Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43

Thread: Joe Mays

  1. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    It's sound in principle but, in practice, a rookie QBing the D is as risky as one QBing the offense. Either way, a MLB needs, not just the physical ability and skills, but the experience to read formations, call the right audibles and then make big plays. Though it's possible to find the QB/MLB of the future in any draft, "experience" and "rookie" are mutually exclusive. There's no reason we can't find the next Al Wilson at #25 (or #125,) but also no reason to expect a star before Manning retires even if we do.
    They're going to have to draft a really GOOD MLB at some point. If somebody falls, then they have to consider taking him.

    The secondary doesn't look solid at all to me; our CBs are solid IF we re-sign Harris, but our safeties are garbage without Dawkins. Carter scoring a gift wrapped playoff pick and a meaningless sack the first time the Pats smashed us doesn't make him good. If we find a centerfielder, Carter MIGHT be able to replace Dawkins as a devastating run stuffer, but that's a big "if", and run stuffing is not my primary interest in a safety.
    You're forgetting that they just signed Mike Adams at $4 million to play FS. He's NOT a Dawkins type heavy hitter, but a cover safety who played very well for the Browns the last couple of seasons and started 16 games. Obviously they weren't happy with their 2nd round pick Rahim Moore and downgraded him to backup.


    The biggest secondary problem at present is the absence of anyone like Atwater, Lynch or Dawkins to either play centerfield OR run stop; Champ could fill both roles, but only if we found another elite CB to take his spot. I wouldn't mind drafting one early, because a good one could contribute immediately and Champ would be a lethal FS for the next five years.
    Mike Adams, not Champ. Champ is still an elite #1 CB for the next couple of seasons. And they just got Porter to replace Goodman, so Goodman is not going to be the problem this season. He's only the nickel CB and he should be able to handle that role and cover #3 WRs, TEs and RBs in coverage.

    IF 1) Harris' back can last a full season, 2) we re-sign him AND 3) Clady's back to his old self after an injury-free offseason, I feel OK with our tackles, but our guards are a trainwreck, our only decent DT is in New Orleans, so we need major help on the interior of both lines.
    I wouldn't count on Harris. I don't think he's in anybody's long-term plans and he hasn't really been healthy since he left Denver. They only signed him as an emergency move since Kuper's injury and he might not even make the 53 man roster this year.

    I doubt they have given up on Franklin after only 1 year. He had a tough year but they threw him in at RT as a rookie along with Beadles and Walton. I'm a lot more worried about them, but obviously the Broncos are satisfied that these young players can improve with time playing together and coaching. Beadles was the 2nd G taken in the draft and they obviously expect him to be a good one eventually.

    It often takes 3 years for OL to mature and Walton, Franklin and Beadles certainly need it. I'd be surprised to see them grab an OL with their #1 pick, although they might take one in the 2nd round if someone falls.

    Unless Jeremiah Johnson comes on strong this year, we could definitely use another runner; McGahee's solid, but can't be an every down back when getting beat up breaking half a dozen tackles just to gain three yards 20-30 times a game, and our running game disappears without him.
    They obviously need a RB but they can get one later in the draft or even as an undrafted FA. You can always find a couple of RBs to come in and spell McGahee. I would expect them to try and find somebody in the 3rd or 4th round at RB.

    I saw on ESPN that Todd McShay said that the Broncos have as much talent now as Indy had when Manning was taking them deep into the playoffs. I don't know if that's true, but since Indy was utterly HORRIBLE without Manning last year, he clearly was a one-man army for them for years.

    That alone is going to improve the team by possibly 2 or 3 wins. I expect them to win the division and possibly 1 or even 2 playoff games. I don't expect SB, but they can build towards that for 2013.

  2. The Following 2 Users High Fived Cugel For This Post:


  3. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Albany, OR
    Adopted Bronco:
    Miller Time
    Posts
    12,233

    Default

    I have high hopes for Nate Irving. I hope he comes into the pre-season swinging. I give him, Rahim Moore, and Carter this year to show some improvement and then next year look to move this if nothing happens.

  4. The Following User High Fived NightTerror218 For This Post:


  5. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Adopted Bronco:
    Justin Simmons
    Posts
    5,564

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Adopted Bronco:
    Justin Simmons
    Posts
    5,564

    Default

    I really want to see Irving healthy and will a full offseason. Anyone that's writing off rookies after one year especially a lockout shortened offseason just has zero idea how difficult the transition to the pro game really is, the factor in the high ankle sprain and the position he plays (Mike is one of the toughest defensive positions to play from a mental aspect) and Im willing to take a wait and see approach with Irving.

  7. The Following 4 Users High Fived Jsteve01 For This Post:


  8. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    They're going to have to draft a really GOOD MLB at some point. If somebody falls, then they have to consider taking him.
    Also reasonable, but I don't expect draft picks to truly dominate at MLB any sooner than at QB, for many of the same reasons. If we're just looking for someone to lay some wood on backs and occasionally blitz, sure, but that's the bare minimum for a Sam, not a Mike, who must do EVERYTHING well. Under normal circumstances, I could accept waiting for a Mike to develop, but Manning has greatly increased the urgency of filling our many critical holes, because he's living on borrowed time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    You're forgetting that they just signed Mike Adams at $4 million to play FS. He's NOT a Dawkins type heavy hitter, but a cover safety who played very well for the Browns the last couple of seasons and started 16 games. Obviously they weren't happy with their 2nd round pick Rahim Moore and downgraded him to backup.

    Mike Adams, not Champ. Champ is still an elite #1 CB for the next couple of seasons. And they just got Porter to replace Goodman, so Goodman is not going to be the problem this season. He's only the nickel CB and he should be able to handle that role and cover #3 WRs, TEs and RBs in coverage.
    I knew about the Adams signing, but don't know enough about the player to put full faith in him, and our safeties were absolutely wretched once we lost Dawkins. With Champ visibly slowing but still a punishing tackler with a nose for the ball, and Chris Harris showing some nice play at nickel last year, it just made sense to move the former to FS and start the latter opposite Porter. That might still be true with Adams, but last I heard (which was a while ago) we hadn't re-signed Chris Harris, so it may not be an option anyway.

    If Adams can do the job at FS and Porter lives up to his billing I'll worry much less about our secondary in the short term, but it seems clear to me Champ is making up for slower feet with veteran instincts and experience, following in the proud tradition the last couple decades of elite CBs becoming elite safeties at the end of their careers. We're going to need another shut down corner soon, and grabbing one now would be a great way to kill two birds with one stone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    I wouldn't count on Harris. I don't think he's in anybody's long-term plans and he hasn't really been healthy since he left Denver. They only signed him as an emergency move since Kuper's injury and he might not even make the 53 man roster this year.
    I'm looking at it as a "what have we got to lose?" situation: The biggest reason everyone cheered Harris' release was they didn't think him worth the money he could demand and "we drafted a good RT anyway." Well, here we are, and Harris' health has drastically reduced his asking price, while the tackle we drafted has yet to emerge as a dominant player.

    I doubt they have given up on Franklin after only 1 year. He had a tough year but they threw him in at RT as a rookie along with Beadles and Walton. I'm a lot more worried about them, but obviously the Broncos are satisfied that these young players can improve with time playing together and coaching. Beadles was the 2nd G taken in the draft and they obviously expect him to be a good one eventually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    It often takes 3 years for OL to mature and Walton, Franklin and Beadles certainly need it. I'd be surprised to see them grab an OL with their #1 pick, although they might take one in the 2nd round if someone falls.
    In the case of Beadles and Walton, it clearly will take NO LESS than three years to mature—or (more likely) they already have and are as good as they'll ever be. Franklin certainly merits another year to see if he gets over the hump but, IMHO, Beadles and Walton have had their shot, repeatedly, and it's time to find a REAL guard. We can only guess how Kuper will be post-injury, but at anything <100% we have NOTHING at guard, which bodes ill for Mannings health and makes run-oriented Foxball impossible. Signing Harris to a modest FA deal would give us a fall back position if Franklin can't hack it; we have no such luxury at guard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    They obviously need a RB but they can get one later in the draft or even as an undrafted FA. You can always find a couple of RBs to come in and spell McGahee. I would expect them to try and find somebody in the 3rd or 4th round at RB.
    Bargain hunting in later rounds and FA hasn't helped our backs much more than our defense lately (on the other hand, the back we drafted early hasn't exactly wowed anyone either.) We need a one-two punch at RB, because we run a LOT and our guards let defenders pound the crap out of our starter, who probably has only a few years left in his 30 year old body anyway. It's not as high a priority for me as G and MLB (which the Adams and Porter signings have made my biggest concern) and a 3rd or 4th round pick sounds like a good place to look, but we got lucky with McGahee after many years of hitting dry holes in free agency and the draft. It's kind of embarrassing to have gone from "insert Pro Bowl runner here" to having a stable full of dregs at the position, but we haven't had an elite runner since Portis or Gary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    I saw on ESPN that Todd McShay said that the Broncos have as much talent now as Indy had when Manning was taking them deep into the playoffs. I don't know if that's true, but since Indy was utterly HORRIBLE without Manning last year, he clearly was a one-man army for them for years.

    That alone is going to improve the team by possibly 2 or 3 wins. I expect them to win the division and possibly 1 or even 2 playoff games. I don't expect SB, but they can build towards that for 2013.
    The thing folks forget is Manning rarely took Indy deep into the playoffs. Their best teams won and lost a Super Bowl (and were far more talented than this one, especially on the offensive line; Ryan Lilja made it to the AFC West, but KC, not Denver) but you'd expect more from the team with the decades best regular season record. Two of their "runs" consist of trouncing defenseless Broncos before being sent home in the next round, and I'm not saying our secondary was BAD, but we responded by trading Portis for Champ after the first rout and spending all our top picks on three CBs after the second. Apart from that and the two Super Bowls they had a slew of one and dones and (barely) beat Vermiels Chiefs in the Puntless Playoff before losing their next game. Consider this: Mannings playoff record against the Chargers is 0-2.

    Mannings Colts were like all those college teams that rack up a bunch of lopsided wins against their awful Conference and complain no one respects that, then awkwardly shuffle off to obscurity after Michigan or Nebraska beats them by 30 points in a Bowl. They played six games a year against an expansion team, the hopeless Jags and a Titans team Bud Adams has been annually dismantling for fun since I was born; amassing a ton of wins in that Division isn't very impressive: That's why we have the playoffs, where Mannings Colts are barely above .500 (without the Broncos Beatdowns and that KC game, they wouldn't be.)

    Fact is, Manning and Dungy between them didn't really solve Indys problems, even when they had Wayne, Harrison and Clark plus a great offensive line and Bob Sanders. All we have is a banged up Manning at the end of his career, and the Chiefs look pretty scary to me if they stay healthy. Their QB is questionable, and they could use another legit WR, but otherwise that's a solid team, especially on defense and the offensive line. The Faders have a new coach and the Bolts are in a tailspin, but KC was my 2012 favorite at the end of 2011, and has only improved in the offseason (I worry about Houston without Dreesen and Eric Winston.)
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  9. #21

    Default

    Bargain hunting in later rounds and FA hasn't helped our backs much more than our defense lately (on the other hand, the back we drafted early hasn't exactly wowed anyone either.) We need a one-two punch at RB, because we run a LOT and our guards let defenders pound the crap out of our starter, who probably has only a few years left in his 30 year old body anyway. It's not as high a priority for me as G and MLB (which the Adams and Porter signings have made my biggest concern) and a 3rd or 4th round pick sounds like a good place to look, but we got lucky with McGahee after many years of hitting dry holes in free agency and the draft. It's kind of embarrassing to have gone from "insert Pro Bowl runner here" to having a stable full of dregs at the position, but we haven't had an elite runner since Portis or Gary.
    3rd round is the right place to find a top RB. NFL GMs are moving more and more AWAY from drafting RBs in the first round. This year Trent Richardson is likely to be the ONLY RB taken in the first. Last year, Mark Ingram was the FIRST RB taken, at #28 and 4 more were drafted in the 2nd, mostly at the END of the second round.

    You could draft one of the top 4-5 RBs with Denver's 2nd round pick, possibly one of the top 3. And you could get a perfectly serviceable RB to come in and spell McGahee with Denver's 3rd pick.

    NFL GMs these days look at RB as a high-impact, short-duration pick. RBs take a beating and don't last long enough to make good #1 picks.

    The reason should be obvious.

    Elite talent is mostly drafted in the first round. There are 22 starters on an NFL team, but obviously no starter can last 22 years, so it's impossible to replace all or even MOST of your players with #1st round picks. Or even 1st and 2nd rounders (each starter would have to last 11 years and that's not ever going to happen).

    So, a player you take in the first round better last (hopefully) for 10 years or so or you're wasting that pick. IF the average RB lasts about 5 years or so then taking one with a first rounder is wasteful, unless that RB is going to be an elite All-Pro like Trent Richardson is projected to become (maybe).

    So, third or 4th round is EXACTLY where the Broncos need to find their next RB.

    1st round -- DT or CB
    2nd round -- DT or CB or LB or G/C
    3rd round -- RB or CB or LB or S or G/C
    etc.

  10. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    the arizona desert
    Adopted Bronco:
    george floyd little
    Posts
    5,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    The problem is paying $4 million/year for a part time player, mostly in on run downs. He doesn't bring more to the table than first thought; he's a Sam playing Mike, as initially thought, and thus hopelessly inadequate, especially for $4 million/year. If we spent that just to get get a run stuffer, why not pay it to Bunkley, have a run stuffer on ALL downs and go find a legit MLB who can cover over the middle and blitz?

    Mays plays MLB like it's still 1974 and it's enough to pop slot receivers hard when they go over the middle, then watch the ball fly one direction while their head flies another. That doesn't work anymore because 1) it's illegal and 2) receivers are MUCH better at making catches and holding on no matter what. That reduces Mays to running guys down and tackling them AFTER they get a first down, which would be fine in a Sam but is a massive liability in a Mike, who must tackle like Mays and cover like DJ, picking up half a dozen sacks/year along the way.This is why I dislike referring to "ILBs" generally, as if 3-4 ILBs (who must be good in coverage but only passable blitzers/run stoppers) were the same as MLBs (who must excel at everything, like 3-4 OLBs.)
    Mays has 0 sacks, 0 Ints and 3 passes defended in his 4 year career; that's not a $4 million Mike. http://www.nfl.com/player/joemays/4277/profile


    3/4 .....4/3, defenses morph so much a linebacker is a linebacker, mike sam larry wilbur, for all I care! a LINEBACKER shows up with certain talents and skills, its up to the coaches to accentuate those talents !
    LT was a linebacker. i dont recall him in too many pass coverage schemes.
    my point....?
    these days you draft a kid becuase of his innate skills and talents. accentuate that talent, and then based on his football mensa, you increase his work load and tasks at hand as he progresses.
    DJ. out of college. kid was a beast at covering the TE and rushing the QB.
    he could have been a perrenial pro-bowler if we just let him focus on those two primary skills.
    but no, he went thru a half dozen coaches who jerked him around like a marionette assigned to commitee.
    VON is being allowed to be VON, and the next guy(s) we draft for the defense, hopefully guys who play up the middle, Dt, Lb and safety, those guys NEED to show inherent talent in stopping the run and/or getting after the QB, and as contributers in their rookie season, the coaches have to figure out ways to let them do what they do best.
    CAN WE PLEASE JUST SKIP ALL THE NONESENSE AND JUST TALK FOOTBALL?

  11. The Following User High Fived Chef Zambini For This Post:


  12. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    the arizona desert
    Adopted Bronco:
    george floyd little
    Posts
    5,703

    Default

    as for mays,
    he also plays special teams (both ways i believe)
    and with the suspensions, the contract is as much about supply and demand as ability and contribution.
    CAN WE PLEASE JUST SKIP ALL THE NONESENSE AND JUST TALK FOOTBALL?

  13. #24

    Default

    In a 4-3 it matters to have a MLB who can both cover TEs, RBs and WRs coming across the middle AND come up strong and stuff the RB in run support. Mays can do the run support, but he can't cover worth a damn and that's not worth $4 million a year.

    And no, you can't always compensate for his short-comings. All too often he's going to be called on to do things he can't do well. Miller can drop into coverage, but to use him to cover a TE is a waste of his pass-rushing ability which is why he was drafted #2 overall.

    It wasn't to cover WRs in the flat that they took him ahead of Marcel Dareus!

    Sure, he can do it, but that's like entering a Maseratti in a dirt-bike race!

  14. The Following User High Fived Cugel For This Post:


  15. #25

    Default As things stand, I agree; I'm just not sure how much longer they will stand that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    3rd round is the right place to find a top RB. NFL GMs are moving more and more AWAY from drafting RBs in the first round. This year Trent Richardson is likely to be the ONLY RB taken in the first. Last year, Mark Ingram was the FIRST RB taken, at #28 and 4 more were drafted in the 2nd, mostly at the END of the second round.

    You could draft one of the top 4-5 RBs with Denver's 2nd round pick, possibly one of the top 3. And you could get a perfectly serviceable RB to come in and spell McGahee with Denver's 3rd pick.

    NFL GMs these days look at RB as a high-impact, short-duration pick. RBs take a beating and don't last long enough to make good #1 picks.

    The reason should be obvious.

    Elite talent is mostly drafted in the first round. There are 22 starters on an NFL team, but obviously no starter can last 22 years, so it's impossible to replace all or even MOST of your players with #1st round picks. Or even 1st and 2nd rounders (each starter would have to last 11 years and that's not ever going to happen).

    So, a player you take in the first round better last (hopefully) for 10 years or so or you're wasting that pick. IF the average RB lasts about 5 years or so then taking one with a first rounder is wasteful, unless that RB is going to be an elite All-Pro like Trent Richardson is projected to become (maybe).

    So, third or 4th round is EXACTLY where the Broncos need to find their next RB.

    1st round -- DT or CB
    2nd round -- DT or CB or LB or G/C
    3rd round -- RB or CB or LB or S or G/C
    etc.
    Running itself is less of a priority since all the new restrictions on pass rushing and coverage changed the old saw: Now FOUR things can happen on a pass, with an automatic first down by penalty most likely. Meanwhile, no one gives a dead rats rump about hitting "defenseless runners," so much so the NFL publicly and explicitly stated that the moment a QB tucks it away to run he loses all the bubble wrap enjoyed as a passer. Thus a backs career life expectancy is measured in months, and running still averaged the same 4.2 yards per carry in 2011 it did in 1985, yet passes produce first downs, often even when incomplete.

    I'm not sure how long the owners who make up the rules committee will be comfortable reducing the NFL to a glorified arena league defensive backs refer to as "flag football" (because, for them, it is) and long time fans have begun viewing with the same scorn rugby fans feel. As I said elsewhere, "any team on any given Sunday" has ceased to be about parity and become about luck and favorable rules: Chunk the ball downfield every play and there's a good chance the right guy comes down with it; if not, you'll STILL get a first down by penalty if the defense gives the QB or receivers so much as a dirty look.

    There's a reason so many people ignore Tebows abysmal completion percentage to praise his yards per completion: That's modern pro football. I don't think it will be much longer though, because it's becoming an embarrassing joke, and a shameful one to anyone who's followed the sport long enough to remember how it was played 20 years ago, let alone 40 (i.e. all owners.) There's a reason teams have repeatedly shattered Marinos 1984 records for TDs and passing yardage: When you can't touch the QB and must let receivers catch the ball and take off running before you can hit them, offenses become a lot more productive.

    I was most struck by it replaying Madden '07 the past couple weeks: On nearly every pass the defender timed the hit to coincide with the balls arrival (like they were taught five years ago,) so YAC was hard to come by, and every time the ball popped loose John Maddens voice praised them at length for a "great play" that would result in first downs, fines and suspensions now. Maybe I should get the new version of Madden so my frustration at tackles before I can spin or sprint disappears now that receivers can't be touched until they "make a football move."

    So, yeah, it's reaching the point that drafting a back on the first day of the draft is a wasted pick, but the rules committee has historically worked hard to restore the balance between offense and defense every time the pendulum swings too far in one direction, and as reminders of the need for that become more glaring I expect them to do so again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chef Zambini View Post
    3/4 .....4/3, defenses morph so much a linebacker is a linebacker, mike sam larry wilbur, for all I care! a LINEBACKER shows up with certain talents and skills, its up to the coaches to accentuate those talents !
    LT was a linebacker. i dont recall him in too many pass coverage schemes.
    my point....?
    these days you draft a kid becuase of his innate skills and talents. accentuate that talent, and then based on his football mensa, you increase his work load and tasks at hand as he progresses.
    DJ. out of college. kid was a beast at covering the TE and rushing the QB.
    he could have been a perrenial pro-bowler if we just let him focus on those two primary skills.
    but no, he went thru a half dozen coaches who jerked him around like a marionette assigned to commitee.
    VON is being allowed to be VON, and the next guy(s) we draft for the defense, hopefully guys who play up the middle, Dt, Lb and safety, those guys NEED to show inherent talent in stopping the run and/or getting after the QB, and as contributers in their rookie season, the coaches have to figure out ways to let them do what they do best.
    Linebackers are not interchangeable, and the distinction between 3-4s and 4-3s exists for a reason (though teams putting an OLBs hand in the dirt on most downs have blurred it.) LT was a freak (in many ways...) not the norm, and there's a reason DJ went inside when we ran a 3-4: 242 pounds is WAY too light for a 3-4 OLB, and his coverage skills would've been wasted since most 3-4 OLBs today don't bother covering anyone (I'm honestly baffled why the short passing offenses many receivers hasn't changed that; probably because so many coaches seem to think blitzing the only defense against the pass.)

    The basic rule is, or should be, that MLBs must cover, run stop and blitz well in a 4-3, and OLBs must in a 3-4; in many ways, the biggest advantage of a 3-4 is that it essentially allows teams to put two Mikes on the field at once—IF they have a NT the equivalent of two 4-3 DTs. The rise of TEs, RBs and possession receivers catching passes in the flat and over the middle is naturally suited to the 3-4, not because of an extra blitzer (which it really doesn't offer anyway; a front seven is a front seven, though the 3-4 does make disguising blitzes easier,) but because the extra LBs can cover them better. Except... they don't; it's a puzzler.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chef Zambini View Post
    as for mays,
    he also plays special teams (both ways i believe)
    and with the suspensions, the contract is as much about supply and demand as ability and contribution.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the contract was signed before the suspensions. The special teams point is valid (much as with Burns, who almost never saw the field as a linebacker, but was a demon on special teams) but paying a guy $4 million to play special teams doesn't make much sense either. Special teams is important, but not as important as MLB.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    In a 4-3 it matters to have a MLB who can both cover TEs, RBs and WRs coming across the middle AND come up strong and stuff the RB in run support. Mays can do the run support, but he can't cover worth a damn and that's not worth $4 million a year.

    And no, you can't always compensate for his short-comings. All too often he's going to be called on to do things he can't do well. Miller can drop into coverage, but to use him to cover a TE is a waste of his pass-rushing ability which is why he was drafted #2 overall.

    It wasn't to cover WRs in the flat that they took him ahead of Marcel Dareus!

    Sure, he can do it, but that's like entering a Maseratti in a dirt-bike race!
    Well, y'know, this is why I keep suggesting Miller play Mike; people say it would be a waste, but it's hard to see how someone can be "wasted" at the single most important spot on defense. My bigger reservations there are about whether Miller is big and experienced enough to QB the defense, run stop and cover, but if he can ONLY blitz we wasted the #2 pick wherever he plays. Miller was (mostly) a 3-4 OLB at A&M, and that translates to 4-3 MLB far more than a 4-3 OLB (which translates more to a 3-4 ILB ala DJ.)

    The big advantage would be that Mays could be our starting Sam (probably where he belongs) and backup MLB, with Haggan as HIS backup. DJ and Woodyard at Will would give us a solid and deep LB corps, and I'm fairly happy with our starters and depth at DE, so our defensive issues would be our DTs and secondary; after that, we could focus on our moribund offense.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  16. The Following User High Fived Joel For This Post:


  17. #26

    Default

    I'm not sure how long the owners who make up the rules committee will be comfortable reducing the NFL to a glorified arena league defensive backs refer to as "flag football" (because, for them, it is) and long time fans have begun viewing with the same scorn rugby fans feel. As I said elsewhere, "any team on any given Sunday" has ceased to be about parity and become about luck and favorable rules: Chunk the ball downfield every play and there's a good chance the right guy comes down with it; if not, you'll STILL get a first down by penalty if the defense gives the QB or receivers so much as a dirty look.

    There's a reason so many people ignore Tebows abysmal completion percentage to praise his yards per completion: That's modern pro football. I don't think it will be much longer though, because it's becoming an embarrassing joke, and a shameful one to anyone who's followed the sport long enough to remember how it was played 20 years ago, let alone 40 (i.e. all owners.) There's a reason teams have repeatedly shattered Marinos 1984 records for TDs and passing yardage: When you can't touch the QB and must let receivers catch the ball and take off running before you can hit them, offenses become a lot more productive.
    You've got to be kidding right?

    The NFL is a BUSINESS. Pat Bowlen bought his franchise for $78 million in 1984 and today his franchise is worth approximately $1.1 BILLION according to Forbes business magazine.

    Every other owner has seen similar massive increases in the value of their ownership interest.

    And this immense increase in popularity has taken place while the NFL has sanctified the QB and liberalized the passing rules.

    First they said Defenders can't touch the WR more than 5 yds. from the LOS.
    Then they said they can't hit the "defenseless" WR.
    Then when defenses responded by trying to put a big hit on the QB to deter him from taking advantage of the pass-interference and holding rules the league once again intervened by making it illegal to touch the QB in the pocket.

    Can't hit him after he's released the ball or hit him in the head ever or throw him to the turf, or breath on him too heavily or even look at him in an intimidating manner!

    Do you suppose all this was accidental? They pay their elite QBs $50+ million and have to draft them in the first round. The QB is the visible face of the franchise and a top QB is one of the most widely recognized sports figures in America. Their QB is their most valuable asset and they want him to last!

    The very last thing any of these billionaires wants is some reserve LB earning the league minimum, breaking their $50 million investment. Collectively they have gotten together to preserve their financial stake in QBs.

    They are protecting their investments and "balance" be damned. As long as people don't start tuning out the games they aren't going back to "3 yards and a cloud of dust."

    That's BORING. A 60 yard pass play is EXCITING. Women especially like it and like the emphasis on the QB and increasing the fan base has largely meant increasing interest among women over the last 30 years.

    So, the chances of a reversal in policy are LESS THAN ZERO for the foreseeable future.

    And that means that RBs will decline in value rather than increase. They are becoming more and more interchangeable parts. The Broncos pioneered the way with their ZBS, inserting a new 1000 yard RB each season.

    And any fan who's been around long enough to pine for the "old days" is, in NFL Owners's eyes, the equivalent of Abe Simpson!


    "You kids get off my lawn!" (My motto these days as well!)
    Last edited by Cugel; 04-20-2012 at 11:41 AM.

  18. The Following User High Fived Cugel For This Post:


  19. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pat Bowlen
    Posts
    97,306

    Default

    It would be borderline retarded to move a pass rusher like Miller to MLB.

    Thankfully, I don't think Del Lazio is that stupid.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    What is this, amateur hour? It's TNF against the Jets and you didn't think you'd need extra booze?

  20. #28

    Default The NFL will reform itself BECAUSE it's a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cugel View Post
    You've got to be kidding right?

    The NFL is a BUSINESS. Pat Bowlen bought his franchise for $78 million in 1984 and today his franchise is worth approximately $1.1 BILLION according to Forbes business magazine.

    Every other owner has seen similar massive increases in the value of their ownership interest.

    And this immense increase in popularity has taken place while the NFL has sanctified the QB and liberalized the passing rules.
    First they said Defenders can't touch the WR more than 5 yds. from the LOS.
    Then they said they can't hit the "defenseless" WR.
    Then when defenses responded by trying to put a big hit on the QB to deter him from taking advantage of the pass-interference and holding rules the league once again intervened by making it illegal to touch the QB in the pocket.

    Can't hit him after he's released the ball or hit him in the head ever or throw him to the turf, or breath on him too heavily or even look at him in an intimidating manner!

    Do you suppose all this was accidental? They pay their elite QBs $50+ million and have to draft them in the first round. The QB is the visible face of the franchise and a top QB is one of the most widely recognized sports figures in America. Their QB is their most valuable asset and they want him to last!

    The very last thing any of these billionaires wants is some reserve LB earning the league minimum, breaking their $50 million investment. Collectively they have gotten together to preserve their financial stake in QBs.

    They are protecting their investments and "balance" be damned. As long as people don't start tuning out the games they aren't going back to "3 yards and a cloud of dust."

    That's BORING. A 60 yard pass play is EXCITING. Women especially like it and like the emphasis on the QB and increasing the fan base has largely meant increasing interest among women over the last 30 years.

    So, the chances of a reversal in policy are LESS THAN ZERO for the foreseeable future.

    And that means that RBs will decline in value rather than increase. They are becoming more and more interchangeable parts. The Broncos pioneered the way with their ZBS, inserting a new 1000 yard RB each season.

    And any fan who's been around long enough to pine for the "old days" is, in NFL Owners's eyes, the equivalent of Abe Simpson!


    "You kids get off my lawn!" (My motto these days as well!)
    As an aside at the start, all the same arguments against letting some scrub DT making the League minimum end the career of an exciting highly paid (and lucrative) "skill" player applies to running backs as much as to QBs. The only difference is backs are subjected to MUCH more physical contact per down, hence their window of productive play is much smaller.

    Bear in mind that the CPI is more than twice what it was in 1984; the NFLs profitability has dramatically increased in the past three decades, but not nearly as much as just looking at the bottom line would suggest. Also, those increased profits have less to do with changing the leagues style than with the salary cap and expanded network competition for broadcast contracts. Believe it or not, Madden accounts for much of it; according to Wikipedia, the computerized football game is the NFLs second largest revenue source after merchandise.

    Yet part of what made MNF genius was that ABC was the only network with no NFL deal, and, when all other games were played simultaneously during a seven hour Sunday window, MNF gave them a captive national audience for marquee games. Thanks largely to recent rules changes, NFL teams are now such inconsistent crap shoots it's impossible to predict "marquee games" even a year in advance, hence "flex-scheduling" (i.e. "half of last years playoff teams got there by luck and already have 10 losses this year.") The question is if that makes the average person more or less inclined to watch, but the answer should be obvious.

    Apparel remains the NFLs largest revenue source and, along with TV ratings, ticket sales and Madden purchases, highlights the problem I see: The NFL makes very little money off 15 year old girls switching over to the fourth quarter of SNF to check out Tom Brady (if "Desperate Housewives" is a re-run.) I'm not convinced women, as a whole, prefer passing fireworks to reliable running any more or less than men do, but NO ONE prefers watching games whose outcome is almost randomly determined by who runs under the most punts-masquerading-as-passes (or draws a defensive penalty when they don't.)

    The NFL makes most of its money off merchandise (jerseys, travel mugs, caps etc.) Madden (apparently) and TV contracts, in that order. There may not be many Gale Sayers fans left among the demographics contributing most of that cash, but fans of Barry Sanders and Walter Payton remain disproportionate. In the past two or three years alone I've purchased or given/received as gifts:

    2 Broncos team jackets (one of which I've worn daily for the last six months; nothing like free advertising,)
    1 Broncos cap,
    1 Broncos travel thermos
    1 Broncos wallet
    1 Packers freezer mug
    1 Cowboys miniature replica football (with tee,)
    2 copies of Madden

    How many "fans" who didn't even HAVE a favorite team two years ago (and still can't name any starters except the QB) have done the same? Is it plausible that many new women fans (who aren't exactly a disproportionate demograpic among PC/console gamers) have? Should we start a poll to see how many of the people who spend substantial amounts of time at BF and other places support the recent rules figuratively hamstringing defenses in the name of preventing them from literally hamstringing QBs/WRs? Pretty sure we both know what the results would be.

    Speaking of the Simpsons: Remember the episode where Mo gives the bar a "post-modern" renovation to attract new clients, and throws out his old ones? Remember when he justifies it by saying, "at least the tips are good," only to to discover his tip jar is empty? The new environment proved unprofitable as well as uncomfortable, though the latter prompted him to desperately turn on a football game (replacing the disembodied eye previously on the screen,) to the loud booes of his new patrons, one of whom demands, "unless you're being ironic, turn that off!"

    Old school fans remain vital to the NFL because they provide its revenue; the only place recruiting new fans is relevant is in TV contracts, but since there are 67% more networks bidding for 6.25% more games than 20 years ago, that's not a great worry for the NFL. Everything else—ticket sales, merchandise and computer games—depends almost entirely on long time serious fans increasingly as disgusted as players are by the NFL turning into a flag football arena league.

    "As long as people don't start tuning out the games they aren't going back to '3 yards and a cloud of dust.'" I agree; what if people DO start tuning out the games? Not everyone; they'll still be able to count on HS girls with Brady Quinns name scribbled next to theirs inside cute little hearts in their notebooks. Just people who, y'know, actually SPEND MONEY on the NFL.

    "Any team on any given Sunday" used to be about true parity; the Competition Committee (along with the draft and revenue sharing) ensured the very worst teams could always compete with the very best. Todays "parity" is that of the coin toss, where the very worst teams always have a good chance of scoring on the very best, and victory often comes down to who has the last chance to heave the ball downfield randomly, hoping that either the right guy runs under it or the defense is penalized if not.

    No serious fan wants to watch that, because it magnifies the element of luck at the expense of talent and skill so much that the great teams in which fans invest their time, emotion and MONEY regularly have success snatched away by far less talented but more lucky opponents. I hesitate to mention He Who Must Not Be Named, but the reaction to his 2011 season neatly illustrates my point: Most long time fans were disgusted at the lack of skill, but most new fans, particularly young/female ones, were mesmerized by the drama.

    The question, from a BUSINESS perspective, is where the NFL gets more of its money, and the answer is obvious: The NFL cannot afford to lure in millions of casual (i.e. non-paying) fans at the expense of convincing people like you and me to support (financially and otherwise) far more respectable sports like rugby.

    If the NFL were JUST about increasing popularity TV blackouts wouldn't exist (it's doubtful they do much for ticket sales, but they do NOTHING for popularity.) As you rightly note, the NFL's a business, and if gets more people to watch games on TV for free, at the expense of people paying to see them in person, the business loses money. Look at the Pro Bowl: Has its ticket sales and even its ratings grown or shrunk since the League started sending players based on fan popularity rather than the coaches assessment of their play?

    The more the NFL becomes a sideshow instead of a competition, the more its revenue will suffer; the question is how long it takes the owners to realize that. They already took a step by (slightly) reducing the amount of bubble wrap surrounding QBs last year. Hopefully, the combination of the Saints multi-year bounty program and James Harrison publicly admitting he goes low, knowing it increases serioues injuries, to comply with the letter but not spirit of the rules will convince them to fix what they so badly broke in the last five years.

    Meanwhile, even if none of the above were true, all the same arguments against letting some scrub DT making the League minimum end the career of an exciting highly paid (and lucrative) "skill" player applies to running backs as much as to QBs. The only difference is that backs are subjected to MUCH more physical contact per down, hence their window of productive play is much smaller.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  21. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOtorboat View Post
    It would be borderline retarded to move a pass rusher like Miller to MLB.

    Thankfully, I don't think Del Lazio is that stupid.
    You make it sound like MLBs can't rush the passer; once upon a time, it was among their most vital roles. The reality is, it remains so; not only are they closer to the QB than everyone but the frount four, they have speed most DTs lack and strength most safeties lack to reach him. If/when DTs soak up blockers, most MLBs have a better chance of getting through/around a back to the QB than most safeties do, and certainly do when DTs DON'T soak up blockers.

    If ALL Miller can do is blitz then 1) he needs to gain at least 25 lbs. and play DE and 2) he wasn't worth the #2 overall pick. Personally, I'm optimistic he's fast enough (and hopefully smart enough) to be good in coverage, too, and hits hard enough his size won't be a liability against the run at either MLB or SLB.

    The bottom line is: Which would you rather be without, a solid starting MLB, or SLB? Though, to be fair, until/unless he's better against the run, Miller doesn't even qualify as the latter; he's a third down pass rusher who lines up at SLB instead of RDE. I see a lot more potential in him, but even in a league as passing obsessed as this one, he's not worth the #2 overall pick unless he achieves much of that potential. Mays or Haggan would be fine SLBs if we moved Miller to MLB; the question is whether Miller's good enough to play MLB.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  22. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Pat Bowlen
    Posts
    97,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joel View Post
    You make it sound like MLBs can't rush the passer; once upon a time, it was among their most vital roles. The reality is, it remains so; not only are they closer to the QB than everyone but the frount four, they have speed most DTs lack and strength most safeties lack to reach him. If/when DTs soak up blockers, most MLBs have a better chance of getting through/around a back to the QB than most safeties do, and certainly do when DTs DON'T soak up blockers.

    If ALL Miller can do is blitz then 1) he needs to gain at least 25 lbs. and play DE and 2) he wasn't worth the #2 overall pick. Personally, I'm optimistic he's fast enough (and hopefully smart enough) to be good in coverage, too, and hits hard enough his size won't be a liability against the run at either MLB or SLB.

    The bottom line is: Which would you rather be without, a solid starting MLB, or SLB? Though, to be fair, until/unless he's better against the run, Miller doesn't even qualify as the latter; he's a third down pass rusher who lines up at SLB instead of RDE. I see a lot more potential in him, but even in a league as passing obsessed as this one, he's not worth the #2 overall pick unless he achieves much of that potential. Mays or Haggan would be fine SLBs if we moved Miller to MLB; the question is whether Miller's good enough to play MLB.
    He's not, nor will he ever be a MLB, no matter how many words you write about it. Nor should he.
    *The statements above are my opinions, unless they are links, because then they are links, which wouldn't make them my opinions, and I suppose stats aren't necessarily opinion, but they are certainly presented to support an opinion. Proceed accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buff View Post
    What is this, amateur hour? It's TNF against the Jets and you didn't think you'd need extra booze?

Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Broncos re-sign Joe Mays
    By Denver Native (Carol) in forum Broncos Talk
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-20-2012, 02:06 AM
  2. Joe Mays
    By LTC Pain in forum Broncos Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-08-2012, 09:07 PM
  3. Joe Mays Is Quickly Becoming One Of My Favorites
    By getlynched47 in forum Broncos Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-09-2011, 11:26 PM
  4. Joe Mays and Dan Gronkowski to IR
    By dogfish in forum Broncos Talk
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 06:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group