Thread: Derek Wolfe Wants Him Some RINGS>>>>

http://broncoswire.usatoday.com/2016...unt-of-weight/


This cat is a stud. That looked SO easy. I really pray for the health of our team this year. (and all the teams) I feel we got a great shot if Johns

and Kubes plan of adding emphasis on the run game comes to fruition. May the ZBS be at its finest this year and may Booker be a wonderful

surprise to us all!

Not to mention Lynch.......hopes hes under center by week 10 with that arm and mobility.

I doubt we can clinch playoff homefield by Week 10, and hope Sanchez isn't so awful we must switch to Lynch anyway. For one thing, that would almost certainly mean our line remains so awful neither our run NOR pass game can do squat, which wouldn't exactly put Lynch in a position to succeed. We really do need to build a solid balanced OFFENSE, and BEFORE grooming a QB to lead it, else every QB we ask to try must end up badly and permanently broken (in every sense.)

Wolfe's a bona fide stud Elway did well to lock up though, yeah. Who doesn't love guys who do ALL aspects of their job at an elite level? You don't have to make tradeoffs depending on what the down/play is, which saves limited money and rosters spots you don't have to waste finding three guys to play a single position. I'd rather have 2-3 Wolfes than 2-3 plodding run stoppers AND 2-3 lightweight pass rushers, then try to shuffle them all back and forth before the next snap.

Compleat players are more than worth the high salaries they command.

Originally Posted by Joel

I doubt we can clinch playoff homefield by Week 10, and hope Sanchez isn't so awful we must switch to Lynch anyway. For one thing, that would almost certainly mean our line remains so awful neither our run NOR pass game can do squat, which wouldn't exactly put Lynch in a position to succeed. We really do need to build a solid balanced OFFENSE, and BEFORE grooming a QB to lead it, else every QB we ask to try must end up badly and permanently broken (in every sense.)

Wolfe's a bona fide stud Elway did well to lock up though, yeah. Who doesn't love guys who do ALL aspects of their job at an elite level? You don't have to make tradeoffs depending on what the down/play is, which saves limited money and rosters spots you don't have to waste finding three guys to play a single position. I'd rather have 2-3 Wolfes than 2-3 plodding run stoppers AND 2-3 lightweight pass rushers, then try to shuffle them all back and forth before the next snap.

Compleat players are more than worth the high salaries they command.

Assuming Sanchez is the starter wouldn't necessarily mean that offensive line struggling it could just easily mean Sanchez is struggling.

When you say "we should build solid balance offense before we groom quarterback are implying Denver shouldn't draft Lynch?

I thought he was just going to deadlift it, but he cleaned it.....500 pounds like it was nothing.

Good grief, he's like Justin Smith 2.0.

Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor

I thought he was just going to deadlift it, but he cleaned it.....500 pounds like it was nothing.

Good grief, he's like Justin Smith 2.0.

Some have compared him to J.J. Watt which to me isn't a very good comparison. But Justin Smith otoh is a very good comparision.

You guys ever fart doing a deadlift?

Originally Posted by Jaded

You guys ever fart doing a deadlift?

Yes.

Originally Posted by WARHORSE

http://broncoswire.usatoday.com/2016...unt-of-weight/


This cat is a stud. That looked SO easy. I really pray for the health of our team this year. (and all the teams) I feel we got a great shot if Johns

and Kubes plan of adding emphasis on the run game comes to fruition. May the ZBS be at its finest this year and may Booker be a wonderful

surprise to us all!

Not to mention Lynch.......hopes hes under center by week 10 with that arm and mobility.

Great post WARHORSE.
I saw that vid of that lift Friday and texted it to a friend.
Awesome indeed !
Think Derek will be ready for the Panthers ? Pity poor Cam !!
Made me start thinking of getting a Wolfe jersey for this season !!!

.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

Assuming Sanchez is the starter wouldn't necessarily mean that offensive line struggling it could just easily mean Sanchez is struggling.

Sanchez would have to be pretty bad to throw a rookie to the wolves behind a dubious line. Why risk the franchise just to squeak into a one-and-done WC spot. Let Sanchez keep taking those lumps while Lynch watches and learns, because all the alternative gets you is worse draft picks and a beat up (possibly shell shocked) QB.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

When you say "we should build solid balance offense before we groom quarterback are implying Denver shouldn't draft Lynch?

Tough call, but I still lean that way. The best QB of all time's useless if you can't keep him upright or give him the ground game to keep the pass rush or coverage LBs honest—and that's not even hyperbole: No QB has EVER even sniffed a passing season as consistently elite as Mannings 2013, but how much good was it in the SB? Our D played great even at half strength, yet still trailed 22-0 at the half because we didn't even have a FIRST DOWN till halfway through the SECOND QUARTER.

A lot depends on what's available in a given draft; if there's loads of top QB prospects and NO blockers worthy of the name, spending early picks on linemen and waiting for a QB just gets you screwed twice. But GENERALLY speaking I'd rather build a line to protect our franchise QB and give him run support than go through a revolving door under center that's expensive both in terms of draft picks and salaries yet STILL leaves you at 6-10 after half a dozen futile seasons.

Certainly the LAST thing I want is to get a once-in-a-lifetime passing talent with all the tools, only to immediately and permanently cripple him. How much is Andrew Luck or Peyton Manning worth without protection and run support? About as much as Oliver Luck and Archie Manning were. But how much better is Derek Carr than David ever was? It's hard to bounce back from >200 sacks in just 4 seasons; he ate 41 the next year and never again played more than half a season.

Getting back to the notion that you build a team and then get the QB when you're done, which is stupid.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Getting back to the notion that you build a team and then get the QB when you're done, which is stupid.

Which is easier, cheaper and more time consuming: Finding 51 starting caliber players, or 1? Which will win you more games sooner and longer?

Which can more easily make up for the others absence? Which is more likely to have its CAREER RUINED by the others absence?

Which is more often available in any given draft? Yes, most drafts are stronger/weaker than others at certain positions—but you don't get to pick and choose which of those seasons you have a high draft pick: So what's more likely to be available when you DO have a top draft pick, a QB or a [whatever position(s) you suck at]? Which is easier to trade for when you don't have it but do have the other, a starting caliber QB, or starting caliber EVERYTHING ELSE?

Ask Luck, or Carr, or RGIII or God only knows how many other talented QBs what's in store for top passers stuck in awful offenses. Ask Baltimore or Pitt how far an elite TEAM can go with a QB who's merely "good enough." THAT'S the difference between "win now" and "win from now on."

In our particular case this year, "QB" happened to be one of our biggest needs, arguably THE biggest. But it also just so happened that two of the few challengers for the title were the OTs and OGs to protect [your passer here] and provide him enough run support he didn't have to be a one-man offense while running for his life from starting NFL defenders who knew very well that not only was our offense helpless without him, HE was helpless against the rush without our offense.

We can talk about Kubiaks Texans and the nonexistent options McNair allowed him to replace Schaub: A 5th rounder one year, a UDFA the next (oh, and Matt Leinart after he flamed out in Arizona.) But that's not a purely academic discussion for me, any more than it was watching Warren Moon get blindsided countless times so I could hear fellow "fans" cuss out "that choker who's always fumbling." The QB is the single most important player, but can only do so much.

Originally Posted by Joel

Which is easier, cheaper and more time consuming: Finding 51 starting caliber players, or 1? Which will win you more games sooner and longer?

Which can more easily make up for the others absence? Which is more likely to have its CAREER RUINED by the others absence?

Which is more often available in any given draft? Yes, most drafts are stronger/weaker than others at certain positions—but you don't get to pick and choose which of those seasons you have a high draft pick: So what's more likely to be available when you DO have a top draft pick, a QB or a [whatever position(s) you suck at]? Which is easier to trade for when you don't have it but do have the other, a starting caliber QB, or starting caliber EVERYTHING ELSE?

Ask Luck, or Carr, or RGIII or God only knows how many other talented QBs what's in store for top passers stuck in awful offenses. Ask Baltimore or Pitt how far an elite TEAM can go with a QB who's merely "good enough." THAT'S the difference between "win now" and "win from now on."

In our particular case this year, "QB" happened to be one of our biggest needs, arguably THE biggest. But it also just so happened that two of the few challengers for the title were the OTs and OGs to protect [your passer here] and provide him enough run support he didn't have to be a one-man offense while running for his life from starting NFL defenders who knew very well that not only was our offense helpless without him, HE was helpless against the rush without our offense.

We can talk about Kubiaks Texans and the nonexistent options McNair allowed him to replace Schaub: A 5th rounder one year, a UDFA the next (oh, and Matt Leinart after he flamed out in Arizona.) But that's not a purely academic discussion for me, any more than it was watching Warren Moon get blindsided countless times so I could hear fellow "fans" cuss out "that choker who's always fumbling." The QB is the single most important player, but can only do so much.

You pat yourself as being logical and all you show much of time is you don't diddly squat.

You asked the question which is easier building the team first or drafting a franchise quarterback? If that's case then it doesn't matter what comes first. Any GM that would pass an Elway, a Marino, a Luck, or the Mannings is a fool. Pittsburg (post '70s) got to all of one Super Bowl with an average quarterback and they lost. They've been to three othesr since O' Donnell and they won two of them with a franchise quarterback. Most team that have one a Superbowl have done it with a franchise quarterback. A few teams have won a Super Bowl with journeyman quarterback but none have ever repeated that same journeyman quarterback. Unless you consider Jim Plunkett who won two for the Raiders ('80 and '83).

Originally Posted by Joel

I doubt we can clinch playoff homefield by Week 10, and hope Sanchez isn't so awful we must switch to Lynch anyway. For one thing, that would almost certainly mean our line remains so awful neither our run NOR pass game can do squat, which wouldn't exactly put Lynch in a position to succeed. We really do need to build a solid balanced OFFENSE, and BEFORE grooming a QB to lead it, else every QB we ask to try must end up badly and permanently broken (in every sense.)

Wolfe's a bona fide stud Elway did well to lock up though, yeah. Who doesn't love guys who do ALL aspects of their job at an elite level? You don't have to make tradeoffs depending on what the down/play is, which saves limited money and rosters spots you don't have to waste finding three guys to play a single position. I'd rather have 2-3 Wolfes than 2-3 plodding run stoppers AND 2-3 lightweight pass rushers, then try to shuffle them all back and forth before the next snap.

Compleat players are more than worth the high salaries they command.

How do you figure that Lynch playing in week 10 is 'almost certainly' the reason for a QB change? Can it be that Lynchs ability,like that DEEP arm, mobility, strength, etc and being more comfortable with the offense could supplant Pancho Sanchez? Completely redundant post imo.

Not that I dont feel you have a right to an opinion......it just looks WAY outta place.

Originally Posted by Slick

That's a bad, bad man.