real good fit as a 3-4 DE, from what I've read. Vance Walker has been getting reps at NT, I believe.

I miss the old days when you were down on just about everyone. :tsk:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-05-2016, 09:31 PM
I miss the old days when you were down on just about everyone. :tsk:

I was expecting him to say nothing but, "I love Boise!"

Dapper Dan
08-05-2016, 09:33 PM
I was expecting him to say nothing but, "I love Boise!"

I bet that's an awkward phrase to say out loud.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-05-2016, 09:36 PM
I bet that's an awkward phrase to say out loud.

The "e" is not silent on the end of Boise.

Joel
08-06-2016, 05:45 AM
Winn looks like a real good fit as a 3-4 DE, from what I've read. Vance Walker has been getting reps at NT, I believe.
I believe he was also our primary backup NT last year (i.e the reason Kilgo was a gameday inactive so many times even though, officially, he was our ONLY NT other than Sly.) Speaking of Sly, one argument against only keeping 2 NTs this year is that declining our 5th year option on Sly strongly suggests he won't be back any capacity: Even if we want to extend him as our long term starter, he'd have more contract leverage as a FA than as a guy still under his rookie contract.

Walker's (barely) under 30, so likely to have at least two or three good years left in him, and was also the go-to guy during Wolfes suspension at the start of 2015. Basically, it seems like he's both our primary backup DE AND primary backup NT, and able to shuffle between the two each time we move from our base 3-4 to nickel. That's a pretty valuable asset to have even if he didn't have starter experience before arriving in Denver, so I'd definitely like to keep him if it's economical.

Throw in camp watchers raving about Kilgo last year (despite Sly being the starter) and this years moderate "buzz" (or "hype"?) about Peko and maybe there's a good reason we declined our option on Sly. IF the coaches feel they have 3 other quality NTs (one of whom's also a quality DE) and each costs less than Sly... well, sincere thanks for your service, but getting paid what he's worth is in his best interest and someone ELSE paying it is in Denvers.

TXBRONC
08-06-2016, 09:05 AM
I believe he was also our primary backup NT last year (i.e the reason Kilgo was a gameday inactive so many times even though, officially, he was our ONLY NT other than Sly.) Speaking of Sly, one argument against only keeping 2 NTs this year is that declining our 5th year option on Sly strongly suggests he won't be back any capacity: Even if we want to extend him as our long term starter, he'd have more contract leverage as a FA than as a guy still under his rookie contract.

The only thing we know for sure is that Denver didn't pick up the 5th year because it was to high.

Joel
08-06-2016, 10:13 AM
The only thing we know for sure is that Denver didn't pick up the 5th year because they was to high.
Well, it ain't gonna get lower for a FA SB starter on the #1 D. I don't know for sure who'll be our starting NT next year, but am 99.44% sure it won't be Sly.

dogfish
08-06-2016, 10:58 AM
The only thing we know for sure is that Denver didn't pick up the 5th year because they was to high.

TX, are you suggesting elway was too high to get a deal done?


:heh:

TXBRONC
08-06-2016, 11:24 AM
TX, are you suggesting elway was too high to get a deal done?


:heh:

:tsk:

TXBRONC
08-06-2016, 11:27 AM
Well, it ain't gonna get lower for a FA SB starter on the #1 D. I don't know for sure who'll be our starting NT next year, but am 99.44% sure it won't be Sly.

You don't know what the market will be for Williams. You've been 99% sure before and have been proven wrong.

Simple Jaded
08-06-2016, 12:56 PM
I miss the old days when you were down on just about everyone. :tsk:

I've been thinking about changing my name, I'm still hoping this is just a phase though.

TXBRONC
08-06-2016, 01:33 PM
I've been thinking about changing my name, I'm still hoping this is just a phase though.

Yeah, hopefully it's only like a bad case of acne.

Magnificent Seven
08-06-2016, 02:30 PM
This is what I think the depth chart will look like for the start of the season, not necessarily what the first released depth chart will look like (when is that, next week?).

QB: Sanchez, Siemien, Lynch
RB: Anderson, Hillman, Booker
FB: Janovich
WR: Thomas, Taylor
WR: Sanders, Latimer
Slot: Norwood, Fowler
TE: Heuerman, Green, Coble
LT: Okung, Sambrailo
LG: Garcia, McGovern
C: Paradis, Ferentz
RG: Myers, McGovern
RT: Stephenson, Sambrailo

DE: Wolfe, Walker
NT: Williams, Kilgo, Moala
DE: Crick, Gotsis
OLB: Miller, Barrett
OLB: Ray, Ware, Nelson
ILB: Davis, Yarbrough
ILB: Marshall, Anderson
CB: Talib, Webster
CB: Harris, Roby, Doss
S: Stewart, Parks, Nixon
S: Ward, Simmons

K: McManus
P: Dixon
LS: Kreiter

Lots of backups probably wrong.

I think offensive line is probably the area where no one knows yet who's going to start in the interior and I know that definitely isn't right above. There's not a lot of positions where we don't know the starters, which is a good thing.

Your guess is as good as mine at backup inside linebacker.

I forgot why they did let OG Louis Vasquez go? He was good.

Valar Morghulis
08-06-2016, 02:35 PM
I forgot why they did let OG Louis Vasquez go? He was good.

Cost, age and scheme.

Joel
08-07-2016, 03:06 AM
You don't know what the market will be for Williams. You've been 99% sure before and have been proven wrong.
How many starters have FA value LESS than their rookie contract? When they anchor the NFLs #1 D and win a SB?

It's not like our 5th-year option was a huge number in the first place. Sly's shown versatility starting as both a 3-4 NT and 4-3 UT for playoff teams. As importantly, legit 3-4 NTs are a rare and valuable commodity; few man-mountains capable of walling off the center of the field exist, let alone with the agility Sly's shown.

He'll get paid, but clearly not by us, else we wouldn't have declined the free option to keep him next year for far less than what 31 other teams can (and WILL) offer.

Simple Jaded
08-07-2016, 06:13 AM
I bet Syl Wil gets less on open market than his 5th year option. What was it, $6 MM?

Simple Jaded
08-07-2016, 06:22 AM
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/cap-hit/defensive-tackle/

Did a quick check, $6 MM is about right for Williams as only 10-or-so DT's make more than Brockers/Poe's 5th year option. Most are considered pass rushing threats so Williams is gonna have to get busy to match the option he lost. Sounds like motivation, smart.

You tell me where Williams belongs in this pay scale? Right now he's about where he supposed to be.

TXBRONC
08-07-2016, 07:26 AM
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/cap-hit/defensive-tackle/

Did a quick check, $6 MM is about right for Williams as only 10-or-so DT's make more than Brockers/Poe's 5th year option. Most are considered pass rushing threats so Williams is gonna have to get busy to match the option he lost. Sounds like motivation, smart.

You tell me where Williams belongs in this pay scale? Right now he's about where he supposed to be.

He'll probably get a good sized pay raise but will it be $6 million plus? Right now I would say no.

Simple Jaded
08-07-2016, 07:51 AM
If it goes the way it has the last couple years Sylliams will get obscenely overpaid and Denver will get another nice comp pick, so either way you look at it the Broncos played their hand tits.

TXBRONC
08-07-2016, 05:22 PM
If it goes the way it has the last couple years Sylliams will get obscenely overpaid and Denver will get another nice comp pick, so either way you look at it the Broncos played their hand tits.

We'll have to see how this all shakes out.

NightTerror218
08-07-2016, 09:25 PM
I was reading an article that $6M was the 5th option and his value will probably be $4M a year. And that was why the option was not picked up. For a run stuffing DT $6M was too much.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-07-2016, 10:19 PM
If it goes the way it has the last couple years Sylliams will get obscenely overpaid and Denver will get another nice comp pick, so either way you look at it the Broncos played their hand tits.

What are hand tits you freak?

underrated29
08-07-2016, 11:05 PM
What are hand tits you freak?



Tits are good.
They played their hand good (well)

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-08-2016, 12:04 AM
Tits are good.
They played their hand good (well)

I know....it was a play on words.

Simple Jaded
08-08-2016, 02:43 AM
What? Doesn't everybody have breast implants on their hands? They're great for releiving stress.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 07:40 AM
What? Doesn't everybody have breast implants on their hands? They're great for releiving stress.

I can't say that I have a pair of implants laying around the house.

VonDoom
08-08-2016, 10:41 AM
First official depth chart released - Sanchez/Siemian listed as co-#1 QB, among other "ties" for certain positions:

https://twitter.com/CameronWolfe/status/762671568891760640

dogfish
08-08-2016, 11:00 AM
no real surprises. . . seeing schofield listed as a co-starter is disheartening, as is hillman's continued presence. . . looks like kenny annunike may have run out of opportunities. . . i'm guessing that sunshine taylor and zaire anderson are going to make the big club this year. . .

Poet
08-08-2016, 11:03 AM
Hey Snoop Doggie Doggie Dogfish,

I expected Green to snatch up the starting TE position and run with it. Is it a good or a bad thing that Heuermen is up there with him?

dogfish
08-08-2016, 11:05 AM
Hey Snoop Doggie Doggie Dogfish,

I expected Green to snatch up the starting TE position and run with it. Is it a good or a bad thing that Heuermen is up there with him?

probably bad. . . we've been hearing that green is kicking butt in camp-- i have yet to see him do anything in years' worth of games, so i remain a bit skeptical. . . our staff reportedly loves heurmann, so we'll see. . . i don't view it as a very strong position, so hopefully one of those guys is ready to step up. . .

NightTerror218
08-08-2016, 11:14 AM
probably bad. . . we've been hearing that green is kicking butt in camp-- i have yet to see him do anything in years' worth of games, so i remain a bit skeptical. . . our staff reportedly loves heurmann, so we'll see. . . i don't view it as a very strong position, so hopefully one of those guys is ready to step up. . .

I do not think green had manning trust in games. He was just a blocker.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 11:36 AM
no real surprises. . . seeing schofield listed as a co-starter is disheartening, as is hillman's continued presence. . . looks like kenny annunike may have run out of opportunities. . . i'm guessing that sunshine taylor and zaire anderson are going to make the big club this year. . .

Hillman isn't an every down but also I don't think he's hot garbage. If Hillman is that bad what does that say about Bibbs?

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 11:40 AM
I do not think green had manning trust in games. He was just a blocker.

Idk about that. I think it's more that Kubiak locked him into the role of blocker and didn't use him much in passing game.

Northman
08-08-2016, 12:07 PM
So apparently Sanchez and Siemien have been named co-starters.

Poet
08-08-2016, 12:17 PM
How is Sanchez not styling on Siemien?

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 12:20 PM
How is Sanchez not styling on Siemien?

He hasn't outplayed him.

Northman
08-08-2016, 12:22 PM
How is Sanchez not styling on Siemien?

I think it has something to do with why Sanchez keeps sniffing the center's ass before every snap but that might just be a rumor.

Poet
08-08-2016, 12:27 PM
I think it has something to do with why Sanchez keeps sniffing the center's ass before every snap but that might just be a rumor.

Habits are a bitch.

Poet
08-08-2016, 12:29 PM
He hasn't outplayed him.

I just would presume that Sanchez would have the tools to blow Siemien out of the water.

tomjonesrocks
08-08-2016, 12:42 PM
When did Anunike show anything for people to be excited about him? I missed it. Seems like he's basically been hurt his entire career - I don't even really recall him taking a snap.

MOtorboat
08-08-2016, 12:51 PM
I just would presume that Sanchez would have the tools to blow Siemien out of the water.

Let's go with the glass half full approach: Siemien has the skills to compete with Sanchez. :2thumbs:

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
08-08-2016, 01:01 PM
I just would presume that Sanchez would have the tools to blow Siemien out of the water.

Innuendo #2.

Buff
08-08-2016, 01:04 PM
I just would presume that Sanchez would have the tools to blow Siemien out of the water.


Innuendo #2.

In fairness, I believe Sanchez has the skills to blow Siemien in the water as well.

MOtorboat
08-08-2016, 01:05 PM
I thought Tebow got cut.

VonDoom
08-08-2016, 01:08 PM
When did Anunike show anything for people to be excited about him? I missed it. Seems like he's basically been hurt his entire career - I don't even really recall him taking a snap.

His name came up a lot in TC (much like another oft injured release last year, Quanterus Smith). As far as actual game action, I know he flashed a bit in preseason last year - that Denver Post article that Carol posted in the other thread said he had eight tackles, a sack and a forced fumble in the first preseason game last year. He had promise.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 01:47 PM
I just would presume that Sanchez would have the tools to blow Siemien out of the water.

Sanchez doesn't have the kind of talent you go ape over.

Poet
08-08-2016, 01:51 PM
Sanchez doesn't have the kind of talent you go ape over.

I understand but Siemien isn't exactly John Elway, either.

slim
08-08-2016, 01:52 PM
I understand but Siemien isn't exactly John Elway, either.

Maybe he is Tom Brady, but honest?

Poet
08-08-2016, 01:54 PM
Maybe he is Tom Brady, but honest?

You can't be Tom Brady and honest.

slim
08-08-2016, 02:00 PM
You can't be Tom Brady and honest.

Maybe he is Tom Brady, but straight?

underrated29
08-08-2016, 02:07 PM
Hillman isn't an every down but also I don't think he's hot garbage. If Hillman is that bad what does that say about Bibbs?



It says nothing because bibbs will be 3 and hillman will be out

Poet
08-08-2016, 02:09 PM
Maybe he is Tom Brady, but straight?

He could be a bisexual Tom Brady.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 02:28 PM
I understand but Siemien isn't exactly John Elway, either.

There is only one John Elway. I don't what Denver has Siemian but what do I know from camp reports is that Siemian hasn't been out played by Sanchez fwiw.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 02:44 PM
It says nothing because bibbs will be 3 and hillman will be out

He's not even listed on the depth chart.

VonDoom
08-08-2016, 02:47 PM
He's not even listed on the depth chart.

Who, Bibbs? He's listed as the #4 RB currently. Unlike Juwan Thompson, who isn't listed on the RB depth chart at all, and is the #2 FB behind Janovich.

underrated29
08-08-2016, 02:49 PM
He's not even listed on the depth chart.



Have no fear my friend. All will be right in the end.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 04:08 PM
Who, Bibbs? He's listed as the #4 RB currently. Unlike Juwan Thompson, who isn't listed on the RB depth chart at all, and is the #2 FB behind Janovich.

You're right I looked at it wrong.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 04:10 PM
Have no fear my friend. All will be right in the end.

I didn't look at correctly. He's fourth on the depth chart. It will be what it will be.

NightTerror218
08-08-2016, 04:15 PM
This is just camp fodder. Nothing revealed that nobody didnt know.

Only thing you wver see is udfa who are catching eyes.

End of preseason games we will know. Game situations could be downfall of siemien with no experience to read defenses in live game. Ability to see a blitz coming pre snap and adjust his line. Many little things.

Siemen is in 2nd year of system Sanchez just getting into it. This could just be the thing to light a fire under sanchez to step it up.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 04:22 PM
This is just camp fodder. Nothing revealed that nobody didnt know.

Only thing you wver see is udfa who are catching eyes.

End of preseason games we will know. Game situations could be downfall of siemien with no experience to read defenses in live game. Ability to see a blitz coming pre snap and adjust his line. Many little things.

Siemen is in 2nd year of system Sanchez just getting into it. This could just be the thing to light a fire under sanchez to step it up.

I would hope that the fire was there when they traded for him. I'm saying he's not motivated but he is tight battle with a guy whose has never started a game. Again fwiw.

Simple Jaded
08-08-2016, 09:02 PM
Kubiak still has a hardon for scrub QB's.

TXBRONC
08-08-2016, 09:17 PM
Kubiak still has a hardon for scrub QB's.

He has to go with what's available.

Mike
08-09-2016, 08:46 AM
I understand but Siemien isn't exactly John Elway, either.

Dookie can't outright beat a 7th round draft pick. WTF does that say?

I read a report that yesterday they were running goal line drills with two-minute scenario. Dookie handed the ball off and it was stopped. He hurried the offense to the line and then knelt on the ball. Knelt on the ******* ball.

He also threw another pick 6.....

TXBRONC
08-09-2016, 09:49 AM
Dookie can't outright beat a 7th round draft pick. WTF does that say?

I read a report that yesterday they were running goal line drills with two-minute scenario. Dookie handed the ball off and it was stopped. He hurried the offense to the line and then knelt on the ball. Knelt on the ******* ball.

He also threw another pick 6.....

Yeah that was Roby that victimized him again.

Last night I was watching NFLN the group talking about the quarterback situation in Denver. Erci Davis was on the panel discussing the situation and in his opinion if the competition is this close then Denver should just go with Lynch.

broncofaninfla
08-09-2016, 03:23 PM
Seems like it will be hard to judge where our QB's are right being they are practicing against the best defense in the league. From what I've read on Twitter it sounds as though Trevor is outperforming Mark with Paxton playing like a rookie with a lot of promise. I can't wait to see how each looks against Chicago Thursday night.

TXBRONC
08-09-2016, 03:51 PM
Seems like it will be hard to judge where our QB's are right being they are practicing against the best defense in the league. From what I've read on Twitter it sounds as though Trevor is outperforming Mark with Paxton playing like a rookie with a lot of promise. I can't wait to see how each looks against Chicago Thursday night.

I would not be surprised if Kubiak names the starter after the first preseason game.

BroncoJoe
08-09-2016, 04:45 PM
I would not be surprised if Kubiak names the starter after the first preseason game.

Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

TXBRONC
08-09-2016, 05:01 PM
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.

It more than likely won't, it still wouldn't shock me if it did happen.

Simple Jaded
08-09-2016, 09:30 PM
He has to go with what's available.

He chose Seimian, that's his/Knapp's pet.

True story, apparently he didn't even want to work out for Broncos and Bears before the draft, he was through with football and wanted to go into real estate.

TXBRONC
08-10-2016, 10:37 AM
He chose Seimian, that's his/Knapp's pet.

True story, apparently he didn't even want to work out for Broncos and Bears before the draft, he was through with football and wanted to go into real estate.

Interesting.

NightTerror218
08-10-2016, 06:42 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/10/phil-taylor-cut-denver-broncos/


Phil taylor cut