Thread: Danny Trevathan off to a running start toward Denver Broncos stardom

It's not an unsual story in that other players have experiences like his but there are some things in there didn't know about him.

Danny Trevathan off to a running start toward Denver Broncos stardom
By Joan Niesen
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:01:00 AM MDT4 comments | Updated:about 7 hours ago


"You can coach technique and scheme, but it's hard to coach instincts, and he's got a lot of that, that you can't really coach," Smith said."You can coach technique and scheme, but it's hard to coach instincts, and he's got a lot of that, that you can't really coach," Smith said.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci...denver-broncos

Would a moderator be willing to fix the title. I can't seem to do it. It should read Danny Trevathan off to a running start toward Denver Broncos stardom.

Danny, Woody, and soon Von. What a fantastic LBing trio these guys are going to be. Can't wait to see them all on the field together.

Because Trevathan is a) a great Will backer and b) not better than Woodyard, Wesley is gonna need to continue at the Mike the rest of the year. Our three best backers are two Wills and a Sam, but Wes can play the middle fine. He's not a heavy bodied run-thumper, but we don't really need one. We need a sure tackler and team leader, and Woodyard is that.

With the huge DTs we're sporting, Woody isn't getting caught up in trash, so the pounds he gives up versus a bigger Mike aren't causing a problem, while his speed to the ball is very helpful.

I wanted a MLB in the draft, but getting Trevathan who's enabling Woodyard to move over is serving the same function. 3 good, versatile and impactful backers is what we needed, and it's what we'll have starting next week.

I got no complaints there.

~G

I like this guy! 6th round pick !

I waspretty pumped about the drafting of him. Glad he's making his way to be a playmaker. 2 big INTs already for the year.

Originally Posted by G_Money

Because Trevathan is a) a great Will backer and b) not better than Woodyard, Wesley is gonna need to continue at the Mike the rest of the year. Our three best backers are two Wills and a Sam, but Wes can play the middle fine. He's not a heavy bodied run-thumper, but we don't really need one. We need a sure tackler and team leader, and Woodyard is that.

With the huge DTs we're sporting, Woody isn't getting caught up in trash, so the pounds he gives up versus a bigger Mike aren't causing a problem, while his speed to the ball is very helpful.

I wanted a MLB in the draft, but getting Trevathan who's enabling Woodyard to move over is serving the same function. 3 good, versatile and impactful backers is what we needed, and it's what we'll have starting next week.

I got no complaints there.

~G

I still think Miller's more of a 3-4 OLB or 4-3 MLB than a true 4-3 SLB; his pass coverage is there and his run stopping's solid, so it's basically down to whether Sams>Mikes. Yet with Woodyard playing as he has it may be a moot point if he recovers quickly; as little as Mikes blitz (which I still contend is TOO little,) a natural coverage LB is a good fit there as long as he's not bowled over against the run. In that respect, your point about our added size and strength at DT making up for Woodyards lighter mass compared to most MLBs is a good one.

Still agree on a MLB early in the draft, too; with the DT situation (finally) addressed and our talent at CB, that and offensive line depth appear our biggest long term concerns (depending on Moore.)

Originally Posted by Joel

I still think Miller's more of a 3-4 OLB or 4-3 MLB than a true 4-3 SLB; his pass coverage is there and his run stopping's solid, so it's basically down to whether Sams>Mikes. Yet with Woodyard playing as he has it may be a moot point if he recovers quickly; as little as Mikes blitz (which I still contend is TOO little,) a natural coverage LB is a good fit there as long as he's not bowled over against the run. In that respect, your point about our added size and strength at DT making up for Woodyards lighter mass compared to most MLBs is a good one.

Still agree on a MLB early in the draft, too; with the DT situation (finally) addressed and our talent at CB, that and offensive line depth appear our biggest long term concerns (depending on Moore.)

Miller is NOT a middle linebacker.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Miller is NOT a middle linebacker.

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS.

I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Originally Posted by Joel

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS. I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Miller is a 4-3 SAM. Do you even watch football?

Originally Posted by Joel

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS.

I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Joel it's not an unresolved debate. You're mistaken no ands, ifs, or buts about it.

Originally Posted by SeeingRed

Miller is a 4-3 SAM. Do you even watch football?

I can answer that. NO.

Originally Posted by Joel

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS.

I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Your labels are all incorrect. It has NEVER been about Sam > Middle and that is NEVER my argument, ever. We don't disagree about that, because I don't give a shit which position is "more important" in your mind.

Regardless of that, Denver placing him outside is not some sort of Sam > Middle statement by the Broncos. At all. Period. It wasn't when they put him there as a rookie and it isn't now.

Miller is not a traditional 4-3 Sam in Denver's scheme, anyway, because it's not a traditional 4-3 scheme. He just isn't. You were wrong when you said it the first time, and you're wrong now.

Either he's much better as one or the other, or we value one more. Those are the sole options; there is no scenario where a coach—or anyone—says, "this guy places both spots equally well, so we're putting him at the one we value less." If he could be a MLB but plays SLB because of his blitzing, isn't that saying SLB>MLB? That has NOTHING to do with me, you, or how much either of us watches or knows about football.

Actually, I take it back, there is a third option: We could have a really good MLB who sucks at SLB. It's hard to imagine how an elite MLB would be an awful SLB, since MLB demands all the same skills plus many others, but for the sake of argument: DO we have that elite MLB who sucks at SLB? Is that why our starting WLB started at MLB for the first five games, and probably will even when he and Miller return?

Originally Posted by Joel

Either he's much better as one or the other, or we value one more than the other. Those are the sole options; there is no scenario where a coach—or anyone—says, "this guy places both spots equally well, so we're putting him at the one we value less." That has NOTHING to do with me, you, or how much either of us watches or knows about football.

Actually, I take it back, there is a third option: We could have a really good MLB who sucks at SLB. It's hard to imagine how an elite MLB would be an awful SLB, since MLB demands all the same skills plus many others, but for the sake of argument: DO we have that elite MLB who sucks at SLB? Is that why our starting WLB started at MLB for the first five games, and probably will even when he and Miller return?

I don't know how to explain this to you, because you obviously do not understand Denver's scheme, at all, but I'm stupidly going to try.

Let's try to remove the labels of 3-4 vs. 4-3 positions.

By Denver playing an edge player on the edge, they are not making a statement about whether or not they value edge over middle. To suggest that that is what they are doing is wrong. Pure and simple.

Miller is an edge player. His best attribute is as an edge rusher, and Denver has developed an over and under scheme to take advantage of his talents. He does NOT play the position you say he plays. Stop with the labels. Now, has he developed other skills in coverage and run stopping? Yes, he has, and from the edge he is elite. But because he's done that doesn't mean that he is suddenly a player that should be in the middle. He's an edge player. That's where he makes his impact, and he was one of the three best players in the league from that place on the field last year, making moving him unbelievably idiotic.

Now, Woodyard played middle linebacker at Kentucky where he led the SEC in tackles. Now, let's try to transfer that to Denver's scheme. Because of the scheme, Denver plays him off the right guard. From that position last year he led the defense by calling plays and because of his speed was the leading tackler on the team. Now, they shifted him over to off the left guard this year and he's playing the same role. Yes, he probably has to take on a few more blockers on the left side of the formation, or on the strong side, and since Miller is suspended, that hides some of the deficiencies of Trevathan.

But again, as with the Bailey argument, Woodyard HAS PLAYED THE POSITION BEFORE, therefore it is a simple transition for him. In the case of Miller and Bailey they HAVE NOT PLAYED the positions you want them to play in the past. Therefore, it is NOT a statement by the Broncos that Edge > Middle, in the case of both Miller AND Bailey.