Lonestar
11-19-2009, 04:48 PM
Jack in Denver asks Woody if Chris Simms is the answer for the Broncos
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post
Posted: 11/19/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Denver Post sports columnist Woody Paige posts Woody's Mailbag on Thursdays.
Drop a question into Woody's Mailbag, or visit The Denver Post's Sports Page.
Do you still think Chris Simms is the answer for the Broncos after what you saw in Washington? I don't think a week of work with the "ones" is going to make a difference in that situation. He is who he is ... and for the Broncos this year, in my opinion, he's the second best choice.
-- Jack, Denver
Jack: My best friend texted me at halftime and said "You got your wish." It was not my wish for Kyle Orton to be injured; it was not my wish for the Broncos to lose; and it certainly wasn't my wish that Chris Simms be brought into his first game in the second half without preparation and repetitions with the first team during the week preceding the game. I had recommended that he start. We'll never know if that would have made a difference. If Orton had remained healthy, the Broncos might have won the game. Who knows? Simms did look awful ... putrid, and hundreds of e-mailers have written to gloat that I was wrong. They can continue to do so. I will not apologize to them.
I give my opinion, which is based on sound information, thoughtful research and observation, unlike some kid in Arizona who is a Broncos fan and writes a blog, without proper grammar or punctuation or understanding, from his mom's laundry room and think he knows what he's talking about, and people actually pay attention. They did not write to gloat when Orton had successive bad games. The problem is more severe. The defense is not stopping people, including a Washington team that couldn't score more than 17 points in any previous game this season. Combine that with a team now throwing interceptions, fumbling, special teams that are not and mistakes by the coaching staff.
When a team
Chris Simms on the sidelines as the game winds down in the fourth quarter vs. the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field in Landover, Md., on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)shows that it is going to use a trick play, off a field goal look, and has to call a timeout because it's one man short on the field, and then shows the same play, and the Broncos are not smart enough to be in position to defend a punter throwing a pass, then coaches and players made mistakes. The Broncos are banged up on the offensive line. Ben Hamilton is a shell of what he once was, and has been replaced. McDaniels did mess with what were excellent blocking schemes. The defensive line, which was a problem way before the season, is struggling mightily. Other than Knowshon Moreno, which of the draft choices really are contributing?
Don't talk to me about Alphonso Smith. I've gotten that garbage all year about not giving him love. What? As a return man? What? As a nickel back? Why is Ty Law here then? What about the backup safeties? People tell me Robert Ayers is sensational. He has made one play. The other team scored 7, 6, 3, 10 and 17 points in the first five games. Now the Broncos' offense, defense and special teams have combined to give up 23, 30, 28 and 27. From 43 in five to 108 in four. If the Broncos lose to San Diego, which hasn't lost since the last Broncos game and is improving — did you see L.T. against Philly? — they'll be in second place and in danger of not even making the playoffs.
Only two teams in history started 6-0 and didn't get to the postseason. The Broncos still could lose this week and will lose at Indianapolis
Woody Paige
Pose your question for Woody's Mailbag.
Browse Woody Paige's archive of recent sports columns.
and Philadelphia, could lose at Kansas City (in cold in December in that city, they always have played poorly, no matter the coach or quarterback) and won't have a bargain when the Giants come to town. There are two gimmes — Kansas City and Oakland here. A 3-4 record won't get it. A 4-3 mark may not be good enough. The Broncos have to come up with five victories to have a chance at the division or as a wild card. You know that Indy, New England, Cincinnati (Bengals?) and Pittsburgh are in. You've still got the Chargers and the Ravens (after Monday night) in the mix. Six teams are invited.
The Broncos are not as bad as I thought they would be (4-12, and excuse me for being the court jester), but they're not as good as some people would have you believe, with or without Orton. I thought they needed a lift. I thought Simms might provide it. In that situation, he was a train wreck. But the rest of the Broncos didn't help matters, and this schedule is rough. What helps is that the Broncos still are in a very weak division. Yet, if they do make the playoffs, they will have to go to Indianapolis or New England or Pittsburgh or, heaven forbid, back to Cincinnati (where you know what happened) and win. They have to play smarter and tougher. Are they tough enough?
I'm not going to say anything about Chris Simms, because I believe he would be a much better quarterback than Kyle Orton if he had been given the job he won in training camp. My question is about the run game. Why is McD so enamored with Knowshon Moreno? Sure it looks great when he busts those big runs, but they are few and far between and he seems to be running in slow-mo compared to Correll Buckhalter. I think if Buckhalter were allowed to get going that would be more beneficial to a team in the hunt than getting the rook some playing time.
-- Brandon, Hibbing, Minn.
Brandon: Buckhalter's fumble and Moreno's success combined to make Buckhalter a backup. Meanwhile, I get dozens of letters saying "What about Hillis"? There are problems to consider, no matter who is back there. As I mentioned, the offensive line has broken down with an injury and with lousy play (except at left tackle) and, sometimes, different blocking schemes. Also, if you have a quarterback who doesn't throw down the field (until the Washington game), cornerbacks cheat up; the defense can put a safety in the box, and the defensive line can sell out on the run. If the Broncos are scoring 20 points or fewer, teams know if they can stop the running game, they've got the Broncos beat.
I asked an opposing defensive player I know (he asked to be off the record) and a coach who has been in the league for a long time about the Broncos, and both said Orton is not going to beat you. The wide receivers (Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal and Brandon Stokley) can beat you after they catch short passes, if they can break free, and the running game will beat you if you let them go wild. So you defend to keep the receivers in front of you and contain them when they catch, pay little attention to the tight ends and hold the running backs under 100 yards. You can even let Orton throw over the top a couple of times and get beat, but you know their game is the short pass and the run. That's how you game plan.
Woody, you've always been my favorite guy on "Around the Horn," but if you don't point out that the Pats had the first down on that fourth-down play against the Colts I will be switching my favorite status to that guy with the box shaped head from Chicago. I don't want to do that, you don't want that, so let's tell the truth, huh?
-- Kyle, San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Kyle: Switch your loyalty, then. Kevin Faulk was bobbling the ball. So there's no forward progress if he is still trying to gain full control of the ball as he's being pushed back. Look up the rule. And if you wanted it to be good, you should have had your Pats save their timeout so they could challenge. On the other side, I was totally in favor of the Patriots' decision to go for it at that point, as stupid as it seems to a lot of people. Surveys show that about 60 percent felt it was the wrong call. These are the same fans who yell at a coach to go for it on every close fourth down. And they might be right.
Last year in the NFL teams who chose to go for it on fourth-and-short made it more than 60 percent of the time. The Patriots, with Tom Brady at QB, have succeeded three-quarters of the times they have gone for fourth-and-two, or less. If you can't make two yards in that situation, you don't deserve to win. The Patriots had shredded the Colts defense the entire game. You've got Brady. You've got Faulk, a great third-down pass-catching back. You've got Wes Welker and Randy Moss. You've got a good team. And you know that Peyton Manning has scored twice in the quarter in two minutes, and he runs the two-minute drill the entire game, so it's nothing new.
The expert who operates NFL Advanced Stats said that given the history, the Patriots had a slight edge statistically if they went for it on fourth down. When they did it, I yelled, "Yeah." NFL teams play not to lose (look at fourth quarters of tie games) and decisions to kick field goals on fourth down at the 1. College coaches play to win. The Patriots played to win. And, besides, they still had a chance to stop the Colts, and didn't, and the loss is not the worst in the world for the Patriots, who will win their division. Pity the poor teams they play from now on.
I haven't heard much mention lately of the Broncos' decision to trade their first-round pick next year, rather than Chicago's (obtained in the Jay Cutler trade), to get Alphonso Smith. At the time, it wasn't the trading of a top pick to get Smith that had fans concerned. I guess people assumed Cutler would lead the Bears to at least 10 wins and into the playoffs, while the Broncos wouldn't fare as well, like many sport writers predicted. What do you think of that decision now and how it could affect the Broncos in the 2010 draft?
-- Mike, Ambler, Pa.
Mike: I haven't thought a moment about it. But let's think about it. Hmmm. Let's assume the Bears win eight games and the Broncos 10, for the sake of your question. The Broncos traded their own first-round pick next year to Seattle in exchange for a No. 2 this year, to get Smith. If Smith becomes a quality player, and he'll have an extra year of experience over whatever player is drafted in 2010, then it was a good deal, no matter what. If the Broncos had been really bad (as some of us predicted), it would have been a weak deal because they would have had a high first-round choice (even though there are a ton of miserable teams in the league this year).
Are you confused? Me, too. I think we have to see how it plays out at the end of the year, see who the pick is in that spot next year, and examine Smith and the 2010 player in a few years. Maybe there was a reason I wasn't thinking about it. I do know that Pittsburgh used the third-round pick it got in the Orton-Cutler deal (don't ask) for Mike Wallace, who looks like a nice receiver. And the Bears got Johnny Knox with the fifth pick from Denver, and he might end up being their best receiver. The Broncos' Richard Quinn, obtained from Pittsburgh, hasn't been anything special so far. We've seen glimpses of Seth Olsen. And Tom Brandstater, as we know, hasn't played a down. I think my head is about to explode.
Woody, I am a huge Broncos fan and even when stationed overseas, I find a way to watch the games (e.g. getting up at 0230 to see the Broncos lose to Pittsburgh). Just a quick statement: It is blatantly obvious to me that the Broncos' linemen are getting killed by defensive lines. This in turn leads to RBs losing yards or gaining minimal yards. Over the last several years, the Broncos have been known for putting anyone behind the line and cruising for 100 yards a game. SO WHAT IS GOING ON THIS YEAR THAT WE CANNOT PUT TOGETHER A RUNNING GAME???
-- Chris Smith, Sigonella, Sicily
Chris from Sigonella, Sicily. Enjoy the beaches. Enjoy the food. Enjoy the dancing. Enjoy the wine. Let us worry about the running game. McDaniels brought the Patriots' blocking schemes from New England, but retained Rick Dennison, who is a great offensive line coach (and studied at the feet of the best ever). After they spent time together, Josh decided to keep much of what Dennis was doing with the zone on run plays, but installed his own system (and terminology) for most of the passing plays. I don't think it's quite meshed.
But, more important, I believe, the Broncos have lost the heart and soul of the offensive line in recent years — Tom Nalen in the middle (who was injured, then sort of dumped), Ben Hamilton (who hasn't been the same since his concussions) and Matt Lepsis (who retired to study ministry), and they lost the serviceable Cooper Carlisle (Raiders). Even with Ryan Clady, now one of the best in the game at left tackle, and quality veteran Casey Wiegmann, the Broncos aren't the same on the line. I assume that when Mike Shanahan takes another job, he'll take Dennison with him as associate head coach.
You add a couple of injuries, two fresh starters (and I love Tyler Polumbus, but he's still adjusting to playing a lot), and that's caused some serious problems with the running game. Moreno is finding his way. Buckhalter is what he has been. And the Broncos are a passing team. Playing in shotgun, you're not going to get the same running game. And when you play a quality defense, it will bunch in against these Broncos.
McDaniels felt if the Broncos forced more turnovers and cut down on their turnovers, they could play conservatively and win games. Worked for a while. But when playing against defenses from Pittsburgh and Baltimore, and even Washington has a sound defense, you get caught. San Diego has improved its defense from the last time the Broncos saw the Chargers, so I have a sneaky suspicion about this game. Phillip Rivers plays well here. Do a shot in Sicily for me, Chris.
Hi Woody, I was wondering if the next time you ask McD a question at a presser if you could have him answer why the hell Peyton Hillis is not involved in the game plan for the offense?! Thank you!
-- Austin, Colorado Springs
Austin: Peyton was away from the team because of the death of his grandmother. He was injured earlier. He fumbled a ball, which got him into the doghouse. He is not McDaniels' favorite player. They rarely use a fullback, and that was supposed to be Hillis' position. And you've got Moreno and Buckhalter, who always were going to be 1-2. I think Hillis has to get 15-20 carries in a game to be effective. When he did, he got 129 yards last year in one of his six starts (K.C.), but the Chiefs' defense stunk. I think he might be very effective on third down. He had 116 yards receiving in one game (Miami). He averaged 5.0 yards per carry rushing and finished with six touchdowns.
McDaniels won't say anything in the presser, other than "a player will get his chances." A lot of different things have led to Hillis being pushed to the back of the bench. I think he's gone after this year. Having said that, I like him. He worked very hard last year. He got stronger as the season went on. He adjusted to a new regime and a new position in the off-season and gained weight to play fullback. He's a great guy with a solid work ethic. There's no fit, obviously, but I don't think he's the solution — despite what so many people write me — for the running game.
Woody Paige first joined The Denver Post in 1981 as a sports columnist
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13817872
By Woody Paige
The Denver Post
Posted: 11/19/2009 01:00:00 AM MST
Denver Post sports columnist Woody Paige posts Woody's Mailbag on Thursdays.
Drop a question into Woody's Mailbag, or visit The Denver Post's Sports Page.
Do you still think Chris Simms is the answer for the Broncos after what you saw in Washington? I don't think a week of work with the "ones" is going to make a difference in that situation. He is who he is ... and for the Broncos this year, in my opinion, he's the second best choice.
-- Jack, Denver
Jack: My best friend texted me at halftime and said "You got your wish." It was not my wish for Kyle Orton to be injured; it was not my wish for the Broncos to lose; and it certainly wasn't my wish that Chris Simms be brought into his first game in the second half without preparation and repetitions with the first team during the week preceding the game. I had recommended that he start. We'll never know if that would have made a difference. If Orton had remained healthy, the Broncos might have won the game. Who knows? Simms did look awful ... putrid, and hundreds of e-mailers have written to gloat that I was wrong. They can continue to do so. I will not apologize to them.
I give my opinion, which is based on sound information, thoughtful research and observation, unlike some kid in Arizona who is a Broncos fan and writes a blog, without proper grammar or punctuation or understanding, from his mom's laundry room and think he knows what he's talking about, and people actually pay attention. They did not write to gloat when Orton had successive bad games. The problem is more severe. The defense is not stopping people, including a Washington team that couldn't score more than 17 points in any previous game this season. Combine that with a team now throwing interceptions, fumbling, special teams that are not and mistakes by the coaching staff.
When a team
Chris Simms on the sidelines as the game winds down in the fourth quarter vs. the Washington Redskins at FedEx Field in Landover, Md., on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009. (Joe Amon, The Denver Post)shows that it is going to use a trick play, off a field goal look, and has to call a timeout because it's one man short on the field, and then shows the same play, and the Broncos are not smart enough to be in position to defend a punter throwing a pass, then coaches and players made mistakes. The Broncos are banged up on the offensive line. Ben Hamilton is a shell of what he once was, and has been replaced. McDaniels did mess with what were excellent blocking schemes. The defensive line, which was a problem way before the season, is struggling mightily. Other than Knowshon Moreno, which of the draft choices really are contributing?
Don't talk to me about Alphonso Smith. I've gotten that garbage all year about not giving him love. What? As a return man? What? As a nickel back? Why is Ty Law here then? What about the backup safeties? People tell me Robert Ayers is sensational. He has made one play. The other team scored 7, 6, 3, 10 and 17 points in the first five games. Now the Broncos' offense, defense and special teams have combined to give up 23, 30, 28 and 27. From 43 in five to 108 in four. If the Broncos lose to San Diego, which hasn't lost since the last Broncos game and is improving — did you see L.T. against Philly? — they'll be in second place and in danger of not even making the playoffs.
Only two teams in history started 6-0 and didn't get to the postseason. The Broncos still could lose this week and will lose at Indianapolis
Woody Paige
Pose your question for Woody's Mailbag.
Browse Woody Paige's archive of recent sports columns.
and Philadelphia, could lose at Kansas City (in cold in December in that city, they always have played poorly, no matter the coach or quarterback) and won't have a bargain when the Giants come to town. There are two gimmes — Kansas City and Oakland here. A 3-4 record won't get it. A 4-3 mark may not be good enough. The Broncos have to come up with five victories to have a chance at the division or as a wild card. You know that Indy, New England, Cincinnati (Bengals?) and Pittsburgh are in. You've still got the Chargers and the Ravens (after Monday night) in the mix. Six teams are invited.
The Broncos are not as bad as I thought they would be (4-12, and excuse me for being the court jester), but they're not as good as some people would have you believe, with or without Orton. I thought they needed a lift. I thought Simms might provide it. In that situation, he was a train wreck. But the rest of the Broncos didn't help matters, and this schedule is rough. What helps is that the Broncos still are in a very weak division. Yet, if they do make the playoffs, they will have to go to Indianapolis or New England or Pittsburgh or, heaven forbid, back to Cincinnati (where you know what happened) and win. They have to play smarter and tougher. Are they tough enough?
I'm not going to say anything about Chris Simms, because I believe he would be a much better quarterback than Kyle Orton if he had been given the job he won in training camp. My question is about the run game. Why is McD so enamored with Knowshon Moreno? Sure it looks great when he busts those big runs, but they are few and far between and he seems to be running in slow-mo compared to Correll Buckhalter. I think if Buckhalter were allowed to get going that would be more beneficial to a team in the hunt than getting the rook some playing time.
-- Brandon, Hibbing, Minn.
Brandon: Buckhalter's fumble and Moreno's success combined to make Buckhalter a backup. Meanwhile, I get dozens of letters saying "What about Hillis"? There are problems to consider, no matter who is back there. As I mentioned, the offensive line has broken down with an injury and with lousy play (except at left tackle) and, sometimes, different blocking schemes. Also, if you have a quarterback who doesn't throw down the field (until the Washington game), cornerbacks cheat up; the defense can put a safety in the box, and the defensive line can sell out on the run. If the Broncos are scoring 20 points or fewer, teams know if they can stop the running game, they've got the Broncos beat.
I asked an opposing defensive player I know (he asked to be off the record) and a coach who has been in the league for a long time about the Broncos, and both said Orton is not going to beat you. The wide receivers (Brandon Marshall, Eddie Royal and Brandon Stokley) can beat you after they catch short passes, if they can break free, and the running game will beat you if you let them go wild. So you defend to keep the receivers in front of you and contain them when they catch, pay little attention to the tight ends and hold the running backs under 100 yards. You can even let Orton throw over the top a couple of times and get beat, but you know their game is the short pass and the run. That's how you game plan.
Woody, you've always been my favorite guy on "Around the Horn," but if you don't point out that the Pats had the first down on that fourth-down play against the Colts I will be switching my favorite status to that guy with the box shaped head from Chicago. I don't want to do that, you don't want that, so let's tell the truth, huh?
-- Kyle, San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Kyle: Switch your loyalty, then. Kevin Faulk was bobbling the ball. So there's no forward progress if he is still trying to gain full control of the ball as he's being pushed back. Look up the rule. And if you wanted it to be good, you should have had your Pats save their timeout so they could challenge. On the other side, I was totally in favor of the Patriots' decision to go for it at that point, as stupid as it seems to a lot of people. Surveys show that about 60 percent felt it was the wrong call. These are the same fans who yell at a coach to go for it on every close fourth down. And they might be right.
Last year in the NFL teams who chose to go for it on fourth-and-short made it more than 60 percent of the time. The Patriots, with Tom Brady at QB, have succeeded three-quarters of the times they have gone for fourth-and-two, or less. If you can't make two yards in that situation, you don't deserve to win. The Patriots had shredded the Colts defense the entire game. You've got Brady. You've got Faulk, a great third-down pass-catching back. You've got Wes Welker and Randy Moss. You've got a good team. And you know that Peyton Manning has scored twice in the quarter in two minutes, and he runs the two-minute drill the entire game, so it's nothing new.
The expert who operates NFL Advanced Stats said that given the history, the Patriots had a slight edge statistically if they went for it on fourth down. When they did it, I yelled, "Yeah." NFL teams play not to lose (look at fourth quarters of tie games) and decisions to kick field goals on fourth down at the 1. College coaches play to win. The Patriots played to win. And, besides, they still had a chance to stop the Colts, and didn't, and the loss is not the worst in the world for the Patriots, who will win their division. Pity the poor teams they play from now on.
I haven't heard much mention lately of the Broncos' decision to trade their first-round pick next year, rather than Chicago's (obtained in the Jay Cutler trade), to get Alphonso Smith. At the time, it wasn't the trading of a top pick to get Smith that had fans concerned. I guess people assumed Cutler would lead the Bears to at least 10 wins and into the playoffs, while the Broncos wouldn't fare as well, like many sport writers predicted. What do you think of that decision now and how it could affect the Broncos in the 2010 draft?
-- Mike, Ambler, Pa.
Mike: I haven't thought a moment about it. But let's think about it. Hmmm. Let's assume the Bears win eight games and the Broncos 10, for the sake of your question. The Broncos traded their own first-round pick next year to Seattle in exchange for a No. 2 this year, to get Smith. If Smith becomes a quality player, and he'll have an extra year of experience over whatever player is drafted in 2010, then it was a good deal, no matter what. If the Broncos had been really bad (as some of us predicted), it would have been a weak deal because they would have had a high first-round choice (even though there are a ton of miserable teams in the league this year).
Are you confused? Me, too. I think we have to see how it plays out at the end of the year, see who the pick is in that spot next year, and examine Smith and the 2010 player in a few years. Maybe there was a reason I wasn't thinking about it. I do know that Pittsburgh used the third-round pick it got in the Orton-Cutler deal (don't ask) for Mike Wallace, who looks like a nice receiver. And the Bears got Johnny Knox with the fifth pick from Denver, and he might end up being their best receiver. The Broncos' Richard Quinn, obtained from Pittsburgh, hasn't been anything special so far. We've seen glimpses of Seth Olsen. And Tom Brandstater, as we know, hasn't played a down. I think my head is about to explode.
Woody, I am a huge Broncos fan and even when stationed overseas, I find a way to watch the games (e.g. getting up at 0230 to see the Broncos lose to Pittsburgh). Just a quick statement: It is blatantly obvious to me that the Broncos' linemen are getting killed by defensive lines. This in turn leads to RBs losing yards or gaining minimal yards. Over the last several years, the Broncos have been known for putting anyone behind the line and cruising for 100 yards a game. SO WHAT IS GOING ON THIS YEAR THAT WE CANNOT PUT TOGETHER A RUNNING GAME???
-- Chris Smith, Sigonella, Sicily
Chris from Sigonella, Sicily. Enjoy the beaches. Enjoy the food. Enjoy the dancing. Enjoy the wine. Let us worry about the running game. McDaniels brought the Patriots' blocking schemes from New England, but retained Rick Dennison, who is a great offensive line coach (and studied at the feet of the best ever). After they spent time together, Josh decided to keep much of what Dennis was doing with the zone on run plays, but installed his own system (and terminology) for most of the passing plays. I don't think it's quite meshed.
But, more important, I believe, the Broncos have lost the heart and soul of the offensive line in recent years — Tom Nalen in the middle (who was injured, then sort of dumped), Ben Hamilton (who hasn't been the same since his concussions) and Matt Lepsis (who retired to study ministry), and they lost the serviceable Cooper Carlisle (Raiders). Even with Ryan Clady, now one of the best in the game at left tackle, and quality veteran Casey Wiegmann, the Broncos aren't the same on the line. I assume that when Mike Shanahan takes another job, he'll take Dennison with him as associate head coach.
You add a couple of injuries, two fresh starters (and I love Tyler Polumbus, but he's still adjusting to playing a lot), and that's caused some serious problems with the running game. Moreno is finding his way. Buckhalter is what he has been. And the Broncos are a passing team. Playing in shotgun, you're not going to get the same running game. And when you play a quality defense, it will bunch in against these Broncos.
McDaniels felt if the Broncos forced more turnovers and cut down on their turnovers, they could play conservatively and win games. Worked for a while. But when playing against defenses from Pittsburgh and Baltimore, and even Washington has a sound defense, you get caught. San Diego has improved its defense from the last time the Broncos saw the Chargers, so I have a sneaky suspicion about this game. Phillip Rivers plays well here. Do a shot in Sicily for me, Chris.
Hi Woody, I was wondering if the next time you ask McD a question at a presser if you could have him answer why the hell Peyton Hillis is not involved in the game plan for the offense?! Thank you!
-- Austin, Colorado Springs
Austin: Peyton was away from the team because of the death of his grandmother. He was injured earlier. He fumbled a ball, which got him into the doghouse. He is not McDaniels' favorite player. They rarely use a fullback, and that was supposed to be Hillis' position. And you've got Moreno and Buckhalter, who always were going to be 1-2. I think Hillis has to get 15-20 carries in a game to be effective. When he did, he got 129 yards last year in one of his six starts (K.C.), but the Chiefs' defense stunk. I think he might be very effective on third down. He had 116 yards receiving in one game (Miami). He averaged 5.0 yards per carry rushing and finished with six touchdowns.
McDaniels won't say anything in the presser, other than "a player will get his chances." A lot of different things have led to Hillis being pushed to the back of the bench. I think he's gone after this year. Having said that, I like him. He worked very hard last year. He got stronger as the season went on. He adjusted to a new regime and a new position in the off-season and gained weight to play fullback. He's a great guy with a solid work ethic. There's no fit, obviously, but I don't think he's the solution — despite what so many people write me — for the running game.
Woody Paige first joined The Denver Post in 1981 as a sports columnist
http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_13817872