I think its time to change the O line philosophy

[Medford Bronco]

IMHO I think this team would be better served going to a more traditional o line due to Culter, not being as mobile as Jake and in the old days Elway.


I want bigger tackles to help Cutler have time in the pocket

I still think you can run some of the Tradtional plays like the stretch play. In the old days the Redskins ran this play to perfection with a huge O line.

Am I all wet or do I make some good points.

what do all the great posters here think:confused:

[BroncoWave]

Yeah, I've been saying that for awhile now, and have been criticized for it. People are just scared of change. Until we get some fatties up there who can protect him, he will continue to get killed week after week.

[topscribe]

"Big" players do not necessarily mean good pass blockers. Pears is not what
one would consider necessarily small at 6-8 and 305. Lepsis has been very
good for us and is just rounding into form after his injury. (The Texans game
was not all Lepsis; it was also Mario Williams doing what he was drafted
overall #1 for. Besides, two of Mario's sacks came from other areas than
Lepsis'.)

I believe our days of diminuitive O-linemen are pretty much over. Across the
board, the broncos now have Pears, Holland (322 lbs), Myers (300 lbs), and
Kuper (305 lbs). So the only under-300 starter they have is now Lepis (290),
and if he can recover his past excellence, who cares?

The O-line is not the concern for the future. Defensive tackle is. That is
where the Broncos will continue to lose if they don't upgrade that space
beside Thomas, IMO.

-----

[Medford Bronco]

"Big" players do not necessarily mean good pass blockers. Pears is not what
one would consider necessarily small at 6-8 and 305. Lepsis has been very
good for us and is just rounding into form after his injury. (The Texans game
was not all Lepsis; it was also Mario Williams doing what he was drafted
overall #1 for. Besides, two of Mario's sacks came from other areas than
Lepsis'.)

I believe our days of diminuitive O-linemen are pretty much over. Across the
board, the broncos now have Pears, Holland (322 lbs), Myers (300 lbs), and
Kuper (305 lbs). So the only under-300 starter they have is now Lepis (290),
and if he can recover his past excellence, who cares?

The O-line is not the concern for the future. Defensive tackle is. That is
where the Broncos will continue to lose if they don't upgrade that space
beside Thomas, IMO.

-----


top I think BOTH areas are a major concern

yes the defensive line is worse but the o line was average this year IMO at best

[underrated29]

Am I all wet or do I make some good points.

what do all the great posters here think:confused:



Yes, i do think Adrianna is one of the finest girls in the world. And she would make me all wet too...

OH, your talking football.

I would like to see one big guy upfront, not nessacerely for cutler sake. (as i think the line is just fine there). But for running sake. We seem to lack that big push we used to get in those short yardage situations, if we got one big man who can move two guys back a little, i think that would be most beneficial.

[topscribe]

top I think BOTH areas are a major concern

yes the defensive line is worse but the o line was average this year IMO at best

Well yes, Med. But you also need to consider, on the O-line, where none of
the players had started with anyone else on the line, let alone next to him.
Not only that, but Pears had never started at RT, and Myers and Kuper had
never started anywhere. And Lepsis, after he finally did come back, has yet
to be 100 percent.

So they have had the problem of inexperience and jelling, with a subpar Lepsis.

Nonetheless, the line is loaded with quality players, especially if Nalen and
possibly Hamilton come back, and Lepsis fully recovers, as it looks like he
will over the offseason.

Really, I believe the offense is developing into a juggernaut. While every
posiiton on the team is always subject to consideration for improvement, of
course, I believe the offense should be left alone until the defense is
addressed and satisfied, particularly at DT and safety.

IMHO.

-----

[Hawgdriver]

IMHO I think this team would be better served going to a more traditional o line due to Culter, not being as mobile as Jake and in the old days Elway.


I want bigger tackles to help Cutler have time in the pocket

I still think you can run some of the Tradtional plays like the stretch play. In the old days the Redskins ran this play to perfection with a huge O line.

Am I all wet or do I make some good points.

what do all the great posters here think:confused:

I disagree completely. First, our rushing offense is the centerpiece of the system, and the hallmark of the Broncos offense which is #1 in the NFL in the Shanahan era.

Second, if you look at the yardage lost to sacks this year, you'll find that Jay has not lost much sack yardage this year. I think only Garrard has less yardage lost from sacks, but he's had less pass attempts, too.

Third, the O-line is the foundation of the offense. You can't just unlearn it. It would take a long time and a lot of practice to make a change. So you know that you're going to stink until you've got a firm foundation, and then who's to say that it will actually be an improvement once you have made the transformation?

IMO, you are all wet on this one, but that's just one man's HO. heh heh...one man's ho...

[BroncoWave]

"Big" players do not necessarily mean good pass blockers. Pears is not what
one would consider necessarily small at 6-8 and 305. Lepsis has been very
good for us and is just rounding into form after his injury. (The Texans game
was not all Lepsis; it was also Mario Williams doing what he was drafted
overall #1 for. Besides, two of Mario's sacks came from other areas than
Lepsis'.)

I believe our days of diminuitive O-linemen are pretty much over. Across the
board, the broncos now have Pears, Holland (322 lbs), Myers (300 lbs), and
Kuper (305 lbs). So the only under-300 starter they have is now Lepis (290),
and if he can recover his past excellence, who cares?

The O-line is not the concern for the future. Defensive tackle is. That is
where the Broncos will continue to lose if they don't upgrade that space
beside Thomas, IMO.

-----

I still think the o-line is a bigger concern. I think with Dumervil, Thomas, Moss, and Crowder, our defensive line will be fine in the future. Upgrading the pass protection should be a bigger concern than upgrading the d-line IMO. A couple of new (good) linebackers wouldn't hurt either.

[topscribe]

I still think the o-line is a bigger concern. I think with Dumervil, Thomas, Moss, and Crowder, our defensive line will be fine in the future. Upgrading the pass protection should be a bigger concern than upgrading the d-line IMO. A couple of new (good) linebackers wouldn't hurt either.

You can have Reggie White, Deacon Jones, Brian Urlacher, and Lawrence
Taylor in their primes in there, but if you don't have good DTs, you don't have
a good line, nor a good run defense. I'm excited about our DEs, too, but they
do not constitute a defense.

The offense isn't responsible for the Broncos' W-L record. The defense is what
has given up what possibly could be a team record number of total points over
the season.

Of course, the Broncos could be like the old Chargers: have an almost
unstoppable offense, score 30+ points every game, and have a losing W-L
record. Oh wait . . .

-----

[Lonestar]

IMHO I think this team would be better served going to a more traditional o line due to Cutler, not being as mobile as Jake and in the old days Elway.


I want bigger tackles to help Cutler have time in the pocket

I still think you can run some of the Traditional plays like the stretch play. In the old days the Redskins ran this play to perfection with a huge O line.

Am I all wet or do I make some good points.

what do all the great posters here think:confused:


While I would like a more traditional OLINE it would take way to much money and draft choices that we have for the foreseeable future..

Many will argue the we have one of the best run programs over the past decade than anyone.. But as more and more teams move to the zone blocking scheme more defenses will see it and learn how to defend it better.

Way back when we were the only decent team doing it some team only saw it once every 4-5 years.. Now with 4-5 other teams doing it everyone has had time to work against it. It is no longer novel and even when playing those teams that we have in out conference we do not do as well as we used to do against those teams that we only see occasionally.

Others will say that we are getting bigger but a 305 pound Kuper is still not a 325 pounder that most teams start at..

I have given up hope that mikey will go traditional, especially after the foster debacle.

I still feel our biggest weak spot is DT and the DL in general

[Skinny]

I beleive it's the Coaching more so than the philosophy. I do think it's time for a change in that department. You don't have to have 330 pound guys (^^as mentioned^^) at every position just to protect the QB ... we learned and witnessed that with Gibbs. Heck, they don't even have to have 1st round talent.

But you do have to have good solid Coaching ... seriously ... you got to start at the roots with the talent evaluation, selections, and the Coaching if anything along the O-line is going to change ... it has to be a priority and one with experiance in that field.

The Offense is struggling in pass protection and short yardage situations (injurys did'nt help) and in doing so it's doing that with 5th, 6th, and 7th round talent being Coached by a former Bronco L.B. That tells me all i need to know on this subject.

There are techniques, leverages, angles, and adjustments used in the ZBS to pass protect and in those short yardages that just does'nt seem to be being taught to the newer guys that are starting to fill in along the O-line ... and that's where the problem lies IMO.

Addressing that (Coaching) will bring a quicker change and improvement to the O-line before you see 330 pound lineman across the line picked by the current regime running a ZBS in Denver.

:2cents:

[dogfish]

we need BETTER players, not necessarily BIGGER players. . . . i'm really more concerned about the tackles than i am about the interior-- holland isn't that bad in pass protection, and myers and kuper are young guys who have potential and need a chance to grow into it. . .

i'll admit though, i'm very concerned about our tackles. . . whether lepsis has underperformed this year because he's coming off major surgery and needs a year to get his full explosiveness back (he also started the year playing with a groin injury, and i have no idea how much that's healed, or whether it's still slowing him down), it's impossible to say at this point. . . or maybe, he's just gettting older and this is going to be as good as it gets from here on out-- who knows? if the latter is the case, we really do need to look for a replacement sooner rather than later, as his play this year didn't cut it for the most part. . .

i do think it would be wise to look for a replacement for pears-- he tries hard, and as a second year player he certainly has potential for more growth and development, but IMO he's a limited athlete who simply may not have the quickness and balance to ever become a quality pass blocker at this level. . . i would feel a lot more comfortable with someone else over there. . .

of course, we do need to see what ryan harris can do at some point-- we spent a 3rd round pick on him, and although i myself am not super confident, he does have excellent athletic ability. . . maybe he can be the future on the left side, which is what he was drafted for-- he's about the same size as 49ers rookie joe staley, and scouts agree that staley has easily been san fran's best OL this year. . .

actally, let's take the size comparison a step further-- we can all agree that the patriots' line has been as good as any in the league when it comes to pass protection, can't we? i added up the listed weights of al their starting offensive linemen, and compared them to ours-- their total was 1531, for an average of 306 pounds per player, while our total was 1514, with an average of 303 per player. . . can 3 pounds actually make a difference? no. . . the bottom line is that their guys are mostly in their prime, and that they're quality athletes, mostly 1st day picks, and they're a well-coached unit that's been playing together for several years now (a QB with great vision and pocket presence doesn't hurt, either). . .

so no, i don't necessarily think we need bigger players-- george foster was enormous, and he freakin' sucked. . . some more size on the line would be nice, but the main thing we need is better quickness and athleticism from our tackles-- especially if lepsis can't regain his old form next year. . . IMO offensive tackle is our second priority right after DT-- we need a line that can keep our franchise player healthy and give our skill position players a chance to be effective. . . i'd love to see us make a run at panthers tackle jordan gross inf ree agency, or look at OTs on the first day of the draft. . .

[Requiem / The Dagda]

It's not necessarily the way our blocking scheme is ran, or the sort of protection we're doing with the line, but it's the quality of players Denver has on its outside that worry me more than anything.

People wanted to crucify Foster for allowing 13.5 sacks in 45 games as a starter with the Broncos, but Erik Pears has let up about that (give or take a few sacks, but it's well over 10 - because in 2006 alone he let up 6 in ten games) in less than two full-seasons as a starter in the NFL. Denver has had a history of drafting late-round talents and bringing in those most wouldn't give a time a day and grooming them into passable starters at the NFL level.

When you spend a high first-rounder on a franchise quarterback, the rules of the game must change. You didn't see the Chargers surround Rivers with a P.O.S undrafted player. They got Marcus McNeill, who by the way made the Pro-Bowl as a rookie and widely was regarded as a first-round talent, but his medical issues (same as Harris, lower back) made people settle on him. They didn't look at how he played, and the Chargers once again got a draft steal.

You look at any team drafting a young QB, and they attempt to pair them with a top flight tackle for the future. Denver has not done that, but it IS going to be a top priority of theirs going into the off-season and draft and you can take that to the bank. There's absolutely no reason with two of the worst starting offensive tackles in the league this year by far (regardless of what excuses people want to make, their play is my simple basis for such an evaluation - such as Lepsis being beat twice by Mario of his 3.5 sacks) and a draft so deep at that position that we don't attempt to grab at least ONE future prospect at the position.

Pears and Lepsis are sorry excuses for NFL tackles. What's even more concerning is despite their piss poor play, Ryan Harris hasn't been able to take over for either of them. Yeah, tackles generally don't start for the Broncos as a rookie - but he should get a shot, get him battle tested and ready for next year. Our tackles are a joke, and the front office will realize this and deal with it accordingly this off-season. Take a pay cut Matt, or you're gone - and Pears will be brought back for insurance, and insurance only. Denver WILL be drafting a new tackle within the first three rounds of the draft. Like I said, bank on it.

[topscribe]

It's not necessarily the way our blocking scheme is ran, or the sort of protection we're doing with the line, but it's the quality of players Denver has on its outside that worry me more than anything.

People wanted to crucify Foster for allowing 13.5 sacks in 45 games as a starter with the Broncos, but Erik Pears has let up about that (give or take a few sacks, but it's well over 10 - because in 2006 alone he let up 6 in ten games) in less than two full-seasons as a starter in the NFL. Denver has had a history of drafting late-round talents and bringing in those most wouldn't give a time a day and grooming them into passable starters at the NFL level.

When you spend a high first-rounder on a franchise quarterback, the rules of the game must change. You didn't see the Chargers surround Rivers with a P.O.S undrafted player. They got Marcus McNeill, who by the way made the Pro-Bowl as a rookie and widely was regarded as a first-round talent, but his medical issues (same as Harris, lower back) made people settle on him. They didn't look at how he played, and the Chargers once again got a draft steal.

You look at any team drafting a young QB, and they attempt to pair them with a top flight tackle for the future. Denver has not done that, but it IS going to be a top priority of theirs going into the off-season and draft and you can take that to the bank. There's absolutely no reason with two of the worst starting offensive tackles in the league this year by far (regardless of what excuses people want to make, their play is my simple basis for such an evaluation - such as Lepsis being beat twice by Mario of his 3.5 sacks) and a draft so deep at that position that we don't attempt to grab at least ONE future prospect at the position.

Pears and Lepsis are sorry excuses for NFL tackles. What's even more concerning is despite their piss poor play, Ryan Harris hasn't been able to take over for either of them. Yeah, tackles generally don't start for the Broncos as a rookie - but he should get a shot, get him battle tested and ready for next year. Our tackles are a joke, and the front office will realize this and deal with it accordingly this off-season. Take a pay cut Matt, or you're gone - and Pears will be brought back for insurance, and insurance only. Denver WILL be drafting a new tackle within the first three rounds of the draft. Like I said, bank on it.

Yeah, so the Broncos draft an OT, and he gives up six sacks as a rookie
(like Pears), and you will consider him worthless, too?

Or maybe Williams will be coming back from an injury next year, and you
will consider him a poor excused for a MLB?

Call them excuses if you want. But I believe in cause and effect. A person
playing with an injury is not as good as that person is when that person is
healthy. That's a no-brainer. And a first-year player is not as good as he
will be as a third-year player. That's a no-brainer. To compare Foster, the
veteran who could not get it done, to Pears, in his first year at that position,
is not fair at all.

Maybe the Broncos do need to upgrade at OT, I don't know. But I would
try like the dickens to do it in FA, not in draft, where it is going to take the
young OT three years to get to the point where he can play against a
Mario Williams.

Besides, the Broncos need too many other players in the draft, IMO.

-----

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Yeah, so the Broncos draft an OT, and he gives up six sacks as a rookie (like Pears), and you will consider him worthless, too?

Nope, especially if the kid plays LT. Pears should not be allowing the sacks he is from the right side of the line this year as a second year player, especially with training wheels next to him all the time. (Daniel Graham) His play is terrible. When my four year old niece calls me on the phone asking why that man misses his blocks all the time, you know it has got to be a problem.


Or maybe Williams will be coming back from an injury next year, and you will consider him a poor excused for a MLB?

Injuries are a part of the game. Williams has performed great this year even with injuries. What's the point here? Good players can persevere and play through injuries, many of them do. These sound a lot like the excuses you gave for Gerard Warren last year, and we all know where he ended up. Just a hunch, but I have a feeling that my gut will be right again when it comes to some of these players doggin' it this year.


Call them excuses if you want. But I believe in cause and effect. A person playing with an injury is not as good as that person is when that person is healthy. That's a no-brainer. And a first-year player is not as good as he will be as a third-year player. That's a no-brainer. To compare Foster, the veteran who could not get it done, to Pears, in his first year at that position, is not fair at all.

How is it not fair? Pears isn't a rookie anymore. He should be playing better than he is. Period.


Maybe the Broncos do need to upgrade at OT, I don't know. But I would try like the dickens to do it in FA, not in draft, where it is going to take the young OT three years to get to the point where he can play against a
Mario Williams.

Not necessarily. There are at least five offensive tackles in this draft who are ready to play against the likes of Mario Williams and Elvis Dumervil as pass rushers right now. There are many examples of first year tackles who have enormous success. Also, it's not about "right now" it's about the future as well. Something that there isn't much hope for with the two players we currently have at OT.


Besides, the Broncos need too many other players in the draft, IMO.

Like what, linebacker and defensive tackle which are two of the top three hardest positions to evaluate prospects at in the NFL Draft? I'm not saying we don't need upgrades there, but anyone who is watching the Broncos this year knows that tackle is a huge concern, along with those other two. In fact, I'd list them as all 1A/1B/1C - and all worthy of being first day considerations.

Offensive tackle is a top need for this team. It's going to be expensive either way, because tackles aren't cheap - but I'd rather get Cutler a long-term running mate than throwing big money at free agents who almost never pan out anyways. Younger players will play hard because they have something to prove. You've been around here a lot longer than I have to know how many players Denver has thrown big change at and how poorly they've responded after getting that pay day.

Most players go luke-warm after that, and for good reason.

[dogfish]

Maybe the Broncos do need to upgrade at OT, I don't know. But I would
try like the dickens to do it in FA, not in draft, where it is going to take the
young OT three years to get to the point where he can play against a
Mario Williams.

Besides, the Broncos need too many other players in the draft, IMO.

-----



i don't necessarily agree with this-- we've seen some rookie OTs making a big impact the past few years. . . marcus mcneil made the pro bowl last year as a rookie, and quite frankly IMO he played well enough to make all-pro. . . this year, browns rookie joe thomas was selected by PFW to their mid-season all-pro team, and has a chance to get the actual award at the end of the year-- he has also been mentioned by PFT as a possible rookie of the year candidate (adrian peterson will most likely get it, but just the fact that thomas was mentioned shows how highly people think of him). . . colts rookie OT tony ugoh has done a credible job replacing formr pro bowler tarik glenn, at least when he's been healthy. . .

you're right that young players (both on the OL and elsewhere) do tend to take time to develop, but that's certainly not written in stone anywhere. . . just as it's not written in stone anywhere that lepsis has to regain his form, or that pears is guaranteed to get better with experience-- not everyone does. . . in any case, our options in FA will be quite limited-- good tackles are hard to find, don't hit the market all that often, and are always at a premium when they do. . . as i said, gross will be very high on my FA wishlist this year, but there aren't a ton of options beyond him that i'm very excited about. . .

the draft is a much cheaper, longer term solution. . . IMO it's not very bright to cross our fingers and hope that lepsis can rebound, or pears will improve-- if they don't, and we don't have other viable options in place in a year or two, then we're really screwed. . . as far as i'm concerend, the fact that young OLs do take some time to develop is probably the best argument one could make for drafting them now. . . besides which, it's not like our tackle play this year was so impressive that a youngster would have to play like a superstar right off the bat to provide an upgrade, or at least play at a similar level while providing more upside than our current starters. . .

[Lonestar]

we need BETTER players, not necessarily BIGGER players. . . . i'm really more concerned about the tackles than i am about the interior-- holland isn't that bad in pass protection, and myers and kuper are young guys who have potential and need a chance to grow into it. . .

i'll admit though, i'm very concerned about our tackles. . . whether lepsis has underperformed this year because he's coming off major surgery and needs a year to get his full explosiveness back (he also started the year playing with a groin injury, and i have no idea how much that's healed, or whether it's still slowing him down), it's impossible to say at this point. . . or maybe, he's just gettting older and this is going to be as good as it gets from here on out-- who knows? if the latter is the case, we really do need to look for a replacement sooner rather than later, as his play this year didn't cut it for the most part. . .

i do think it would be wise to look for a replacement for pears-- he tries hard, and as a second year player he certainly has potential for more growth and development, but IMO he's a limited athlete who simply may not have the quickness and balance to ever become a quality pass blocker at this level. . . i would feel a lot more comfortable with someone else over there. . .

of course, we do need to see what ryan harris can do at some point-- we spent a 3rd round pick on him, and although i myself am not super confident, he does have excellent athletic ability. . . maybe he can be the future on the left side, which is what he was drafted for-- he's about the same size as 49ers rookie joe staley, and scouts agree that staley has easily been san fran's best OL this year. . .

actally, let's take the size comparison a step further-- we can all agree that the patriots' line has been as good as any in the league when it comes to pass protection, can't we? i added up the listed weights of al their starting offensive linemen, and compared them to ours-- their total was 1531, for an average of 306 pounds per player, while our total was 1514, with an average of 303 per player. . . can 3 pounds actually make a difference? no. . . the bottom line is that their guys are mostly in their prime, and that they're quality athletes, mostly 1st day picks, and they're a well-coached unit that's been playing together for several years now (a QB with great vision and pocket presence doesn't hurt, either). . .

so no, i don't necessarily think we need bigger players-- george foster was enormous, and he freakin' sucked. . . some more size on the line would be nice, but the main thing we need is better quickness and athleticism from our tackles-- especially if lepsis can't regain his old form next year. . . IMO offensive tackle is our second priority right after DT-- we need a line that can keep our franchise player healthy and give our skill position players a chance to be effective. . . i'd love to see us make a run at panthers tackle jordan gross inf ree agency, or look at OTs on the first day of the draft. . .

JUst an idea of what the leaders have.



LEADERS
PASS RUN TOTAL
#1 NE MIN NE
#2 GB JAX DAL
#3 NOL PIT GB
#4 DAL TEN IND
#5 CIN OAK NOL

weight from roster as stated on NFL.COM

GB IND MIN TEX DAL CIN JAX PIT TEN OAK AVG DEN diff
RT 315 320 328 307 315 340 325 315 318 315 320 305 -15
RG 300 295 335 307 354 345 328 315 320 298 320 322 +2
Ct 295 295 309 303 316 300 295 301 298 315 303 295 -8
LG 305 290 313 322 294 339 326 307 295 325 313 302 -11
LT 320 301 335 302 340 307 325 321 315 300 317 290 -27



My premise was to see what the offensive leaders had on on their OLINE If we want to play witht eh big DOGS we have top a match up to them.. IMO with exception of holland we are out weighed at all positions and way out classed at either OT.

I included Texans in there just because they run a ZBS better than we do they average 308.2. we are 302.8 with holland who is by no means a fixture there.

[Hawgdriver]

I agree with the assessment that the tackles needs some improvement, but I think the case for fatties is a bit overstated. Run with the big dogs? That's us. Listen to the facts:

This year, the Denver offense averages 5.98 yards per play, which is good for 4th in the NFL. Using total offense is a mistake because our defense is terrible. They keep the offense from getting to run more plays. So we average about 6 yards a play. That includes the yardage lost from getting sacked. The only teams with better offensive production are Green Bay (6.20), New England (6.35), and Dallas (6.40). The next best team after Denver is Indianapolis (5.80). So before you all continue clamoring for changes to the coaching staff philosophy or better players, just realize you're not happy with #4 in the league.

I'll admit that the protection has looked suspect in certain match-ups with the tackles. Ok, in the case of Lepsis, maybe most match-ups. Denver has allowed 27 sacks, which is dead middle in the NFL. That can certainly improve, but it's not terrible. My greatest concern is that we're using a 6-man line to cover up the weaknesses of below-average tackles, and we have a young QB with above-average awareness and footwork. I'm not ready to write off Pears yet, but he hasn't matured into the player we all hoped for. Still, I want to direct attention to this number:

#4 of 32 in offensive production per play.

I think the results of this philosophy with the existing personnel speak for themselves. #4 in the NFL...not up to Shanny's standard (#1), but not too bad, either. I guess I don't see the problem as clearly as you guys do--can someone help me identify why we need to improve the line? Dream & Hopnutz I see your point, and I've witnessed our tackles getting abused--but the numbers don't tell a story that seems as bleak as yours. Help me out, he'a...:confused:

[Lonestar]

I agree with the assessment that the tackles needs some improvement, but I think the case for fatties is a bit overstated. Run with the big dogs? That's us. Listen to the facts:

This year, the Denver offense averages 5.98 yards per play, which is good for 4th in the NFL. Using total offense is a mistake because our defense is terrible. They keep the offense from getting to run more plays. So we average about 6 yards a play. That includes the yardage lost from getting sacked. The only teams with better offensive production are Green Bay (6.20), New England (6.35), and Dallas (6.40). The next best team after Denver is Indianapolis (5.80). So before you all continue clamoring for changes to the coaching staff philosophy or better players, just realize you're not happy with #4 in the league.

I'll admit that the protection has looked suspect in certain match-ups with the tackles. Ok, in the case of Lepsis, maybe most match-ups. Denver has allowed 27 sacks, which is dead middle in the NFL. That can certainly improve, but it's not terrible. My greatest concern is that we're using a 6-man line to cover up the weaknesses of below-average tackles, and we have a young QB with above-average awareness and footwork. I'm not ready to write off Pears yet, but he hasn't matured into the player we all hoped for. Still, I want to direct attention to this number:

#4 of 32 in offensive production per play.

I think the results of this philosophy with the existing personnel speak for themselves. #4 in the NFL...not up to Shanny's standard (#1), but not too bad, either. I guess I don't see the problem as clearly as you guys do--can someone help me identify why we need to improve the line? Dream & Hopnutz I see your point, and I've witnessed our tackles getting abused--but the numbers don't tell a story that seems as bleak as yours. Help me out, he'a...:confused:


You see I look at it just the oppsoite if you can run the defense is not on the field as much. You maintain TOP.

We get a lot of long runs because of the runners, not so much the blocking..

We move the ball well UNTIL we get tot eh red zone then we bog down because we do not have the bulk to run the ball down someones throat.

We are all about finesse.

Even the other two ZBS teams taht have just commited to it are much larger than we are HOU 308.2 and OAK 310.8. Now perhaps that does not mean much but OAK teams the smallest player is 3 pound less that our average which includes holland who would not be starting without all the injuries....

When the master gets beat by his ex backup QB and his son. Something is wrong.

IMO

[Hawgdriver]

You see I look at it just the oppsoite if you can run the defense is not on the field as much. You maintain TOP.

What we really need are the numbers that show how much time Jay has to throw it. That's what we're after, right? Anyone have those numbers?

JR, if your defense doesn't stop the other team, you don't get the ball. Our offense is just fine. Our offensive TOP is low not because of 3 & Outs, or poor production, our TOP is low because we aren't getting the ball back after we kick the ball away. This is something you can't improve with more offense.

[dogfish]

JUst an idea of what the leaders have.



LEADERS
PASS RUN TOTAL
#1 NE MIN NE
#2 GB JAX DAL
#3 NOL PIT GB
#4 DAL TEN IND
#5 CIN OAK NOL

weight from roster as stated on NFL.COM

GB IND MIN TEX DAL CIN JAX PIT TEN OAK AVG DEN diff
RT 315 320 328 307 315 340 325 315 318 315 320 305 -15
RG 300 295 335 307 354 345 328 315 320 298 320 322 +2
Ct 295 295 309 303 316 300 295 301 298 315 303 295 -8
LG 305 290 313 322 294 339 326 307 295 325 313 302 -11
LT 320 301 335 302 340 307 325 321 315 300 317 290 -27



My premise was to see what the offensive leaders had on on their OLINE If we want to play witht eh big DOGS we have top a match up to them.. IMO with exception of holland we are out weighed at all positions and way out classed at either OT.

I included Texans in there just because they run a ZBS better than we do they average 308.2. we are 302.8 with holland who is by no means a fixture there.



okay, now just to be fair post the average weight of the O-lines for the worst offenses. . . . ;)


talent >>>>> size

[dogfish]

Dream & Hopnutz I see your point, and I've witnessed our tackles getting abused--but the numbers don't tell a story that seems as bleak as yours. Help me out, he'a...:confused:



lepsis is old, pears is bad. . . what, i gotta draw you a picture?


:lol: :laugh:



seriously though, our tackle play has been pretty poor this year-- you don't need numbers to tell you, you can see it every time you watch them play. . . we have no proven depth, and if harris doesn't pan out we have no depth at all-- we need tackles who can keep cutler from racking up injuries, and it's time to invest in one of the most important positions on the team. . . besides, if you compare our point production to our yardage production, you'll probably get a much lower ranking than 4th. . . .

[Hawgdriver]

When the master gets beat by his ex backup QB and his son. Something is wrong.

IMO

You got that right, JR. No question.

But remember, the Cards beat the Stillers for the same reasons...

Kubes and Kyle have what we like to call an "asymmetrical information advantage."

[Hawgdriver]

lepsis is old, pears is bad. . . what, i gotta draw you a picture?


:lol: :laugh:



seriously though, our tackle play has been pretty poor this year-- you don't need numbers to tell you, you can see it every time you watch them play. . . we have no proven depth, and if harris doesn't pan out we have no depth at all-- we need tackles who can keep cutler from racking up injuries, and it's time to invest in one of the most important positions on the team. . . besides, if you compare our point production to our yardage production, you'll probably get a much lower ranking than 4th. . . .

:laugh: (out loud, actually)

Yeah, it has stood out. It would be really nice if #89 didn't have to stay back and protect Jay --> more problems for Broncos opponents, more offense.

Some teams (I'm thinking Brownies and Vikes--who'da thunk it?) have great O-lines that allow their QB to look good, and some teams have great QBs that allow their O-lines...you see where's I'm going with this. I think Jay compensates for poor pass protection at times. I think Dan Graham is an outstanding tackle that often makes up for less than stellar play from the bookends.

I guess I just want to see it in numerical format... :lol:

[Watchthemiddle]

Its not always about size..just ask Dumerville.

Its about leverage and speed. We have succeeded at dominating the running game because we have had smaller offensive lines that know how to work together and use their leverage.

I guess the question needs to be..do we want to be a dominate run offense and sacrifice the passing game and maybe the red zone, or do we want to dominate the passing game like NE and suffer in the running game?

I say we try to excel at both. We did even when Elway was here, but we also had TD running the ball. We can still dominate at running and passing if we have the right mix of players. Right now we might have the right mix, they are just inexperienced.

If any of you remember back in the day, Elway didn't always have a steller offensive line to work with. He was sacked more then anyone I could ever remember seeing getting sacked, but he had the elusiveness to get out of a lot of situations. Thats one area no one can ever compare Cutler to Elway at. Cutler doesn't have the instincts or the where with all to get out of the rush yet. Hopefully he will. That will help the O line a lot.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

I think everyone's stoked about the interior line with Kuper, Myers, Holland and the potential of having Ben back for a few years - but the outside are what people are worried about. There, we don't have the right mix of players - and that's even with me being extremely high on Ryan Harris. Denver needs another tackle for the future, because Pears clearly isn't it.

It's a damn shame that Graham can catch the ball, but it stuck back being his training wheels every snap he's on the field.

[omac]

Wow, lots of real good posts here! I actually can't help but agree with both sides of the issue. :D

Just a few things to add; the Texans don't have a better zone blocking scheme than Denver. They haven't mastered it most of the season, and have used Mike Sherman's gap scheme from Green Bay more often. Their rushing offense is in the bottom 3rd of the league, and was at an even worse possition earlier this season. It was actually a matter of complaint in their fan forums this season, the ineffectiveness of their running game, and how they aren't utilizing the zone blocking scheme well.

I still think DT is a bigger concern than the OL, but .... if we can't find a great DT early, then I'd be in favor of a great tackle. I realize now that the defense may not solve it's problems fast enough, so maybe the offense needs Cleveland or Pats type production.

There is no concern about Jay not being as good a scrambler outside the pocket as Elway or Plummer; his stats show he's the best in the league at it today. Also, Jay makes his OL look better at pass protection than they really are, because he is mobile, and knows how to get rid of the ball quickly. Unfortunately, the way Denver's offense is currently set up, if the run game isn't clicking, it will not set up play action, so that Jay will have even less time to look for receivers and throw the ball.

If we need to be able to score like the Pats, Jay needs to have excellent pass protection, whether the running game is working or not. For that, we need some elite linemen.

How many players more do we need, though, to turn this line from about average pass protection to great pass protection?

[Watchthemiddle]

One more thing on this oline issue for me...

I honestly don't see SHanahan changing philosophies on something that has worked so well for many years now. Teams look at the Broncos as a blue print on running the ball and running it well regardless of who is running the ball.

Shanahan must take pride in that. He doesn't seem like the type of coach that would start changing things that have worked for so long and eveyone praises him for building.

:2cents:

[Fan in Exile]

For me the biggest reason not to do it is the money that we would have to invest against the salary cap. In today's era of free agency and the salary cap. There has to be someplace that you do something in a cheap way. For us I think the best place to do that is with the O-line.

I understand that the game is won in the trenches, but if we get players few people want to run a scheme that although different is proven to be effective. We can legitimately cut a corner and pay other players the money the market demands.

If we run it this way, then we will be able to keep players that other teams would have to lose. We can keep both Marshall and Walker. Or afford to have Dumerville as a rotation guy with Crowder and Moss.

Not that I don't want to see some changes, but stick with the philosophy because it lets us be better as a team.

[Lonestar]

okay, now just to be fair post the average weight of the O-lines for the worst offenses. . . . ;)


talent >>>>> size


Help yourself it is NFL.com/teams

I did my home work!!

[dogfish]

Help yourself it is NFL.com/teams

I did my home work!!


okay, fine. . . buffalo and san francisco are both in the bottom five in scoring and total yardage-- yet they have two of the heaviest lines in the league. . . san fran's OLs are an average of 321 pounds, buffalo's are an average of 332 pounds-- but they still suck. . .


teams like indy and new england aren't better than us because they have big O-lines (neither of them really do)-- they're better because they have first ballot hall of famers in their prime playing quarterback, because they've surrounded those guys with premiere skill position talent, and because they have aggressive defenses that can get off the field. . . neither of those teams has a line that's noticeably bigger than ours. . .


TALENT >>>>>> SIZE


just to take it a step further. . . san fran's huge line is 2nd worst in the league in sacks allowed, with 48. . . the only team that has allowed more is detroit with 52-- their average O-lineman weighs 321. . . our O-linemen, all 303 average pounds of them, have allowed 27 sacks. . .

bigger is not necessarily better-- BETTER is better! give me a 6'4" 305 pound OT with great feet, who plays with leverage and attitude, over a 6'8" 350+ pound monster who plays like george foster any day of the week and twice on sundays. . .

[Lonestar]

okay, fine. . . buffalo and san francisco are both in the bottom five in scoring and total yardage-- yet they have two of the heaviest lines in the league. . . san fran's OLs are an average of 321 pounds, buffalo's are an average of 332 pounds-- but they still suck. . .


teams like indy and new england aren't better than us because they have big O-lines (neither of them really do)-- they're better because they have first ballot hall of famers in their prime playing quarterback, because they've surrounded those guys with premiere skill position talent, and because they have aggressive defenses that can get off the field. . . neither of those teams has a line that's noticeably bigger than ours. . .


TALENT >>>>>> SIZE


just to take it a step further. . . san fran's huge line is 2nd worst in the league in sacks allowed, with 48. . . the only team that has allowed more is detroit with 52-- their average O-lineman weighs 321. . . our O-linemen, all 303 average pounds of them, have allowed 27 sacks. . .

bigger is not necessarily better-- BETTER is better! give me a 6'4" 305 pound OT with great feet, who plays with leverage and attitude, over a 6'8" 350+ pound monster who plays like george foster any day of the week and twice on sundays. . .


But those teams that are good are bigger and they have talent..


Your correct about bigger in not better but better does not either mean they have to be smaller.
I would like to see and without going into play by play and I'm not going to do that, what the really good rushing teams do inside the red zone..


We have a one of the greatest offenses between the 20's same as it has been for many years..

No real difference from the Jake, greasy years. One has to believe that it means we have sucked in the red zone since Zimmerman etal departed..

If we can score in the redzone most will be outside the ten yard line.. And that means IMO that size does matter..

[TXBRONC]

But those teams that are good are bigger and they have talent..


Your correct about bigger in not better but better does not either mean they have to be smaller.
I would like to see and without going into play by play and I'm not going to do that, what the really good rushing teams do inside the red zone..


We have a one of the greatest offenses between the 20's same as it has been for many years..

No real difference from the Jake, greasy years. One has to believe that it means we have sucked in the red zone since Zimmerman etal departed..

If we can score in the redzone most will be outside the ten yard line.. And that means IMO that size does matter..

Dogfish right, talent trumps size. Having a bigger offensive line does not mean they are better.

[Lonestar]

But those teams that are good are bigger and they have talent..

Your correct about bigger is not better but better, does not either mean they have to be smaller.I would like to see and without going into play by play and I'm not going to do that, what the really good rushing teams do inside the red zone..


We have a one of the greatest offenses between the 20's same as it has been for many years..

No real difference from the Jake, greasy years. One has to believe that it means we have sucked in the red zone since Zimmerman etal departed..

If we can score in the redzone most will be outside the ten yard line.. And that means IMO that size does matter..


Dogfish right, talent trumps size. Having a bigger offensive line does not mean they are better.



Did you even read my post?

While I said size matters I also said he was correct about talent..
but I also said..
" but better, does not either mean they have to be smaller"

[TXBRONC]

Did you even read my post?

While I said size matters I also said he was correct about talent..
but I also said..
" but better, does not either mean they have to be smaller"


Yes I did read it. But when over size your letters in red that says size matters, that usually a point emphasis.

[Broncos Mtnman]

I don't think it has anything to do with who we have on the field.

I think it has to do with who we have COACHING the players on the field.

The sad reality is that our offensive line hasn't been what it was when we had Gibbs as the coach.

Dennison sucks in my OPINION. In fact, I think the fall off of the offense overall the past two seasons has ALOT to do with Dennison.

Want to fix the O-line?

FIRE DENNISON!!

[broncofanatic1987]

I would like to see an offensive line that is built to protect Jay rather than maximize the effectiveness of the zone blocking scheme in the running game. To me, that means an offensive line that can block effectively on obvious passing plays. That would probably mean drafting offensive linemen in the first two rounds. I'm OK with that. Protecting the franchise quarterback is far more important than keeping the zone blocking scheme.

[Retired_Member_001]

This is a response to Dogfish and Jr's posts.

I think being bigger can help, it's an advantage. Being smaller is a disadvantage. Having a bigger offensive line doesn't mean you are for sure going to have a great offensive line, but the bigger you are the more advantage you have.

Someone like Lepsis is so underweight it is not funny, it disadvantages him so much it has an effect on his play.

I think all offensive lineman (minus the centre) should be above 305lbs, however being 320lbs or so doesn't guarantee sucess.

That's just my opinion.

[Lonestar]

This is a response to Dogfish and Jr's posts.

I think being bigger can help, it's an advantage. Being smaller is a disadvantage. Having a bigger offensive line doesn't mean you are for sure going to have a great offensive line, but the bigger you are the more advantage you have.

Someone like Lepsis is so underweight it is not funny, it disadvantages him so much it has an effect on his play.

I think all offensive lineman (minus the centre) should be above 305lbs, however being 320lbs or so doesn't guarantee sucess.

That's just my opinion.

That was what I was tryng to get across.. You can still have a good BIG OLINE we do not have to be small other than that seems to be all that is left after the other teams draft..

Big does not mean good. But then small never gets us into the Endzone from inside the 5 consistently.

It will get us down in the redzone where we can't keep it up.. Maybe Mikey needs to order viagra for the OLINE for redzone purposes.

[topscribe]

I don't think it has anything to do with who we have on the field.

I think it has to do with who we have COACHING the players on the field.

The sad reality is that our offensive line hasn't been what it was when we had Gibbs as the coach.

Dennison sucks in my OPINION. In fact, I think the fall off of the offense overall the past two seasons has ALOT to do with Dennison.

Want to fix the O-line?

FIRE DENNISON!!

I always wondered why they have a linebacker coaching the O-line. :noidea:

I dunno . . . maybe that doesn't make much difference. But I can't help but
to wonder when he had the time to learn O-line positioning, techniques, and
strategy during his career.

-----

[broncofanatic1987]

I always wondered why they have a linebacker coaching the O-line. :noidea:

I dunno . . . maybe that doesn't make much difference. But I can't help but
to wonder when he had the time to learn O-line positioning, techniques, and
strategy during his career.

-----

Perhaps he learned it during the process of learning how to beat the blocks of the offensive linemen.

Perhaps he was a student of the game and learned those things along the way.

I'm not trying to defend Dennison as the offensive line coach. I just don't see how him being a former linebacker has anything to do with whether or not he should be the offensive line coach. If we had the best offensive line in the league would we still call for him to be fired because he was a linebacker when he was a player?

If coaches were only allowed to coach the position they played when they were players, we wouldn't have head coaches, offensive coordinators or defensive coordinators. After all, how could they know anything about the positions they didn't play so that they could effectively design a scheme or come up with a game plan?

I think the biggest problem on the offensive line is talent. It's time to start drafting linemen in the first two rounds. If that means getting rid of the zone blocking scheme, so be it.

[dogfish]

Perhaps he learned it during the process of learning how to beat the blocks of the offensive linemen.

Perhaps he was a student of the game and learned those things along the way.

I'm not trying to defend Dennison as the offensive line coach. I just don't see how him being a former linebacker has anything to do with whether or not he should be the offensive line coach. If we had the best offensive line in the league would we still call for him to be fired because he was a linebacker when he was a player?

If coaches were only allowed to coach the position they played when they were players, we wouldn't have head coaches, offensive coordinators or defensive coordinators. After all, how could they know anything about the positions they didn't play so that they could effectively design a scheme or come up with a game plan?

I think the biggest problem on the offensive line is talent. It's time to start drafting linemen in the first two rounds. If that means getting rid of the zone blocking scheme, so be it.



good post. . . .


one thing i'll say, though-- drafting linemen in the higher rounds most certainly doesn't mean that we'd have to scrap the ZBS. . . there's no unwritten rule that only marginal prospects can zone block! the particular way that we've run it over the years does dictate going after smaller players who aren't highly sought after, but that doesn't mean it has to be done that way. . . bigger guys can work just as well in the ZBS, as long as they have the requisite mobility and quickness. . . joe staley was a 1st rounder last year, and he's a prototypical zone blocker-- jake long will probably be the first OL taken this year, and he's played his entire college career in the ZBS. . .

[Hawgdriver]

I wonder if ZBS has an inherent red-zone weakness.

[dogfish]

I wonder if ZBS has an inherent red-zone weakness.

not at all! our particular version of it may, but if it does it's because of the size of our players-- not anything with the scheme itself. . . in the end, it's just a playcall like any other-- i don't think we necessarily run zone plays exclusively, and there's no reason we can't call traditional power runs if we want to. . . whether or not we have the personnel to effectively execute them is another question, but running the ZBS as a base scheme doesn't prevent you from calling some other plays any more than running a cover-2 base D would prevent you from blitzing. . .

[Lonestar]

I wonder if ZBS has an inherent red-zone weakness.


Ours does because we simply are not big enough to push goal line defenses around..

ZBS counts on working in concert with each other to get a DLINE moving left or right. @ the goal line they flat rarely move.. They have almost no field behind them to defend.. If they stay put and allow the LBS and DB to handle the edges we generally have o one to block them with..

ZBS is finesse, goal line (inside the 5) LOS is almost nothing but brute strength

[Mike]

I always wondered why they have a linebacker coaching the O-line. :noidea:
-----

Well....duh. It's because he's the coach's buddy. ;)

The good ol boy system stinks, Mike Shanahan. Hopefully you will learn this one day...but I am not getting my hopes up.

[Lonestar]

Well....duh. It's because he's the coach's buddy.

The good ol boy system stinks, Mike Shanahan. Hopefully you will learn this one day...but I am not getting my hopes up.


It is more likely, that he is a yes man..

Mikey does not like anyone questioning his authority..

Having a OLINE type that has actually played the game as one being a coach for that position only makes sense. having someone that has never played the spot teaching someone that has for almost a decade make NO sense..... Unless your name is Alex Gibbs..

[Broncos Mtnman]

If we had the best offensive line in the league would we still call for him to be fired because he was a linebacker when he was a player?

Well, that's really the point now, isn't it?

WE DON'T HAVE THE BEST OFFENSIVE LINE IN THE LEAGUE!!

And in my OPINION, Dennison is the main reason why.

[Medford Bronco]

Well....duh. It's because he's the coach's buddy. ;)

The good ol boy system stinks, Mike Shanahan. Hopefully you will learn this one day...but I am not getting my hopes up.

need to get rid of his other buddy as the O coordinator
who also has not enough imagination as well IMO

[Watchthemiddle]

need to get rid of his other buddy as the O coordinator
who also has not enough imagination as well IMO

Seriously. I thought we were going to have this high flying wide open type of offense to go along with our dominant running game. If anything, the offense has taken a step backwards since Himer got here.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

It was probably over a year and half ago, but I remember Top and I discussing at great length how this "friends get in on the goods" approach to coaching a team actually sucks, Top had a word for it - what it's actually called, when people related to you or people you know get the upper hand. . . but yeah. It does suck. Nice observation on Dennison, Mtnman.

[TXBRONC]

It is more likely, that he is a yes man..

Mikey does not like anyone questioning his authority..

Having a OLINE type that has actually played the game as one being a coach for that position only makes sense. having someone that has never played the spot teaching someone that has for almost a decade make NO sense..... Unless your name is Alex Gibbs..


Can you prove that? You say it often enough but you never offered up proof.

[Lonestar]

Can you prove that? You say it often enough but you never offered up proof.


Can you prove it is not?


While I can not prove it definitively. Anyone that has followed this team knows who rules the roost..

IMO mikey does not have but one on his staff that is not a YES man..

that guy is Bates and there is a good chance he will be gone after this season..

Mikey IMO does allow anyone to make major decisions with out his approval..

I'm done answering your comment..

Now you can have the last word, as you always seem to have to have..

[Skinny]

After Gibbs stepped dowm from his title in 01', he stayed on as a 'consultant' to Dennison and the staff. That's helped out Rick the most and is what's keeping him in that position.

Want to see the diffrence between Dennison's experiance pertaining to the O-line ... compare his to the other 31 teams.

Here's an example: http://www.titansonline.com/team/coaches/staff.php?PRKey=6

Alot of folks want better talent ... we've had better talent. George Foster, who was drafted and Coached under Dennison, was a talented player coming out of Georgia. And under Dennison's tuteladge he flopped. IMO ... if Gibbs is his Coach or any REAL O-line Coach ... i don't see him flopping and going on to become the cornerstone everyone was hoping he would be when we drafted him in 03' in the 1st round. It's not gauranteed of course, but i'd take my chances with the latter.

The experiance and Coaching ability and his eye for talent was pooring out of Gibbs pores. In order for us to get back to that level ... you need to get back that kind of Coaching.

I'm not overly excited about the OT tackle class in the 08' Draft, and i'm not overly excited about getting one and him being 'groomed' under Dennison.

Remember ... Lepsis, Nalen and Hamilton are Gibbs students. Those guys are the reason we've been as successful up front as long as we have. Drop 2 (Nalen, Hamilton) of those guys from the line ... and the performance has dropped off considerably IMO.

I have nothing against Dennison personally ... i just want a more qualified Coach at that position. After all ... it is our life-line. One that has a better eye for talent, and one that can Coach and teach those position skills.

[rcsodak]

Can you prove that? You say it often enough but you never offered up proof.

Sorry tx, but I'm sure you've parlayed your opine on more than a few occasions without being called to "back it up", am I right?

If this board requires everybody to show proof of what they believe, then there'll be alot of empty space.

I can point out plenty of people on here that act like what they say is gospel, only to find out later they're full of bullwinkle.

Play nice....tell your stories and allow others to do the same, eh? :cool:

[rcsodak]

After Gibbs stepped dowm from his title in 01', he stayed on as a 'consultant' to Dennison and the staff. That's helped out Rick the most and is what's keeping him in that position.

Want to see the diffrence between Dennison's experiance pertaining to the O-line ... compare his to the other 31 teams.

Here's an example: http://www.titansonline.com/team/coaches/staff.php?PRKey=6

Alot of folks want better talent ... we've had better talent. George Foster, who was drafted and Coached under Dennison, was a talented player coming out of Georgia. And under Dennison's tuteladge he flopped. IMO ... if Gibbs is his Coach or any REAL O-line Coach ... i don't see him flopping and going on to become the cornerstone everyone was hoping he would be when we drafted him in 03' in the 1st round. It's not gauranteed of course, but i'd take my chances with the latter.

The experiance and Coaching ability and his eye for talent was pooring out of Gibbs pores. In order for us to get back to that level ... you need to get back that kind of Coaching.

I'm not overly excited about the OT tackle class in the 08' Draft, and i'm not overly excited about getting one and him being 'groomed' under Dennison.

Remember ... Lepsis, Nalen and Hamilton are Gibbs students. Those guys are the reason we've been as successful up front as long as we have. Drop 2 (Nalen, Hamilton) of those guys from the line ... and the performance has dropped off considerably IMO.

I have nothing against Dennison personally ... i just want a more qualified Coach at that position. After all ... it is our life-line. One that has a better eye for talent, and one that can Coach and teach those position skills.

Maybe you haven't followed Foster, but after he was traded to Detroit, and designated the starter, he flopped there as well! Guess which team's QB is one of the MOST sacked?

Foster was going to be a flop, no matter WHO his coach was.

And comparing veteran, pro-bowl* linemen, *nalen/hamilton, to rookies (1-3yr players not having started in the nfl) is being disingenuous, at the least.

[TXBRONC]

Sorry tx, but I'm sure you've parlayed your opine on more than a few occasions without being called to "back it up", am I right?

If this board requires everybody to show proof of what they believe, then there'll be alot of empty space.

I can point out plenty of people on here that act like what they say is gospel, only to find out later they're full of bullwinkle.

Play nice....tell your stories and allow others to do the same, eh? :cool:


Actually no RC I haven't had to me for good reason.

[Requiem / The Dagda]

Lol fiiiiiiiiiight.

[Hawgdriver]

Lol fiiiiiiiiiight.

:laugh:

fo sho

[Skinny]

Maybe you haven't followed Foster, but after he was traded to Detroit, and designated the starter, he flopped there as well!Just my opinion rc ... if Foster has that quality Coaching early in his career ... not 4 years after the fact ... he is'nt so dreadful.
Foster was going to be a flop, no matter WHO his coach was.Could be ...


And comparing veteran, pro-bowl* linemen, *nalen/hamilton, to rookies (1-3yr players not having started in the nfl) is being disingenuous, at the least.Not comparing players ... comparing successful late round Draft choices who had great O-line Coaching.

A 3rd year Rookie?? :laugh:

Never seen it looked at that way ... that's a new one on me.

You could use that excuse for Foster too. Why not ... he did'nt start till his 2nd season.

[Joel]

IMHO I think this team would be better served going to a more traditional o line due to Culter, not being as mobile as Jake and in the old days Elway.


I want bigger tackles to help Cutler have time in the pocket

I still think you can run some of the Tradtional plays like the stretch play. In the old days the Redskins ran this play to perfection with a huge O line.

Am I all wet or do I make some good points.

what do all the great posters here think:confused:
Not unless you can find some kind of freak of nature who's 330 and runs a 4.2 40, and you don't find that in the kind of draft positions we usually get. For pass blocking you want tackles who are QUICK, not big (again, it's great if they're both, but the priority is definitely quickness). George Foster was the biggest guy on our TEAM after Gerard Warren; how much did that help Jake when a 250 lb. LB or 270 lb. DE came racing for his head...?

If you want to talk about keeping hulking 350 lb. NTs from beating your QB to death with his own center, or getting line surge for red zone running, then, yes, I can see an argument for size, but there you're talking about guards, not tackles. When it comes to tackles, well, I keep coming back to the same old thing: DEs and OLBs are SPEED rushers, and I'd rather have a "lightweight" like Matt Lepsis keeping them off my QB than a man-mountain like Foster.

Meanwhile, I still maintain that for a line consisting of:

A second year RT,
A RG who was in NO last year,
A C who's a third year guard in his first starts,
A second year LG in his first starts and
A LT coming off a season ending injury

our line's done a bang up job, and will only get better. Cutlers PR is just over 90, despite the fact that Rod's been gone all year, Walker most of it and Stokley part of it; he's basically had second year Marshall and Daniel Graham and he STILL completed almost two out of every three passes.

Our tackles have been one of the few bright spots on a line that's seen two of its three best lost for the season. Twenty-two sacks isn't exactly horrible; the Raiders had more than three times that last year and their solution was to get a new QB (and make moribund Denver RG Cooper Carlisle a tackle.... ) I'm REALLY comfortable talking about tackles <300 lbs. because I think that's the way to go unless you can find those rare sports who do everything well. Had me worried there for a minute though; I thought this was going to be another one of those "our zone blocking guards are too small to stop NT rushing or provide line surge in the red zone", an argument that, IMHO, has a lot more merit.

[Joel]

You can have Reggie White, Deacon Jones, Brian Urlacher, and Lawrence
Taylor in their primes in there, but if you don't have good DTs, you don't have
a good line, nor a good run defense. I'm excited about our DEs, too, but they
do not constitute a defense.

The offense isn't responsible for the Broncos' W-L record. The defense is what
has given up what possibly could be a team record number of total points over
the season.

Of course, the Broncos could be like the old Chargers: have an almost
unstoppable offense, score 30+ points every game, and have a losing W-L
record. Oh wait . . .

-----
Hmmm, that argument sounds suspiciously familiar.... ;-p With that in mind, I can't really argue with it; "Orange Warrior needs NTs--BADLY!" I'd still rather have another good Mike prospect than safety, but that's mainly a depth issue (i.e. we have none) and NT is a higher priority regardless. Imagine how many sacks Dumervil and Crowder would have if we had some legit DTs to DEMAND double teams and collapse the pocket on passing downs, and shut down those predictable as the tides five yard runs up the gut?

But mainly, I'm looking at a 6-8 team that's the result of listening to all the "WE NEED DES!1!1!" people last year and ignoring the desperate calls of the minority who wanted DTs. End result: A defense ranked 6th against the pass (admittedly a steep drop from the #1 ranking we had for the first half of the season) and 29th against the run. That's out of 32, guys. I don't know who the three teams are who've given up MORE rushing yards, but that's not really the folks with whom I want to be competing, y'know...? ;)

[Lonestar]

Hmmm, that argument sounds suspiciously familiar.... ;-p With that in mind, I can't really argue with it; "Orange Warrior needs NTs--BADLY!" I'd still rather have another good Mike prospect than safety, but that's mainly a depth issue (i.e. we have none) and NT is a higher priority regardless. Imagine how many sacks Dumervil and Crowder would have if we had some legit DTs to DEMAND double teams and collapse the pocket on passing downs, and shut down those predictable as the tides five yard runs up the gut?

But mainly, I'm looking at a 6-8 team that's the result of listening to all the "WE NEED DES!1!1!" people last year and ignoring the desperate calls of the minority who wanted DTs. End result: A defense ranked 6th against the pass (admittedly a steep drop from the #1 ranking we had for the first half of the season) and 29th against the run. That's out of 32, guys. I don't know who the three teams are who've given up MORE rushing yards, but that's not really the folks with whom I want to be competing, y'know...? ;)

JETS

OAK

MIA

good company to be in!!!

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

That was what I was tryng to get across.. You can still have a good BIG OLINE we do not have to be small other than that seems to be all that is left after the other teams draft..

Big does not mean good. But then small never gets us into the Endzone from inside the 5 consistently.

It will get us down in the redzone where we can't keep it up.. Maybe Mikey needs to order viagra for the OLINE for redzone purposes.

its hard to run in the redzone period. big line or small line.

[Lonestar]

its hard to run in the redzone period. big line or small line.

NO **** sherlock why penalize yourself with dwarfs??

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

NO **** sherlock why penalize yourself with dwarfs??

because the dwarfs got us to the redzone and in my opinion big guys wouldnt make a difference in the red zone.

bad playcalling has hurt our redzone offense not the small o-line.

[Retired_Member_001]

because the dwarfs got us to the redzone and in my opinion big guys wouldnt make a difference in the red zone.

bad playcalling has hurt our redzone offense not the small o-line.

Actually if we had a bigger offensive line, it wouldn't be such bad play calling.

Shanahan is trying to pound the ball into the endzone, when you have a small offensive line it is very hard to get the push you need for the running back to get in. Bigger offensive lines find it easier to get a push. Basically Shanahan is calling plays that NEED bigger, stronger offensive lines.

So having a smaller offensive line does disadvantage you in the endzone for sure.

And please save all comments about my nationality in your reply.

[Lonestar]

because the dwarfs got us to the redzone and big guys wouldnt make a difference in the red zone.

bad playcalling has hurt our redzone offense not the small o-line.

When the defense does not have to play the run it limits the plays that can be called.

When the offense is limited in what it can call the defense can stack the cards against a play being successful.

I did a compassion of teams earlier in this threads show average sizes of the top 5 running team, top 5 passing teams and the top 5 offensive teams. Outside of holland we are way undersized..

Bigger guys can play the ZBS, it is just we have always been able to get cheaper players going small in the later rounds.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

Actually if we had a bigger offensive line, it wouldn't be such bad play calling.

Shanahan is trying to pound the ball into the endzone, when you have a small offensive line it is very hard to get the push you need for the running back to get in. Bigger offensive lines find it easier to get a push. Basically Shanahan is calling plays that NEED bigger, stronger offensive lines.

So having a smaller offensive line does disadvantage you in the endzone for sure.

And please save all comments about my nationality in your reply.

ok mr.england. then explain to me why the buffalo bills who have the biggest offensive line have the 4th worst TD% in the redzone and denver is ranked 16th

[Retired_Member_001]

ok mr.england. then explain to me why the buffalo bills who have the biggest offensive line have the 4th worst TD% in the redzone and denver is ranked 16th

Several things could contribute to that, their rookie quarterback, their rookie running back for example. Those are big factors that would hurt a team in the red zone.

I am also not implying that size makes an offensive line good. There are plenty of big lineman who are horrible, however being underweight defintley disadvantages you when it comes to scoring in the red zone, because you can't get that push you need (when it comes to running the ball).

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

Several things could contribute to that, their rookie quarterback, their rookie running back for example. Those are big factors that would hurt a team in the red zone.

I am also not implying that size makes an offensive line good. There are plenty of big lineman who are horrible, however being underweight defintley disadvantages you when it comes to scoring in the red zone, because you can't get that push you need (when it comes to running the ball).

what if your underweight but talented? isnt that an advantage.

so would you rather have talented and smaller or less talented but bigger?

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

now i want people to know that i have no problem with upgrading our line.

but i dont want our smaller guys like lepsis or myers or what ever to be replaced by someone else just because he's a huge 340 pound monster.

If the monster has good talent then go for him but the broncos need to draft for talent and skills not just pure size.

[Retired_Member_001]

what if your underweight but talented? isnt that an advantage.

so would you rather have talented and smaller or less talented but bigger?

Being underweight and talented is good, but you still have the disadvantage of not being big enough and not being strong enough.

I would rather have a talented and smaller line, however the ULTIMATE line would be having a talented bigger line. Then you have talent combined with size which would make the perfect offensive line for pass blocking and I think we have the ability at QB, WR and TE to become a real threat passing the ball, so having a bigger and talented line would be best.

Also if I did have a smaller line, I wouldn't try and pound it when I was in the red zone. Instead I would run plays like the the bootleg option play, or a short pass to the running back.

[Lonestar]

now i want people to know that i have no problem with upgrading our line.

but i dont want our smaller guys like lepsis or myers or what ever to be replaced by someone else just because he's a huge 340 pound monster.
If the monster has good talent then go for him but the broncos need to draft for talent and skills not just pure size.

I do not think that any one is advocating that..

Most are looking for guys a tad bit bigger in Lepsis case 290 is way to small.. He has been pushed back into the QB pocket way to many times this year..

One can find quality bigger guys that can play ZBS, we have just chose not to for almost a decade.. And do not use foster as a counter argument on this.. He was a total bust..

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

Being underweight and talented is good, but you still have the disadvantage of not being big enough and not being strong enough.

I would rather have a talented and smaller line, however the ULTIMATE line would be having a talented bigger line. Then you have talent combined with size which would make the perfect offensive line for pass blocking and I think we have the ability at QB, WR and TE to become a real threat passing the ball, so having a bigger and talented line would be best.

Also if I did have a smaller line, I wouldn't try and pound it when I was in the red zone. Instead I would run plays like the the bootleg option play, or a short pass to the running back.

if your talented enough then the size and strength difference wont make a huge difference.

i think the problem with our current line is not the size but the talent. i mean its not that good.

guys like pears and holland arent going to cut it and dont make a great offensive line.

[Retired_Member_001]

if your talented enough then the size and strength difference wont make a huge difference.


I am using an extreme case here but if someone weighs 265lbs, even if they have all the talent in the WORLD, they are going to get thrown around like Ben Hamilton.

Size does make a difference, however if someone is smaller it doesn't mean they aren't good, it just means they could be better if they were bigger. We also have to remember that some guys don't feel comfortable playing at bigger weights.


i think the problem with our current line is not the size but the talent. i mean its not that good.

guys like pears and holland arent going to cut it and dont make a great offensive line.

I agree with you there. :salute:

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

I do not think that any one is advocating that..

Most are looking for guys a tad bit bigger in Lepsis case 290 is way to small.. He has been pushed back into the QB pocket way to many times this year..

One can find quality bigger guys that can play ZBS, we have just chose not to for almost a decade.. And do not use foster as a counter argument on this.. He was a total bust..

foster was a bust but it shows that we chose to draft a bigger guy.

and you have to realize that lepsis is old and had knee surgery.

i think we can all agree that before last year we were all satisfied with lepsis and many concidered him our best offensive line man. In our 13-3 season our rushing attack was the best in the league thinks to guys like lepsis and Plummer was one of the least sacked QB's.

[Retired_Member_001]

foster was a bust but it shows that we chose to draft a bigger guy.

and you have to realize that lepsis is old and had knee surgery.

i think we can all agree that before last year we were all satisfied with lepsis and many concidered him our best offensive line man. In our 13-3 season our rushing attack was the best in the league thinks to guys like lepsis and Plummer was one of the least sacked QB's.

I agree about the run blocking part.

However if it wasn't for Jake running out of the pocket EVERY single play, that sack total would be alot higher. Remember the AFC Championship game against Pitt when they forced him to stay in the pocket by getting their LB's or DE's to contain him? He was nearly killed.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

I am using an extreme case here but if someone weighs 265lbs, even if they have all the talent in the WORLD, they are going to get thrown around like Ben Hamilton.

Size does make a difference, however if someone is smaller it doesn't mean they aren't good, it just means they could be better if they were bigger. We also have to remember that some guys don't feel comfortable playing at bigger weights.



I agree with you there. :salute:

ok i would agree someone 310+ would have a size advantage over a 265 guy but lepsis is what 290 and hamilton hasnt played a down all year and i dont remember much of the o line play from last year. if you can remind me of specific plays where he got thrown around then tell me but from what i remember hamilton has always been one of the better line players on our team.

but what im trying to say is that lepsis is big enough to take on defensive ends. i mean average weight of a defensive end is what 280?

defensive tackles tend to be biggger but holland and kuper are 300+.

again i just dont see where we need to change our philosophy or our line is to small and this and that.

i just think that guys like pears, holland, and kuper are not the answer. i like meyers so he's not on the list.
but we need to draft better players. smaller or bigger i dont care.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

I agree about the run blocking part.

However if it wasn't for Jake running out of the pocket EVERY single play, that sack total would be alot higher. Remember the AFC Championship game against Pitt when they forced him to stay in the pocket by getting their LB's or DE's to contain him? He was nearly killed.

give credit to pittsburgh. they had the top pass rushing defense that year. if i remember correctly manning was also nearly killed and even called out his offensive line which is one of the best units in the league.


and jake is a good scrambling qb but he's not fast enough to scramble away from pressure every play. give some credit to the line. and i dont think plummer had the fastest release time but having a qb that holds on to the ball a long time is asking a lot from your offensive line big or small and results to more sacks.

[Retired_Member_001]

ok i would agree someone 310+ would have a size advantage over a 265 guy but lepsis is what 290 and hamilton hasnt played a down all year and i dont remember much of the o line play from last year. if you can remind me of specific plays where he got thrown around then tell me but from what i remember hamilton has always been one of the better line players on our team.

but what im trying to say is that lepsis is big enough to take on defensive ends. i mean average weight of a defensive end is what 280?

defensive tackles tend to be biggger but holland and kuper are 300+.

again i just dont see where we need to change our philosophy or our line is to small this and that.

i just think that guys like pears, holland, and kuper are not the answer. i like meyers so he's not on the list.
but we need to draft better players. smaller or bigger i dont care.

You want examples of when Hamilton was pushed around? How about every time Cutler had to drop back to pass without running out of the pocket. ;)

There's only 10 pounds difference though, and defensive ends know what they are going to do, the offensive tackle does not know what the defensive end is going to do. If Lepsis had an extra 20 - 30 lbs on him, he could flatten that defensive end.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

You want examples of when Hamilton was pushed around? How about every time Cutler had to drop back to pass without running out of the pocket. ;)

There's only 10 pounds difference though, and defensive ends know what they are going to do, the offensive tackle does not know what the defensive end is going to do. If Lepsis had an extra 20 - 30 lbs on him, he could flatten that defensive end.

are you talking about last year or this year because hamilton hasnt played this year which effects us in a negative way not a positive way.

and i dont see constant flattening of defensive ends by big tackles going around in the nfl. unless your amon gordon against jaxonville.
of course i may be missing something.

[Lonestar]

foster was a bust but it shows that we chose to draft a bigger guy.

and you have to realize that lepsis is old and had knee surgery.

i think we can all agree that before last year we were all satisfied with lepsis and many concidered him our best offensive line man. In our 13-3 season our rushing attack was the best in the league thinks to guys like lepsis and Plummer was one of the least sacked QB's.


Lepsis is not old by NFL OLINE standards by any means. Most of teh established OLINE the kiddies are under thirty..

foster was a bust and at the time I thought it was a sign of times were a changing, but not following up with more hefty bags thereafter proved to me that he was a mistake and they just could not gracefully bail on him..

I really think it was more the Snake than the oline in not giving up sacks much like Jay with his quick release..

[Retired_Member_001]

are you talking about last year or this year because hamilton hasnt played this year which effects us in a negative way not a positive way.

and i dont see constant flattening of defensive ends by big tackles going around in the nfl. unless your amon gordon against jaxonville.
of course i may be missing something.

Last year.

I was just using flattening as an expression. What I meant was an 315 - 320lbs tackle + talent = no chance for the defensive end.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

Last year.

I was just using flattening as an expression. What I meant was an 315 - 320lbs tackle + talent = no chance for the defensive end.

depends on the defensive end because i remember a prime time game colts vs ravens where ogden who is concidered an elite tackle got destroyed by freeney. and im not talking about this years game. it was in 2004.

and about hamilton unless someone shows me film i cant really remember.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

Lepsis is not old by NFL OLINE standards by any means. Most of teh established OLINE the kiddies are under thirty..

foster was a bust and at the time I thought it was a sign of times were a changing, but not following up with more hefty bags thereafter proved to me that he was a mistake and they just could not gracefully bail on him..

I really think it was more the Snake than the oline in not giving up sacks much like Jay with his quick release..

matt lepsis is about to be 34. i mean how much longer is he going to play. is he going to be like ray brown and play till 43? and his knee injury doesnt help.

im sure he can play for 2 more years but that is not a lot of years.

i concider matt lepsis old in NFL standards. even oline standards.

[Hawgdriver]

Earlier I mentioned that the O-line was #4/32 in the NFL in yards per play. I offered that as evidence to support my position that the offensive line was doing an adequate job. Rushing offense was slightly above Shanny's historic ZBS average (#4 in ypc rushing) at 4.7 ypc, or #3 (mebbe #2) in NFL. The pass protection was decent, allowing 27 sacks (#16 in NFL).

However, it's evident that Lepsis has been pwned at times. Even so, Jay has only been sacked 6% of his drop-backs. Compare that to 4% for Manning, and 12% for Roethlisberger. It's decent.

Jay has been pressured, though. With a better pocket, the argument goes, he would be able to direct a passing attack like a virtuoso conductor at the controls of the London Philharmonic. I think that argument is errant.

First, all QBs are pressured. There is no perfect pocket. All QBs must maintain an awareness and find the happy place in each unique pocket.

Second, what's the problem? Is 6.0 yards per play not good enough? Will we win more games at 6.2 or 6.4? The overwhelming concern is defense, not offense. This line, as is, is capable of 11 wins. I see room for improvement, but not the need to overhaul a philosophy.

Third, Mike Shanahan is at the helm. This is his offense, his system. He is not going to change his run-first ZBS system. It is the most productive, effective offense in coaching history (need to verify that, but it is since he's been an active HC in Denver). In order to change the O-line philosophy, we would have to change the HC, and a good portion of the staff. There is a problem with that. First, Jay has been working with those coaches to get to this point. If you take away those coaches, and the offensive system, he's going to start all over. It would be a mistake for Jay. It would be a mistake for the line. You would have to forfeit at least one season in the transition. Why forfeit a season, and make a financially inadvisable risk in suiting your o-line personnel to a power / pass protection scheme, when you have absolutely no indication that it would actually improve the offense? Maybe it would reduce Jay's sack %, but would it actually improve the offense? Would a Selvin Young still be able to produce 100 yard games on command and rush for 4.7 ypc? Would this move really help us win more games? I don't see it.

The final note is that Jay is only in his first full season as starter. He's doing great. He's getting to know the line, and develop expectations---timing. His line is young, and will improve. Yes, Dan Graham is probably helping out a bit, but that's why we got him. It would be nice if he could release more often, but the passing attack is actually pretty good as is. So is the rushing attack. The offense overall is #4/32, and it should get even better next year, and then better the year after.

I am all for drafting or acquiring value and improving your team, but the notion that we ought to scrap ZBS is perhaps the most foolish suggestion I've heard that has been taken seriously by other members. I've seen no compelling evidence that bigger linemen or a different scheme would help us in any way. Clearly a more talented lineman would help. But why don't we concentrate on our real weaknesses--defense and special teams?

[Lonestar]

matt lepsis is about to be 34. i mean how much longer is he going to play. is he going to be like ray brown and play till 43? and his knee injury doesnt help.

im sure he can play for 2 more years but that is not a lot of years.

i concider matt lepsis old in NFL standards. even oline standards.


Not when you look at some of the OLD really good OLINES 30-36 is pretty average.. Now that said he knee problem just might not go away either..


I do not think he is big enough personally to be "the Man" in a drop back passer style we seemed to be gravitating to..

If he gets that quickness back and can put on some poundage and can keep the new guys at bay I'm fine with him till he can not..

[Lonestar]

Earlier I mentioned that the O-line was #4/32 in the NFL in yards per play. I offered that as evidence to support my position that the offensive line was doing an adequate job. Rushing offense was slightly above Shanny's historic ZBS average (#4 in ypc rushing) at 4.7 ypc, or #3 (mebbe #2) in NFL. The pass protection was decent, allowing 27 sacks (#16 in NFL).

However, it's evident that Lepsis has been pwned at times. Even so, Jay has only been sacked 6% of his drop-backs. Compare that to 4% for Manning, and 12% for Roethlisberger. It's decent.

Jay has been pressured, though. With a better pocket, the argument goes, he would be able to direct a passing attack like a virtuoso conductor at the controls of the London Philharmonic. I think that argument is errant.

First, all QBs are pressured. There is no perfect pocket. All QBs must maintain an awareness and find the happy place in each unique pocket.

Second, what's the problem? Is 6.0 yards per play not good enough? Will we win more games at 6.2 or 6.4? The overwhelming concern is defense, not offense. This line, as is, is capable of 11 wins. I see room for improvement, but not the need to overhaul a philosophy.

Third, Mike Shanahan is at the helm. This is his offense, his system. He is not going to change his run-first ZBS system. It is the most productive, effective offense in coaching history (need to verify that, but it is since he's been an active HC in Denver). In order to change the O-line philosophy, we would have to change the HC, and a good portion of the staff. There is a problem with that. First, Jay has been working with those coaches to get to this point. If you take away those coaches, and the offensive system, he's going to start all over. It would be a mistake for Jay. It would be a mistake for the line. You would have to forfeit at least one season in the transition. Why forfeit a season, and make a financially inadvisable risk in suiting your o-line personnel to a power / pass protection scheme, when you have absolutely no indication that it would actually improve the offense? Maybe it would reduce Jay's sack %, but would it actually improve the offense? Would a Selvin Young still be able to produce 100 yard games on command and rush for 4.7 ypc? Would this move really help us win more games? I don't see it.

The final note is that Jay is only in his first full season as starter. He's doing great. He's getting to know the line, and develop expectations---timing. His line is young, and will improve. Yes, Dan Graham is probably helping out a bit, but that's why we got him. It would be nice if he could release more often, but the passing attack is actually pretty good as is. So is the rushing attack. The offense overall is #4/32, and it should get even better next year, and then better the year after.

I am all for drafting or acquiring value and improving your team, but the notion that we ought to scrap ZBS is perhaps the most foolish suggestion I've heard that has been taken seriously by other members. I've seen no compelling evidence that bigger linemen or a different scheme would help us in any way. Clearly a more talented lineman would help. But why don't we concentrate on our real weaknesses--defense and special teams?

Yo make soem really good s point hre.. Most of us Chage advocates vary in what change really means..

I just want to get a bit bigger on the OLINE I do not want to scrap the ZBS

[Hawgdriver]

Yo make soem really good s point hre.. Most of us Chage advocates vary in what change really means..

I just want to get a bit bigger on the OLINE I do not want to scrap the ZBS

Thank you, JR. I understand your point and I don't disagree. I do think we could use a Joe Thomas monster-type bookend who has that rare combination of intelligence, technique, speed, mass, and power, but the price for that player is too high in the face of the concerns on the other side of the ball. It might be time to pull the trigger on an early 2nd rounder like Ugoh or Staley or the 08er mentioned before (I haven't begun my 08 draft research), especially if our targets on the other side of the ball are gone. I don't disagree with you, I guess I'm just fixated on the immediacy of the concern for defense (in terms of personnel changes, since you have limited money and draft picks) and special teams.

As far as FA acquisitions, I'm open for suggestions.

[lex]

We need to get bigger guys who are mobile enough rather than smaller guys who are "strong enough". Its the "strong enough" part that seems to be most problematic...more so than the "mobile enough". Foster didnt work for us. It happens. He's not exactly dominating in Detroit either. But that doesnt mean getting bigger linemen isnt a good idea.

[AFGAHNI_BATTLE_DONKEY]

if only a joe thomas was available.

[NorthernLights]

I wouldn't suggest adopting the Bolts philosophy between 1995 and 2003 which was "get out of his way, he knows where he is going". It didn't work out so well.