PDA

View Full Version : Janovich



NightTerror218
10-04-2016, 11:08 PM
This guy needs some love. He is the highest rated FB in the NFL right now..........as a rookie. Dude has even been our highest rated player according to PFF in week 4.

He is playing 40% of offensive snaps. Love seeing him blow up LBs to help out CJ.

Dapper Dan
10-04-2016, 11:23 PM
Out of how many FBs? 4?

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 12:06 AM
...is a fullback.

Joel
10-05-2016, 03:40 AM
...is a fullback.
The dearth of appreciation for the position generally is all the more reason a ROOKIE outperforming EVERYONE else deserves some love.

VonDoom
10-05-2016, 06:28 AM
He peaked in week one with the TD. It's all downhill from here!

CoachChaz
10-05-2016, 08:59 AM
He plays a position held by less people than what you'd find on a basketball court and helps our backfield to a tantalizing 3.7 YPC average. Now I know why we're 4-0.

tomjonesrocks
10-05-2016, 10:06 AM
He plays a position held by less people than what you'd find on a basketball court and helps our backfield to a tantalizing 3.7 YPC average. Now I know why we're 4-0.

Appreciate "tantalizing" in this content. Montee Ball-esque production!

Hawgdriver
10-05-2016, 10:10 AM
He is playing 40% of offensive snaps.

Wow. A rookie playing that much, regardless of position, who is highly rated by PFF--solid component of the team. Hats off to Cornfed.

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 10:30 AM
The dearth of appreciation for the position generally is all the more reason a ROOKIE outperforming EVERYONE else deserves some love.

Ok. I did not say he didn't.

LawDog
10-05-2016, 10:36 AM
This guy needs some love. He is the highest rated FB in the NFL right now..........as a rookie. Dude has even been our highest rated player according to PFF in week 4.

He is playing 40% of offensive snaps. Love seeing him blow up LBs to help out CJ.

Be interesting to see where he has been lining up for those 40% of snaps. My gut senses that he has been lining up less in a two-back set and more in a TE type lineup over the past couple of games. Maybe due to Virg being on the shelf, I don't know. I don't have any proof of that, just a gut feeling.

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 10:38 AM
He plays a position held by less people than what you'd find on a basketball court and helps our backfield to a tantalizing 3.7 YPC average. Now I know why we're 4-0.

That's not very good.

TXBRONC
10-05-2016, 11:25 AM
Wow. A rookie playing that much, regardless of position, who is highly rated by PFF--solid component of the team. Hats off to Cornfed.

He's not your ordinary hayseed.

Timmy!
10-05-2016, 01:18 PM
Please direct this to the official thread, already created a month ago. Thank you.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/604580-Mo-s-official-Andy-Janovich-appreciation-thread

NightTerror218
10-05-2016, 01:22 PM
Please direct this to the official thread, already created a month ago. Thank you.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/604580-Mo-s-official-Andy-Janovich-appreciation-thread

Nah

Timmy!
10-05-2016, 01:29 PM
Nah

#beattothepunch

Tned
10-05-2016, 01:31 PM
The Hammerhead is so amazing, he deserves to have a new thread created for him every day!

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 02:17 PM
So, like, the running game is averaging under 4 yards a carry. I'm trying to figure out why people are so excited about the fullback. :confused:

After four games last year, Denver was averaging something like 4.5 per carry (from memory) and everyone was screaming for a fullback and to stop running out of the shitgun.

Why is the running game worse?

VonDoom
10-05-2016, 02:32 PM
So, like, the running game is averaging under 4 yards a carry. I'm trying to figure out why people are so excited about the fullback. :confused:

After four games last year, Denver was averaging something like 4.5 per carry (from memory) and everyone was screaming for a fullback and to stop running out of the shitgun.

Why is the running game worse?

I checked these numbers -
First four games 2016: 115 carries, 423 yards, 3.7 YPC
First four games 2015: 90 carries, 315 yards, 3.5 YPC (includes that one Ronnie Hillman 72 TD run in the Vikings game or we're looking at more like 2.5 YPC)

Timmy!
10-05-2016, 02:37 PM
Why is the running game worse?

lol.

#vondoomstyledonmo

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 02:39 PM
I checked these numbers -
First four games 2016: 115 carries, 423 yards, 3.7 YPC
First four games 2015: 90 carries, 315 yards, 3.5 YPC (includes that one Ronnie Hillman 72 TD run in the Vikings game or we're looking at more like 2.5 YPC)

Fine then, so they sucked both years. But everyone loves this running game solely because there's a fullback?

My question, which I'm aware is going to be unpopular (because OMG FB!!! :swoon: ) is completely valid. 3.7 sucks.

Timmy!
10-05-2016, 02:42 PM
It's okay Mo, our mighty fullback will forgive you.

NightTrainLayne
10-05-2016, 02:42 PM
Why is the running game worse?

Stephenson got hurt, and Cincinatti & TB loaded up to stop the run and force the QB to beat them.

We were averaging 4.7 through game two.

Game 3 and 4 dropped off a cliff after Stephenson went out.

Tned
10-05-2016, 02:44 PM
Stephenson got hurt, and Cincinatti & TB loaded up to stop the run and force the QB to beat them.

We were averaging 4.7 through game two.

Game 3 and 4 dropped off a cliff after Stephenson went out.

What ^^^ said.

VonDoom
10-05-2016, 02:48 PM
Stephenson got hurt, and Cincinatti & TB loaded up to stop the run and force the QB to beat them.

We were averaging 4.7 through game two.

Game 3 and 4 dropped off a cliff after Stephenson went out.

This is the best answer I can think of. Looking at the games one by one, the first three games of 2015 were all garbage in terms of the run game, and that fourth one looked better because of one great run. This year at least the first two games looked good. Hopefully Stephenson will be back this week and then Janovich can run behind him and lead us to glory.

Tned
10-05-2016, 02:52 PM
So, like, the running game is averaging under 4 yards a carry. I'm trying to figure out why people are so excited about the fullback. :confused:

After four games last year, Denver was averaging something like 4.5 per carry (from memory) and everyone was screaming for a fullback and to stop running out of the shitgun.

Why is the running game worse?

Sacrilege!!!

Tned
10-05-2016, 02:59 PM
[*=1]When defenses load the box, Janovich admires the target rich environment.
[*=1]When Andy Janovich falls out of a boat, the water gets Janoviched.
[*=1]Andy Jonovich's balls can make cold water shrink.
[*=1]When Janovich gets the ball, defenses tackle themselves.
[*=1]Jano hits linebackers so hard their future children will have black eyes
[*=1]Death once had a near Janovich experience. Death still won't talk about it.
[*=1]Or as a CornNation writer said, "If Andy were on Naked and Afraid, he’d grab a club, stay naked, and the animals would be afraid."


http://www.milehighreport.com/2016/10/3/13124474/denver-broncos-fullback-andy-janovich-is-a-big-deal-and-he-doesn-t-know-it

I Eat Staples
10-05-2016, 03:30 PM
How many people's minds would be blown if they were told you can use a fullback in the shotgun?

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 03:51 PM
How many people's minds would be blown if they were told you can use a fullback in the shotgun?

No way!

NightTerror218
10-05-2016, 04:06 PM
Many offenses that focus on the run have had full backs. SF, SEA, Minn, GB, Kubiak systems (Tex, Den, Balt) have all had productive fullbacks. AP talked about how much a FB affected his production and how he prefers one.

FB is not a lost position, it is devalued but a lot of top RB have lead blockers still.

NightTerror218
10-05-2016, 04:07 PM
#beattothepunch

That one is in the lounge.

dogfish
10-05-2016, 04:18 PM
I checked these numbers -
First four games 2016: 115 carries, 423 yards, 3.7 YPC
First four games 2015: 90 carries, 315 yards, 3.5 YPC (includes that one Ronnie Hillman 72 TD run in the Vikings game or we're looking at more like 2.5 YPC)

oops. . .


MO, would you love janovich if they passed it to him?

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 04:27 PM
oops. . .


MO, would you love janovich if they passed it to him?

I'd like him a whole lot more if they averaged 5 yards a carry. If they're going to average 3.7, it's a wasted roster spot.

chazoe60
10-05-2016, 05:56 PM
I'd like him a whole lot more if they averaged 5 yards a carry. If they're going to average 3.7, it's a wasted roster spot.

Unless without him we'd be averaging 2.7 yards per carry. Who knows? I like the cut of his jib though and on the plays when I ISO him he is very good.

NightTerror218
10-05-2016, 06:27 PM
How about that long run from him, he walked in.

Hawgdriver
10-05-2016, 07:30 PM
So what's his contribution on passing plays?

dogfish
10-05-2016, 07:51 PM
#ThrowForMO
#JanovichToWR

I Eat Staples
10-05-2016, 07:53 PM
I actually like Janovich, I think he's played well. But to MO's point, if he's playing well and we're still not running the ball well anyway, then what exactly is the purpose?

It's not a knock on him, just the importance of the fullback position.

dogfish
10-05-2016, 08:02 PM
I actually like Janovich, I think he's played well. But to MO's point, if he's playing well and we're still not running the ball well anyway, then what exactly is the purpose?

It's not a knock on him, just the importance of the fullback position.

does it help to think of him as a short tight end?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-05-2016, 08:22 PM
I checked these numbers -
First four games 2016: 115 carries, 423 yards, 3.7 YPC
First four games 2015: 90 carries, 315 yards, 3.5 YPC (includes that one Ronnie Hillman 72 TD run in the Vikings game or we're looking at more like 2.5 YPC)

Oopsa daisy!

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 08:29 PM
I actually like Janovich, I think he's played well. But to MO's point, if he's playing well and we're still not running the ball well anyway, then what exactly is the purpose?

It's not a knock on him, just the importance of the fullback position.

I shouldn't have even bothered saying anything.

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 08:30 PM
Oopsa daisy!

It doesn't change my point. It's great he's rated high and all, but a run game that's shitty is still shitty even if it has a fullback.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-05-2016, 08:32 PM
It doesn't change my point. It's great he's rated high and all, but a run game that's shitty is still shitty even if it has a fullback.

Teams weren't selling out to stop the run the first four games last year. That has a lot to do with Trevor's success in the passing game.

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 08:34 PM
Teams weren't selling out to stop the run the first four games last year. That has a lot to do with Trevor's success in the passing game.

They aren't selling out this year either. His best passing game was our worst rushing game.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-05-2016, 08:44 PM
They aren't selling out this year either. His best passing game was our worst rushing game.

Yes they are Mo. 8 men in the box is selling out. Our best passing game coming when CJ had his worst rushing game confirms what I'm saying...

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 09:06 PM
Yes they are Mo. 8 men in the box is selling out. Our best passing game coming when CJ had his worst rushing game confirms what I'm saying...

That stat in no way proves there were eight men in the box, but whatever.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-05-2016, 09:18 PM
That stat in no way proves there were eight men in the box, but whatever.

I didn't say it did.

TXBRONC
10-05-2016, 09:22 PM
That stat in no way proves there were eight men in the box, but whatever.

The game film confirms it.

Hawgdriver
10-05-2016, 09:32 PM
I think you make a good point, MO. I just don't think that tells enough of the story for me to arrive at the conclusion it's a waste of a roster spot.

Dapper Dan
10-05-2016, 10:05 PM
He contributes more than Austin Davis.

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 10:33 PM
I didn't say it did.

:confused:


Yes they are Mo. 8 men in the box is selling out. Our best passing game coming when CJ had his worst rushing game confirms what I'm saying...

That's exactly what you said.

Timmy!
10-05-2016, 10:34 PM
Mo hates Andy. HATES him.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-05-2016, 10:50 PM
:confused:



That's exactly what you said.

I said 8 men prove they sold out to stop the run, but I can see how you might be confused. I wasn't implying they had 8 in the box the entire game.

Mo, it's common knowledge every team thus far has game planned against us to stop the run. I'm honestly not sure what we're debating here, aside from semantics.

MOtorboat
10-05-2016, 10:56 PM
Mo hates Andy. HATES him.

False.

Dapper Dan
10-05-2016, 11:18 PM
Mo loves fullbacks. You heard it.

Joel
10-06-2016, 12:43 AM
[*=1]When defenses load the box, Janovich admires the target rich environment.
[*=1]When Andy Janovich falls out of a boat, the water gets Janoviched.
[*=1]Andy Jonovich's balls can make cold water shrink.
[*=1]When Janovich gets the ball, defenses tackle themselves.
[*=1]Jano hits linebackers so hard their future children will have black eyes
[*=1]Death once had a near Janovich experience. Death still won't talk about it.
[*=1]Or as a CornNation writer said, "If Andy were on Naked and Afraid, he’d grab a club, stay naked, and the animals would be afraid."


http://www.milehighreport.com/2016/10/3/13124474/denver-broncos-fullback-andy-janovich-is-a-big-deal-and-he-doesn-t-know-it
To be fair, most animals are afraid of ANY naked Corn...husker.

Joel
10-06-2016, 12:46 AM
They aren't selling out this year either. His best passing game was our worst rushing game.
Because the team sold out stop our run. In turn, because CJ ran all over Carolina and Indy behind Janovich. Thus Cincy's game plan was to sell out on the run and make Siemian beat them with his arm—so he went 10/11 for >160 yds and 2 TDs in the final frame. Amazing what kind of opportunities (especially deep) one-on-one coverage offers; it's almost like "run to establish the pass" is like, a thing or something.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 02:22 AM
The game film confirms it.

Yeah, see.

Except it doesn't.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 02:30 AM
Because the team sold out stop our run. In turn, because CJ ran all over Carolina and Indy behind Janovich. Thus Cincy's game plan was to sell out on the run and make Siemian beat them with his arm—so he went 10/11 for >160 yds and 2 TDs in the final frame. Amazing what kind of opportunities (especially deep) one-on-one coverage offers; it's almost like "run to establish the pass" is like, a thing or something.

No. They didn't. And I'm well aware of the what the defensive philosophy you, and others, are suggesting. But that's not what actually happened.

Of the 26 plays that led to Emmanuel Sanders' touchdown catch on a 41-yard pass in the second quarter, the Bengals put eight men in the box four times. That's 15.4 percent of the plays. That's not selling out on the run.

All four of those plays were plays the Broncos showed an off-set I or an I-formation. The Broncos showed 7 sets of those 26 that were off-set I or I-formation with a traditional fullback.

The Bengals play a very straight-forward defense. They line up in what you show them, and the Broncos didn't show them tight sets much, in fact, leading up to that touchdown just 26.9 percent of the time.

Ironically, this is an endorsement for Tned's position on Trevor Siemian, his command of the offense and the idea that his performance in that game can continue.

So, the fullback, fullback formations or one-on-one coverage didn't loosen up the Cincinnati defense. That's not what ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Look at the game film.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 04:09 AM
By the by, those fullback sets netted a robust 1.2 yards per play and 1.8 yards per rushing play.

NightTrainLayne
10-06-2016, 09:09 AM
Wait. The Bengals put 8 in the box about 60% of the time when the Broncos were showing I or offset I formations with a fullback?

So. .. when Janovich was in there, they were "loaded up" against the run for the majority of the time.

No?

GEM
10-06-2016, 09:41 AM
Mo, you insensitive jerk....#fullbacklivesmatter!

Mike
10-06-2016, 09:56 AM
By the by, those fullback sets netted a robust 1.2 yards per play and 1.8 yards per rushing play.

He threw a key block that led to Anderson's TD after Talib's 2nd int. Anderson doesn't get in without his block.

Like with Siemian he hasn't played much yet. Offensive line is still somewhere between work in progress and crappy right now (without Stephenson) and the run game in general has been shit. I'd say so far he has contributed enough to make him worth a roster spot.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 09:58 AM
Wait. The Bengals put 8 in the box about 60% of the time when the Broncos were showing I or offset I formations with a fullback?

So. .. when Janovich was in there, they were "loaded up" against the run for the majority of the time.

No?

Good grief.

TXBRONC
10-06-2016, 10:05 AM
Yeah, see.

Except it doesn't.


Yeah it does.

If you're not blind and can count to eight it's on film.

Are either one of those things a dysfunction you suffer with to some degree or another?

Hawgdriver
10-06-2016, 10:06 AM
By the by, those fullback sets netted a robust 1.2 yards per play and 1.8 yards per rushing play.

Sorry if this question reduces the football IQ of the message board, but how is the passing game affected when Kornavich is in?

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 10:10 AM
Yeah it does.

If you're not blind and can count to eight it's on film.

Are either one of those things a dysfunction you suffer with?

No. Watch the film, because that's what I did and the eight men in the box simply aren't ******* there. Be an obtuse ******* all you want, but the film shows I'm right. They didn't sell out to stop the run and Denver didn't run to set up the pass. Look at what actually happened and don't be so ******* ignorant.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 10:12 AM
Sorry if this question reduces the football IQ of the message board, but how is the passing game affected when Kornavich is in?

Not much. So far from what I watched, they did don't get anything in the passing game when he was in. I'm not trying to prove Janovich sucks, because I think he's a nice player. I'm trying to prove, again, that formation and personnel matter less than we think.

GEM
10-06-2016, 10:14 AM
Alright guys, calm your asses down....no reason to get personal here.

TXBRONC
10-06-2016, 10:15 AM
No. Watch the film, because that's what I did and the eight men in the box simply aren't ******* there. Be an obtuse ******* all you want, but the film shows I'm right. They didn't sell out to stop the run and Denver didn't run to set up the pass. Look at what actually happened and don't be so ******* ignorant.

Then you must blind because I watched and eight men in ******* box. I'm obtuse? Take a look in a mirror bub.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 10:16 AM
Then you must blind because I watched and eight men in ******* box. I'm obtuse? Take a look in a mirror bub.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. Have a nice day.

TXBRONC
10-06-2016, 10:17 AM
You simply don't know what you're talking about. Have a nice day.

You as well, and yes I do know what I'm talking about. :wave:

Dapper Dan
10-06-2016, 10:18 AM
Janovich is tearing us apart!

Mike
10-06-2016, 10:19 AM
We should have a fight club and meet before the annual BF tailgate game.

TXBRONC
10-06-2016, 10:19 AM
Janovich is tearing us apart!

Nah Janovich isn't to blame.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 10:22 AM
If anyone wants to have a real discussion about Cincinnati's defensive playcalling, let me know. They sure didn't have eight men in the box for the first quarter, because Denver was throwing it all around the yard.

TXBRONC
10-06-2016, 10:24 AM
We should have a fight club and meet before the annual BF tailgate game.

Isn't the first rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club?

BroncoJoe
10-06-2016, 10:27 AM
Man. You'd think we were 0-4 as opposed to 4-0.

NightTrainLayne
10-06-2016, 10:29 AM
I'm trying to prove, again, that formation and personnel matter less than we think.

Let me know when you prove that who is on the field and how they line up isn't as important as we think.

What's more important than that? I can't figure out what you're trying to prove, but you are very adamant about it, so I'm open to understanding.

LawDog
10-06-2016, 10:49 AM
He threw a key block that led to Anderson's TD after Talib's 2nd int. Anderson doesn't get in without his block.

Like with Siemian he hasn't played much yet. Offensive line is still somewhere between work in progress and crappy right now (without Stephenson) and the run game in general has been shit. I'd say so far he has contributed enough to make him worth a roster spot.

Wrong game, I think Mo is giving stats on the Cinci game.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 11:09 AM
Let me know when you prove that who is on the field and how they line up isn't as important as we think.

What's more important than that? I can't figure out what you're trying to prove, but you are very adamant about it, so I'm open to understanding.

I want to preface this with that I think Kubiak is doing this, I just don't think people realize it.

I just don't want to see tendencies.

In conversations with people here, they tend to lean towards wanting a power-running game from under center with play-action passing, so any time I respond to that I hear "you only love passing," and "you hate fullbacks." No, I hate tendencies. Lining up only under center is stupid in the NFL, only passing from the shotgun is stupid in the NFL. That's what drives me nuts, and while that's a basic statement, I'm trying to say it basically to make the point.

You have to run from the shotgun and pass from tight sets, just as much as you pass from the shotgun and run in tight sets; be willing to do anything. When I say formation shouldn't matter, I'm essentially saying your offense needs to execute whatever play is called regardless of formation, and even defensive alignment, to be successful.

If Denver came at a team with two running backs, two wide receivers on every play, they wouldn't be successful. The good news is, they AREN'T doing that even though people seem to think they are. That first quarter against Cincinnati is a perfect example.

Would I like to see an offense that is slanted towards the passing game? Yes, because it gains more yards and is more efficient than running. That's a fact, no matter how hard people want to argue it. Joel's turnover bullshit that he harps on is exactly that, bullshit. Turnovers happen on so few plays that the old 1960s adage that "only three things happen on a pass and two are bad" is an awful way to play call in the NFL. But I would never want to go past 65 percent passes, and would like to see about 60 percent passes. A 60-40 ratio is a good, balanced offense.

Now, if Denver could line up in tight sets and hand it off and win 65-0 like the old Nebraska teams, I'd be all for that, but that's just not reality.

The fullback: Am I a big fan of fullback sets? No, not really. I think they limit the offense more than any other formation, because you automatically have one of your skill players who's primarily a blocker. Hopefully, Janovich shows more of a propensity to not just be an extra offensive lineman. He already has done some of that. A versatile fullback who can line up all over is a different story, and that's what I hope Janovich is.

By the way, Denver's offense in 2014 was probably too pass heavy, too shotgun heavy.

Northman
10-06-2016, 11:22 AM
Man. You'd think we were 0-4 as opposed to 4-0.

I was going to say after reading the first page that there isnt much love for some of the Bronco players this year. Tough crowd despite the winning record. lol

Tned
10-06-2016, 11:48 AM
I call tell you, the last few pages have been very interesting. In summary, what I got out of them was, "blah, blah, blah, Tned is right about Siemian, blah, blah, blah..."


J/K

I trust MO's review of the film, but I'll be honest, watching the game live, I would have thought they stacked the box more than that.

Even take this blurb from Bengals.com


Domata Peko's run defense held up its end of the bargain in holding Denver to 2.3 yards per.


All this while the Bengals held the estimable C.J Anderson to 37 rushing yards on 14 carries, holding him to even under that 39-yard TD run back at Mile High that still galls them.

Playing eight men in the box to challenge Siemian’s arm, the Bengals blitzed maybe a handful of times, figuring their four-man rush against a battered Denver offensive line would take care of the pressure and Siemian wouldn’t be accurate enough under the heat.


Obviously, the film is the film, and I'm not sure if they keep stats on that to see if the the Bengals kept 8 in the box more often than teams typically do.

Tned
10-06-2016, 11:49 AM
I was going to say after reading the first page that there isnt much love for some of the Bronco players this year. Tough crowd despite the winning record. lol

I love some of these young guys. They are doing very well. Look at the average age of our guys. Besides Ware and Talib, we don't have many guys that are beyond the 4-7 year range. Makes for an exciting future.

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 11:55 AM
I call tell you, the last few pages have been very interesting. In summary, what I got out of them was, "blah, blah, blah, Tned is right about Siemian, blah, blah, blah..."


J/K

I trust MO's review of the film, but I'll be honest, watching the game live, I would have thought they stacked the box more than that.

Even take this blurb from Bengals.com


Obviously, the film is the film, and I'm not sure if they keep stats on that to see if the the Bengals kept 8 in the box more often than teams typically do.

They were in dime and nickel most of the first quarter, and playing press man. Maybe they were counting press man defenders on the slot receiver as in the box, but I wasn't because they didn't ever blitz that guy.

It wasn't an overly successful first quarter for Siemian, but if you want to make an argument that he's a long-term solution, that first quarter is a good one to use. He beat a defense straight-up. Denver was calling those plays because that's what they wanted to run, not because of anything Cincinnati was doing.

Hawgdriver
10-06-2016, 12:04 PM
A versatile fullback who can line up all over is a different story, and that's what I hope Janovich is.

I would like to see him develop into a pass-catching FB threat that defenses have to account for. A less elusive but equally versatile version of, e.g., Woodhead. Failing this, with the -19.28 expected points the Broncos rushing offense has produced through 4 games (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/#rushing::10) (29th/32), I'd lean toward waste of a roster spot. Everything else equal, etc. (issues with offensive line).

BroncoWave
10-06-2016, 12:15 PM
TX how much game tape do you watch?

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 12:19 PM
I would like to see him develop into a pass-catching FB threat that defenses have to account for. A less elusive but equally versatile version of, e.g., Woodhead. Failing this, with the -19.28 expected points the Broncos rushing offense has produced through 4 games (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/#rushing::10) (29th/32), I'd lean toward waste of a roster spot. Everything else equal, etc. (issues with offensive line).

I really liked how Green Bay was using Kuhn about three years ago, and I think Janovich could be better than Kuhn.

chazoe60
10-06-2016, 12:34 PM
MO, why do you hate Andy?

GEM
10-06-2016, 12:41 PM
TX how much game tape do you watch?

You arrived too late to jump in on that bunch of nonsense fighting. :D

MOtorboat
10-06-2016, 12:46 PM
MO, why do you hate Andy?

I will admit, I'm not an Andy Kaufman fan.

Timmy!
10-06-2016, 01:19 PM
https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/dead-sea-salt.jpg


This is the dead Sea, the 2nd most salty thing in the world, right behind Mo's feelings for fullbacks.

NightTrainLayne
10-06-2016, 02:28 PM
I want to preface this with that I think Kubiak is doing this, I just don't think people realize it.

I just don't want to see tendencies.

In conversations with people here, they tend to lean towards wanting a power-running game from under center with play-action passing, so any time I respond to that I hear "you only love passing," and "you hate fullbacks." No, I hate tendencies. Lining up only under center is stupid in the NFL, only passing from the shotgun is stupid in the NFL. That's what drives me nuts, and while that's a basic statement, I'm trying to say it basically to make the point.

You have to run from the shotgun and pass from tight sets, just as much as you pass from the shotgun and run in tight sets; be willing to do anything. When I say formation shouldn't matter, I'm essentially saying your offense needs to execute whatever play is called regardless of formation, and even defensive alignment, to be successful.

If Denver came at a team with two running backs, two wide receivers on every play, they wouldn't be successful. The good news is, they AREN'T doing that even though people seem to think they are. That first quarter against Cincinnati is a perfect example.

Would I like to see an offense that is slanted towards the passing game? Yes, because it gains more yards and is more efficient than running. That's a fact, no matter how hard people want to argue it. Joel's turnover bullshit that he harps on is exactly that, bullshit. Turnovers happen on so few plays that the old 1960s adage that "only three things happen on a pass and two are bad" is an awful way to play call in the NFL. But I would never want to go past 65 percent passes, and would like to see about 60 percent passes. A 60-40 ratio is a good, balanced offense.

Now, if Denver could line up in tight sets and hand it off and win 65-0 like the old Nebraska teams, I'd be all for that, but that's just not reality.

The fullback: Am I a big fan of fullback sets? No, not really. I think they limit the offense more than any other formation, because you automatically have one of your skill players who's primarily a blocker. Hopefully, Janovich shows more of a propensity to not just be an extra offensive lineman. He already has done some of that. A versatile fullback who can line up all over is a different story, and that's what I hope Janovich is.

By the way, Denver's offense in 2014 was probably too pass heavy, too shotgun heavy.

I agree with you much more than I disagree with you.

I think we are very much a work in progress. Young players, & new players at positions all over the offense. On top of that Stephenson got hurt, and we had to shuffle the right side of the O-line, and bring in Sambrailo at RT, when he'd last practiced in the beginning of Training camp at RG. . .he was going to be rusty at Guard, much less Tackle.

I was pretty pleased with how well we started off game 1&2 running the ball. I am with Tned, my feeling during the Cinci game was that they were really keying on the run, and loading up to stop that. I take you at your word on reviewing the game tape and that maybe they weren't as much as it seemed.

I think Stephenson's injury took us back a couple of steps, and masks a lot of what Kubiak is wanting to develop. I hope he's healthy, and able to contribute this week so that we can continue taking steps forward.

Back in the day, Shanny's (and Kubiak's) strength was running the same plays out of multiple formations and sets which is what you are advocating for. I think that is where we want to eventually get to, and I'm all for it. I think Janovich can be a piece of that puzzle.

Jaded
10-07-2016, 12:08 AM
Who ****** cares how many FB's there are? They block better than a 160lb slot receiver.

Btw, suck it Bosco.

tripp
10-07-2016, 10:08 AM
Still can't figure out why we don't use this guy for short yardage plays? Countless times I've seen the ball handed off to CJ on a 2 &1 and 3rd & 1, and seen him stuffed. Thought Janovich would be perfect for those scenarios. On a side note completely irrelevant to Janovich, had we not drafted him, I think Peyton Hillis would have offered some great value to this team as a pass catching, blocking, and full back.

TXBRONC
10-07-2016, 11:07 AM
Who ****** cares how many FB's there are? They block better than a 160lb slot receiver.

Btw, suck it Bosco.

He hasn't been around in a long while.

I wonder how angry he was that Denver beat the Patriots and then went on win the Super Bowl?

NightTerror218
10-07-2016, 10:56 PM
I like the versatility jano has. He can pass block like a normal rb only better. He can lead block for cj. He has a Rushing td and a nice reception. If he can be more active in passing game he seems to have good hands.

Jaded
10-08-2016, 01:49 AM
He hasn't been around in a long while.

I wonder how angry he was that Denver beat the Patriots and then went on win the Super Bowl?

Is he a P*triots fan? Small wonder he's so arrogant.

Hawgdriver
10-08-2016, 11:39 AM
Hey guys, I was taking the SAT the other day and saw this in the math section.

Bibbs + Booker = ?????

And I was stumped for a minute, but then it hit me, the answer: Janovich. I would have missed that one, missed my one shot for M.I.T. or Harvard or wherever nerds go these days, if not for the existence of Cornthumper in the lineup. So thanks, Broncos.

1/2 back + 1/2 back = 1/1 back

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
10-08-2016, 12:16 PM
Hey guys, I was taking the SAT the other day and saw this in the math section.

Bibbs + Booker = ?????

And I was stumped for a minute, but then it hit me, the answer: Janovich. I would have missed that one, missed my one shot for M.I.T. or Harvard or wherever nerds go these days, if not for the existence of Cornthumper in the lineup. So thanks, Broncos.

1/2 back + 1/2 back = 1/1 back

Mind.blown.

Nomad
10-08-2016, 02:00 PM
I trust Kubiak and Elway know a thing or 2 about a good fullback. Janovich (the rookie) will only get better.