Marshawn Lynch

[fraguela09]

In SI (Sports Illustrated) latest issue... they predict Cal RB Marshawn Lynch will win Rookie-of-the-YEar next year in NFL. COuld he achieve such a feat in a Bronco uniform?

[mrbrightside111]

we won't draft him and don't need him either, i want gaines adams or the DE from Georgia.

[fraguela09]

I agree with taking a DL with first pick... but... as always... take best available player with top picks, despite the team's need. I mean, I would rather have the draft's best LB or RB then take the 4th or 5th best DE/DT. Obviously, that WR Johnson from Georgia Tech will not be around nor would A.Peterson... You think we take DL or draft a Safety, and look to fill DL role via free agency?

[DancingHorsey]

First of all, I doubt we'd have a shot at him as our pick will likely be the bottom third of the league. Second of all, and I want your undivided attention here as I point out the obvious, we DON'T need a RB in the first round, we need a DT. :rolleyes:

[fraguela09]

Yeah... you have to take the bigges-most-athletc-300-plus-pass-rushing-stud available with our first rounder and hope scouts earn their moeny this year. I say with second pick... A Safety!

[Sam24]

Yeah... you have to take the bigges-most-athletc-300-plus-pass-rushing-stud available with our first rounder and hope scouts earn their moeny this year. I say with second pick... A Safety!
That sounds like a logical thing to do, but shanny has always preached, that you take the best player available and if Marshawn is there we will be taking him.
Also a safety is a need, but its rumored that Denver will select a fullback by the name of Brian Leonard or LeRon McClain.

[DancingHorsey]

That sounds like a logical thing to do, but shanny has always preached, that you take the best player available and if Marshawn is there we will be taking him.
Also a safety is a need, but its rumored that Denver will select a fullback by the name of Brian Leonard or LeRon McClain.

That whole "take the best player" thing is so stupid. Which is the better fruit? Apples or oranges? Isn't it obvious? :rolleyes:

[halfback]

i would rather have tony hunt from penn state, he is big, strong and more of a north south runner like denver has had success in the past with

[Sam24]

That whole "take the best player" thing is so stupid. Which is the better fruit? Apples or oranges? Isn't it obvious? :rolleyes:
Hey take it easy, Im putting this into Shannys head but that you know as well as I do that, that is how he views the draft.

Maybe you are so "the word you mentioned" :rolleyes:

[DancingHorsey]

Hey take it easy, Im putting this into Shannys head but that you know as well as I do that, that is how he views the draft.

Maybe you are so "the word you mentioned" :rolleyes:

Maybe you shouldn't be so sensitive. I wasn't calling you stupid. By the way, I'm pretty sure Shanny uses that whole line so people leave him alone about his picks, not because he actually believes it. In fact, the way he's often reached for WRs with his picks should pretty muh tell you he's full of it.

[Sevenis7]

First of all, I doubt we'd have a shot at him as our pick will likely be the bottom third of the league. Second of all, and I want your undivided attention here as I point out the obvious, we DON'T need a RB in the first round, we need a DT. :rolleyes:

And the reason we don't need a RB is??? Oh yeah, we have Tatum (Mr. Durable) Bell and Mike (Can't pick up the blitz) Bell. Yeah, why try to help a young QB by getting a stud RB to help carry the offensive load....

D-line can be addressed via FA or in following rounds. We don't need a "name" DT, just some big dude that will occupy blockers so our LBs can make plays.

[DancingHorsey]

And the reason we don't need a RB is??? Oh yeah, we have Tatum (Mr. Durable) Bell and Mike (Can't pick up the blitz) Bell. Yeah, why try to help a young QB by getting a stud RB to help carry the offensive load....

D-line can be addressed via FA or in following rounds. We don't need a "name" DT, just some big dude that will occupy blockers so our LBs can make plays.

Silly me, I thought it was intregal to a teams success to be able to create a pass rush, but I guess it's better to cherry-pick RBs. :rolleyes:

[hardcorebronco]

First of all, I doubt we'd have a shot at him as our pick will likely be the bottom third of the league. Second of all, and I want your undivided attention here as I point out the obvious, we DON'T need a RB in the first round, we need a DT. :rolleyes:
Dont need a rb?????? :fight:
Tatum Bell: 937 yards. 4.4 average 2 td's 3 fumbles.
The stats here speak for themself. If we dont get a quality back here soon, the Broncos will have the worst running game in the league. the famous 1,000 yard mark is not a great as it used to be. expecially when 2 other rushers in our own division have 1,626 and 1,516 yards ea. TWO TD'S??? good grief, mike anderson had 12 last year and that was splitting carries with tatum here. the three fumbles are on the high side compared to other elite backs in this league...
The Broncos desperately need a good rb, i dont care if its Lynch or not.... just so long as tatum isnt the full time starter!!!!!!!!!!

[fraguela09]

I hear Jets want Turner... should denver try to to sign him? Would he want to come? Would SD allow that? Maybe we sign Marshall Faulk or Priest Holmes... hehehehe!

[hardcorebronco]

I hear Jets want Turner... should denver try to to sign him? Would he want to come? Would SD allow that? Maybe we sign Marshall Faulk or Priest Holmes... hehehehe!
lol turner would probly work out well. Hey, faulk or holmes may outdo tatum! lol :D

[DancingHorsey]

Dont need a rb?????? :fight:
Tatum Bell: 937 yards. 4.4 average 2 td's 3 fumbles.
The stats here speak for themself. If we dont get a quality back here soon, the Broncos will have the worst running game in the league. the famous 1,000 yard mark is not a great as it used to be. expecially when 2 other rushers in our own division have 1,626 and 1,516 yards ea. TWO TD'S??? good grief, mike anderson had 12 last year and that was splitting carries with tatum here. the three fumbles are on the high side compared to other elite backs in this league...
The Broncos desperately need a good rb, i dont care if its Lynch or not.... just so long as tatum isnt the full time starter!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't say we didn't need better backs, I was simply stating that we don't need to use our 1st pick for one. We haven't been losing because of a lack of a rushing game (which is still solid), we've been losing because QBs have had the time to write novels when dropping back against us. By the way, it's easier to get good backs in later rounds than almost any other position, so we may well still get a good rookie back next year.

[TU_HurricaneDB]

Well Adams and Moses will both be gone by the time we draft so trading down for an extra pick woul be wise. Then we have a shot at Woodley, Crowder or a Safety.

Two things:

1) We DO need a RB. This is because the current RB's on our roster have major flaws.
Tatum Bell: Great speed but gets arm tackled way too much, can't sustain a drive because of the inability to break tackles, and he is as we all know very injury prone.
Mike Bell: Good hard nose runner but lacks speed getting threw the line (on occassion) and pass defenders, and has trouble reading blocks sometimes as well. Is best fit for a rotation back.
Cedric Cobbs: Excelent size for the type of hard nose runner we have had in the past but is not a real option for the main back.
Damien Nash: Decent back with nice blend of size but tries to cut back instead of pressing the hole first and really not sure he couldshine for us, more of a 3rd down back


2) We have viable options at DT with Warren and Veal (we do need to replace Myers and get one more though), we need pash rushers and solid athletes at DE. The wait and react defense needs pass rushing DE to get pressure not role playing backups.


And as far as dont take the best player, why would u pass up Michael Hordan just because ur have a shooting guard. I know thats a basketball metaphore but the same principle applys in all sports.

[BigBroncLove]

That whole "take the best player" thing is so stupid. Which is the better fruit? Apples or oranges? Isn't it obvious? :rolleyes:

I disagree whole heartedly. We've all seen the foley of coaches picking players that fit their needs in the 1st and 2nd round instead of grabbing the best available player, usually with the effect of grabbing someone who fits your systems needs, but doesn't become a real effective player *cough* *cough* Foster *cough* *cough*.

However look at the grab of Cutler. We didn't ned to address the QB position after last years run to the AFCCG, but we picked him up because Shannahna saw talent and went after it. If someone of great talent is still available in the 1st round (such as Marshawn Lynch, Adrian Peterson, or others) then I say we grab him. Otherwsie we'll grab someone who might fill a hole for us for a couple of years instead of grabbing a franchise capable player.

In the latter rounds 3 - 7, I think you have to address picks by the needs of the team, but the first and second round should be looking for the best available players and how they would fit into your scheme. Obviously some positions are out the window for the draft this year (QB and TE IMO) for all draft picks, but to choose to attack the first round based upon position instead of skill/ability more often then nought will leave a team with a good enough player to start, but not a great enough player to help create wins...

Just my :2cents:

Oh, and on a side note, I think that the most important positions to fill this year are in the trenches, and they have to be addressed, but I still stand by what I posted...

[DancingHorsey]

We have viable options at DT with Warren and Veal (we do need to replace Myers and get one more though), we need pash rushers and solid athletes at DE. The wait and react defense needs pass rushing DE to get pressure not role playing backups.


We do not have "viable" options at DT. Warren has been sorely disapointing, and the rest have done nothing. If you watch our pass rush, or lack thereof, the primary problem is that our interior linemen aren't pushing the pocket, and so when our DEs manage to get around the edge the opposing QB can just step up into a nice cozy pocket and then complete yet another pass for a first down. IMO our needs are as follows:

1) DT
2) DE
3) Safety
4) RB

I'm hard-pressed to understand why this isn't obvious to the rest of you. :confused:

[BigBroncLove]

Well Adams and Moses will both be gone by the time we draft so trading down for an extra pick woul be wise. Then we have a shot at Woodley, Crowder or a Safety.

Two things:

1) We DO need a RB. This is because the current RB's on our roster have major flaws.
Tatum Bell: Great speed but gets arm tackled way too much, can't sustain a drive because of the inability to break tackles, and he is as we all know very injury prone.
Mike Bell: Good hard nose runner but lacks speed getting threw the line (on occassion) and pass defenders, and has trouble reading blocks sometimes as well. Is best fit for a rotation back.
Cedric Cobbs: Excelent size for the type of hard nose runner we have had in the past but is not a real option for the main back.
Damien Nash: Decent back with nice blend of size but tries to cut back instead of pressing the hole first and really not sure he couldshine for us, more of a 3rd down back


2) We have viable options at DT with Warren and Veal (we do need to replace Myers and get one more though), we need pash rushers and solid athletes at DE. The wait and react defense needs pass rushing DE to get pressure not role playing backups.


And as far as dont take the best player, why would u pass up Michael Hordan just because ur have a shooting guard. I know thats a basketball metaphore but the same principle applys in all sports.

I personally feel that the most important position to fill on the D-Line is the DT position. While our DE's are not league leaders, they are the most productive group of D-Linemen on the field for the Broncos. Dumerville and Lang both lead the D-Line in sacks, and both look ot be able to hold their own against the majority of offensive lines in the league. I think we need to look for someone who could become a massive threat at DE if a good DT is not available in the early rounds, but there are, and it seems to me that our DT's are the least reliable and least productive group on the D-Line for the Broncos.

Now I know our system usually relies on our DT gobbling up 2 OL so other positions can try and create more pressure (something Warren is supposed to excel at) but none hte less I see our DT's getting beat one on one very often. Warren inperticular is excessively overpayed for what he produces on the field. Being one of the leading payed DT's in the league, he should be creating more pressure on a game in and game out basis.

Personally I think Myers does a pretty good job on the D-Line. He's definately not starter worthy, but as far as a substitute goes, he does a good job of collapsing the pocket on several occassions this year

Veal, IMO, is the only DT we have that looks like he could pan out to become a better player as the seasons progress. Warren looks to have reached his peak in his ability to produce (and once again, he doesn't do terribly, but for how much he's paid, he doesn't do enough). and Myers is not a starter worthy DT. As far as the D-Line goes, I think DT are paramount in comparison to our DE's.

As for an RB, I think it's paramount for us to grab a better powerback. Whether he is a 1st round future of the organization back, or a FA/Draft grab that will fill our power RB hole that Anderson left behind, doesn't much matter to me. The wya our running game has performed this year (Ranked 5th in the NFL) I think we need to get spme type of power running back into our game, but if we had another year of running by committee, splitting time between one of the Bells and a new power RB, that would be fine with me. We have so much to address (DL, OL, Safety, etc., etc.) if we decided to not pickup an RB i nthe draft, I wouldn't be excessively worried. It's all about the DL and OL this off season IMO.

Go Broncos

[DancingHorsey]

I disagree whole heartedly. We've all seen the foley of coaches picking players that fit their needs in the 1st and 2nd round instead of grabbing the best available player, usually with the effect of grabbing someone who fits your systems needs, but doesn't become a real effective player *cough* *cough* Foster *cough* *cough*.

However look at the grab of Cutler. We didn't ned to address the QB position after last years run to the AFCCG, but we picked him up because Shannahna saw talent and went after it. If someone of great talent is still available in the 1st round (such as Marshawn Lynch, Adrian Peterson, or others) then I say we grab him. Otherwsie we'll grab someone who might fill a hole for us for a couple of years instead of grabbing a franchise capable player.

In the latter rounds 3 - 7, I think you have to address picks by the needs of the team, but the first and second round should be looking for the best available players and how they would fit into your scheme. Obviously some positions are out the window for the draft this year (QB and TE IMO) for all draft picks, but to choose to attack the first round based upon position instead of skill/ability more often then nought will leave a team with a good enough player to start, but not a great enough player to help create wins...

Just my :2cents:

Oh, and on a side note, I think that the most important positions to fill this year are in the trenches, and they have to be addressed, but I still stand by what I posted...

My point is that it's nearly impossible to tell who the "best" player is.

[tommy1986]

Marshawn Lynch is a special talent similar to Reggie Bush. I am not saying he is a Reggie Bush clone but that he can return kicks, catch out of the backfield, and run inside. I see a future version of LT in this guy, I really do. I would take him over any D-lineman in the draft with the possible exception of Alan Branch.

[BigBroncLove]

My point is that it's nearly impossible to tell who the "best" player is.

That's what the draft's all about, taking a shot on a player you think is going to become a great player. With every pick you can't possibly be sure your picking "the best" available player, whether its by position or hoping they are the "best" player out there, but you take a shot, pray, and hope your intuition is right. If coaches thought they couldn't pick the "best" player out there, once again by position or overall, then we wouldn't have a draft.

That's why they have the combines and coaching staffs review so much film (and I mean a whole hell of a lot of film) of incoming players. To try and make as educated a guess as they can.

[MHS]

the only thing i am thinking is.. when is the last time shanny has stayed put in the 1st round.. its been like 4 years... so you never know what could happen. But i say we trade up tp get gaines adams

[BigBroncLove]

the only thing i am thinking is.. when is the last time shanny has stayed put in the 1st round.. its been like 4 years... so you never know what could happen. But i say we trade up tp get gaines adams

If we trade up to get a higher draft, I salivate at the idea of grabbing Adrian Peterson. Despite his injury, I think this guy is gonna be huge in the NFL (same with Lynch I suppose, but I think Lynch will need a year of off and on touches to develop into massive threat in the NFL). It's a moot point, Peterson will probably go far earlier then we could trade up to anyhow...

[LoyalSoldier]

Dont need a rb?????? :fight:
Tatum Bell: 937 yards. 4.4 average 2 td's 3 fumbles.
The stats here speak for themself. If we dont get a quality back here soon, the Broncos will have the worst running game in the league. the famous 1,000 yard mark is not a great as it used to be. expecially when 2 other rushers in our own division have 1,626 and 1,516 yards ea. TWO TD'S??? good grief, mike anderson had 12 last year and that was splitting carries with tatum here. the three fumbles are on the high side compared to other elite backs in this league...
The Broncos desperately need a good rb, i dont care if its Lynch or not.... just so long as tatum isnt the full time starter!!!!!!!!!!

Our D-Line is in much worse shape than RB. RB is something Denver can fix without nearly as much trouble.

Marshawn Lynch is a special talent similar to Reggie Bush. I am not saying he is a Reggie Bush clone but that he can return kicks, catch out of the backfield, and run inside. I see a future version of LT in this guy, I really do. I would take him over any D-lineman in the draft with the possible exception of Alan Branch.

Yea haven't heard that one before.....

[silkamilkamonic]

It's a good possability that the draft will be thin at RB.

Lynch isn't a Junior, and when appraoched about leaving for the draft, doesn't sound sure either way.

Adrian Peterson has battled injuries at OU, and has more tread on him then some 2nd-3rd year RB's. I hope we stay away from AP, cause I think his NFL career will be short.

Once the combine comes around, you're going to see Kenny Irons draft stock completely skyrocket.

[WABronco]

I'd much, much rather take a "faller" back with high upside and address our other, bigger needs earlier.

[Sevenis7]

We do not have "viable" options at DT. Warren has been sorely disapointing, and the rest have done nothing. If you watch our pass rush, or lack thereof, the primary problem is that our interior linemen aren't pushing the pocket, and so when our DEs manage to get around the edge the opposing QB can just step up into a nice cozy pocket and then complete yet another pass for a first down. IMO our needs are as follows:

1) DT
2) DE
3) Safety
4) RB

I'm hard-pressed to understand why this isn't obvious to the rest of you. :confused:

DH, I haven't said that D-line isn't a problem. As I stated earlier, I think it will probably be addressed in FA. (Keep an eye on Cincy's RDE Justin Smith this Sunday...Hint, hint.) DT can be addressed in draft or vice-versa.

To me, D-line is a bigger crapshoot than RB, and IMO there is a bigger drop-off in talent from round to round at RB than there is at D-line. We just need some big dude to clog running lanes and occupy blockers; this frees up others to make plays whether forcing other teams' RBs wide or allowing DEs or LBs to put pressure/make tackles.

[24SuperChamp]

I hear Jets want Turner... should denver try to to sign him? Would he want to come? Would SD allow that? Maybe we sign Marshall Faulk or Priest Holmes... hehehehe!


Turner maybe, the other two NO

[24SuperChamp]

Marshawn Lynch is a special talent similar to Reggie Bush. I am not saying he is a Reggie Bush clone but that he can return kicks, catch out of the backfield, and run inside. I see a future version of LT in this guy, I really do. I would take him over any D-lineman in the draft with the possible exception of Alan Branch.

Hahaha, still oving that fat kid!

[MHS]

i would hate for us to get irons.. he was a one year wonder in college and wont do much in the pros... doesnt have great size or speed.

[BigBroncLove]

i would hate for us to get irons.. he was a one year wonder in college and wont do much in the pros... doesnt have great size or speed.

I agree... I don't think Irons will be a truely effective back in the NFL. After watching a few of his games this season, I feel that he relies to much on the OL to create plays.

The great backs find ways to make plays on their own on a fairly regular basis...

[Chidoze]

Didnt Shanahan say after the last draft that he was all ready to take Moroney with the 15th pick until he found another team to trade with to get higher? If that is true, you can count on him looking for some offensive firepower in the next draft. Whether it's Lynch or whoever, he'll go after em.

[BF_forever]

It's a good possability that the draft will be thin at RB.

Lynch isn't a Junior, and when appraoched about leaving for the draft, doesn't sound sure either way.

Adrian Peterson has battled injuries at OU, and has more tread on him then some 2nd-3rd year RB's. I hope we stay away from AP, cause I think his NFL career will be short.

Once the combine comes around, you're going to see Kenny Irons draft stock completely skyrocket.

I heard that AP's draft stock could go up because of less wear and tear on his body because of resting during injuries.

I would still rather have lynch. I dont like injury prone backs.

[NickTranOwnz]

Eh, I like our backs. Both Bells, Nash, Johnson, and Sapp are good enough for me. A frequent rotation is good enough. I don't care if they have bad stats, I only care if we have good fresh running backs that lead us to the end zone every game.

But we need more Dumervils in the line to apply pressure.

But for the most part, we need Coyer to call more blitzes and the D-line coaches to tell the guys to apply more pressure.

[ChrisSimpy]

We do not have "viable" options at DT. Warren has been sorely disapointing, and the rest have done nothing. If you watch our pass rush, or lack thereof, the primary problem is that our interior linemen aren't pushing the pocket, and so when our DEs manage to get around the edge the opposing QB can just step up into a nice cozy pocket and then complete yet another pass for a first down. IMO our needs are as follows:

1) DT
2) DE
3) Safety
4) RB

I'm hard-pressed to understand why this isn't obvious to the rest of you. :confused:
you answered your own question in there you said in your opinion other people have other opinons personally i will be happy if we get marshawn lynch or a DL or whatever

[Morambar]

we won't draft him and don't need him either, i want gaines adams or the DE from Georgia.

but our only back who can block is Kyle Johnson. Mike can get short yardage but is a poor receiver; Tatum is a decent receiver but has 2 TDs because he can't get short yardage. And you'd rather have a DE. I'd rather have more than one good DT, a RG and a back who can pass block, catch, get short yardage and actually finish games and seasons. Especially since we have a rookie QB who's our only guy and will probably have a second year RT starting next year. I don't know if Lynch will be able to pickup the blitz and catch out of college, or that any other college back will; I'm thinking more along the lines of FA. But DE, along with WR and CB, is the one area where I don't want us to waste picks on anyone.

[Morambar]

Our D-Line is in much worse shape than RB. RB is something Denver can fix without nearly as much trouble.

If you mean "Denver can find someone to gain 1000 yards in their zone blocking system" then, yeah, you're right; Tatum will do that this year (assuming he's starting against Cincy; early in the week we were hearing he's injured again. ) If you mean "Denver can just find any ol' guy who can keep LBs off Cutler neck, catch screen passes and punch it in against NFL defensive lines on 4th and G at the 2, and do it for 60:00 sixteen weeks a year" then you're mental; we've spent two years trying to do that and the best we have to show for it is Tatum.

We have some great DEs who'll be stars once we have more than just Gerard Warren on our interior line. As it stands he draws double teams when he's healthy; when he's not (and getting double teamed sixteen games a year will take a toll) it leaves extra blockers free to deal with Lang and Ekuban, which is what we've seen. Anyone who can chase Alexander the width of the field for a two yard loss one on one the way Ekuban did can start for my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday. As good as Dumervil looks to be, don't you guys think there's a reason he's not starting? The problem is for all the people saying "we don't have the personnel to play a 3-4" that's exactly what our line is doing; they're just doing it without an extra LB. Which is probably why our ends have 20+ sacks and all four of our DTs combined have half a dozen. We need a standout, preferably two, but we don't need DEs.

And we need a running back who can do more than just rush for 1000 yards (assuming he's healthy) behind our zone blocking, because, quite frankly, any starting back in Denver should have 1000 yards a season easily. That doesn't pick up blitzes, provide a check down man or convert 3rd and 2 when the season's on the line (kinda like it is this weekend. )

[Morambar]

And the reason we don't need a RB is??? Oh yeah, we have Tatum (Mr. Durable) Bell and Mike (Can't pick up the blitz) Bell. Yeah, why try to help a young QB by getting a stud RB to help carry the offensive load....

D-line can be addressed via FA or in following rounds. We don't need a "name" DT, just some big dude that will occupy blockers so our LBs can make plays.

We need Gerard Warren to be our 2nd or 3rd best DT instead of our best. Then the LBs AND DEs can make plays; the DEs aren't doing bad considering they have to be a 2 man line when Warren's hurt, but our LBs have one, count 'em, ONE sack all year. Prob'ly because they really suck and we need to dump the scrubs and draft some stellar rookie, just like at DE.... :rolleyes:

I agree with you on the RB situation though; in fact I go further and say NEITHER Bell can pick up the blitz, which means we don't have a HB who can, and that's been a big problem, especially on third down. I don't like defenses being able to game plan us based on whether or not one of the Bells is in (run, because they can't pass block) or not (pass, because they're our only runners. ) What I really want is to go back to the days of Elway and TD, when coaches could watch game film all year long and STILL not know what we'd do in a given situation because we have the talent to run any play from a pro set. I don't expect to see anything like Elway and TD again any time soon, but we don't have to be that good to have some flexibility and versatility.

In football the offense has all the advantages; they call the plays, they snap the ball, tied possession goes to the receiver, quarter can't end on a defensive penalty. But that only works if the D can't take one look at who's on the field and say, "OK, it's so-and-so; that means they're running x. " That's what the guys pointing to Tatums rushing stats aren't seeing: just being a good runner in an offense with our run blocking isn't good enough. You need blocking, you need stamina, you need durability, you need to move the pile (2 TDs?!!! Dayne has more in four starts!) and you need to catch balls. Our line will get you to the open field: what else ya got...?

[Cire72]

I personally would like the Bronco's to pick up Quinn Pitcock, DT, Ohio State in the first round. I have seen every OSU game and this kids has a motor that doesn't quit. He also gets consistent pressure and in the back field a lot. I would agree we do need more interior D-Line pressure then we need a RB. We rarely have picked a RB in the first and been just fine.

Mike Bell is still young and learning and I think he will improve in time. I would like to see him play a full game without the rotation. I'm not really for that myself even though it works, I just feel our style of running requires more of a rhythm then some of the other systems in the game.

[WABronco]

If you mean "Denver can just find any ol' guy who can keep LBs off Cutler neck, catch screen passes and punch it in against NFL defensive lines on 4th and G at the 2, and do it for 60:00 sixteen weeks a year" then you're mental; we've spent two years trying to do that and the best we have to show for it is Tatum.

...not at all.

This is the first year in quite some time where we haven't had a legit every down back...or at least one who's established himself or been given the chance to do that.

We simply do not need the type of back you speak of to have a productive running game...years and years of statistics prove that. Just last year, without a no. 1 back, we had the most productive and efficient running game of the entire league (by quite a large margin as well, using effiency-based statistics). Before his injury, Tatum was worth the most to his offense (in terms of contributing to points scored compared to league average) than any other back in the league.

We have some great DEs who'll be stars once we have more than just Gerard Warren on our interior line.

That may be taking it a bit too far. Stars?

We need to improve the line as a whole. I simply do not agree that Lang/Ekuban is a legit starting DE combination. Neither player is a dynamic talent. Neither player is a great athlete. Neither player has much of a history of production. They are secondary players forced into a primary role by necessity (or ignorance).

As it stands he draws double teams when he's healthy; when he's not (and getting double teamed sixteen games a year will take a toll) it leaves extra blockers free to deal with Lang and Ekuban, which is what we've seen. Anyone who can chase Alexander the width of the field for a two yard loss one on one the way Ekuban did can start for my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Ekuban is a hustle player. Alexander can be an extremely hestitant runner at times. I wouldn't put too much into that single play.

As good as Dumervil looks to be, don't you guys think there's a reason he's not starting? The problem is for all the people saying "we don't have the personnel to play a 3-4" that's exactly what our line is doing; they're just doing it without an extra LB.

I'd say Dumervil isn't starting because he's severely undersized and he tires easily. He's a part-time player anyways, so I don't exactly get the drift of your thinking here.

Which is probably why our ends have 20+ sacks and all four of our DTs combined have half a dozen. We need a standout, preferably two, but we don't need DEs.

You're entitled to your opinion, but many would agree when I say our current corps of ends has nowhere near the level of talent that a top defense should have. Just go down the list--not one of them is a consistent pass-rush threat.

[mrbrightside111]

*** sorry mods but i gotta get this out :sad:


Are you guys retarded, what makes you think we need a RB. We do have the 2nd best RB dual in the nfl, yes i am not joking http://nfl.com/news/story/9885224, prove :coffee: . When tatum has an off night, mike steps it up and plays big and vice versa. And when we need the Points like inside the redzone, i think we are like 2nd best in the league to punch it in. And we have a rookie RB(undrafted) who has already rushed for 500+ yards and 7 freaking TD's with still 2 games left in the season. Our running game is very productive, but we need serious help at the DE, DT position. We have ranked at the bottom portion of the league for 3 straight years now, we have 29 sacks this year which ranks in the bottom 5. We lost Pryce in the offseason who has 12 sacks for baltimore and their defense is arguable better then ours. Remember last year we lead the league in QB hurries but didn't get sacks, that was because we had that punt block formation on defense for a while, it worked for a substainsly good amount of time but as we went deep into the season and the playoffs, teams found ways to beat it.


WE NEED PASS RUSHERS, GOOD DT'S, rush on the QB makes the secondary looks good and NO CB in the nfl can guard WR's for 10 seconds(with the exception of champ ofcourse), passrush creates turnovers, rushing the QB is a key to good defense, we need Pass rushers.

[CDizMYname]

lynch is a beast

[LoyalSoldier]

If you mean "Denver can find someone to gain 1000 yards in their zone blocking system" then, yeah, you're right; Tatum will do that this year (assuming he's starting against Cincy; early in the week we were hearing he's injured again. ) If you mean "Denver can just find any ol' guy who can keep LBs off Cutler neck, catch screen passes and punch it in against NFL defensive lines on 4th and G at the 2, and do it for 60:00 sixteen weeks a year" then you're mental; we've spent two years trying to do that and the best we have to show for it is Tatum.

We have some great DEs who'll be stars once we have more than just Gerard Warren on our interior line. As it stands he draws double teams when he's healthy; when he's not (and getting double teamed sixteen games a year will take a toll) it leaves extra blockers free to deal with Lang and Ekuban, which is what we've seen. Anyone who can chase Alexander the width of the field for a two yard loss one on one the way Ekuban did can start for my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday. As good as Dumervil looks to be, don't you guys think there's a reason he's not starting? The problem is for all the people saying "we don't have the personnel to play a 3-4" that's exactly what our line is doing; they're just doing it without an extra LB. Which is probably why our ends have 20+ sacks and all four of our DTs combined have half a dozen. We need a standout, preferably two, but we don't need DEs.

And we need a running back who can do more than just rush for 1000 yards (assuming he's healthy) behind our zone blocking, because, quite frankly, any starting back in Denver should have 1000 yards a season easily. That doesn't pick up blitzes, provide a check down man or convert 3rd and 2 when the season's on the line (kinda like it is this weekend. )


Strange didn't you just prove my point by saying we have an issue at DT? We had a 1500+ probowl back who was a beast, but guess what happened? We still went 10-6 because of the other issues with our team.

We can use extra backs, but as I said we have a huge and I mean huge problem on the D-Line. As several of the last superbowl winners have shown, you don't need a star running back, but you do need a pass rush.

[broncobulldog]

I say draft dwayne wright out of fresno state. He would be a great rb pickup in the later rounds.

[Morambar]

...not at all.

This is the first year in quite some time where we haven't had a legit every down back...or at least one who's established himself or been given the chance to do that.

We simply do not need the type of back you speak of to have a productive running game...years and years of statistics prove that. Just last year, without a no. 1 back, we had the most productive and efficient running game of the entire league (by quite a large margin as well, using effiency-based statistics). Before his injury, Tatum was worth the most to his offense (in terms of contributing to points scored compared to league average) than any other back in the league.

I believe I conceded that we don't need to replace either Bell to have a productive running game, at least in terms of yardage, and Mike at least seems to be able to grind 'em out in short yardage. That's not the issue because, as you yourself also concede and I've already stated, pretty much any back we put behind our line will gain 1000 yards. Tatum's missed four games and he only needs 73 more to get there. The issue is ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE NEED FROM A STARTING BACK!

Pass blocking: nope, sorry; talk to Kyle Johnson if you want that Jay. What's that you say? Your blindside's being covered by a talented rookie? Oh, well; sucks to be you....

Receiving: Tatum can do this reasonably well, but Mike hasn't established that he can do it consistently, though he had a nice one last week.

Short yardage: Mike can do this reasonably well, and has three times Tatums TDs as the BACKUP. Unfortunately his pass blocking, at least for now, is worse than Tatums and he's not a great check down man.

Durability: Hopefully Mike's got it, because Tatum clearly doesn't

Stamina: See above.

Again, the issue isn't just "we don't need a back; Tatum has almost 1000 yards. " Yeah, no kidding; when's the last time Denvers starter (and there've been many since TD retired) didn't?

That may be taking it a bit too far. Stars?

We need to improve the line as a whole. I simply do not agree that Lang/Ekuban is a legit starting DE combination. Neither player is a dynamic talent. Neither player is a great athlete. Neither player has much of a history of production. They are secondary players forced into a primary role by necessity (or ignorance).

That's not what their stats indicate.

Ebenezer Ekuban
Yr Team GS Tkl Solo Asst Sacks
1999 Cowboys 16 23 19.0 4 2.5
2000 Cowboys 12 28 21.0 7 6.5
2001 Cowboys 1 2 1.0 1
2002 Cowboys 16 31 26.0 5 1
2003 Cowboys 15 26 18.0 8 2.5
2004 Browns 16 37 28.0 9 8
2005 Broncos 16 27 19.0 8 4
2006 Broncos 13 49 37.0 12 5.5

Kenard Lang
1997 Redskins 11 34 25.0 9 1.5
1998 Redskins 16 54 46.0 8 7
1999 Redskins 16 36 33.0 3 6
2000 Redskins 16 16 16.0 0 3
2001 Redskins 16 65 50.0 15 4 (also had an Int this year)
2002 Browns 15 45 32.0 13 5.5 (another Int returned 71 yds, somehow, not for a TD)
2003 Browns 15 60 46.0 14 8 (and another Int)
2004 Browns 16 62 49.0 13 7
2005 Browns 16 41 28.0 13 2
2006 Broncos 14 31 25.0 6 6

Looks to me like a couple guys with a lot of starts every place they've ever played. Including here, for obvious reasons.

Ekuban is a hustle player. Alexander can be an extremely hestitant runner at times. I wouldn't put too much into that single play.

Ekuban is indeed a hustle player, and that's a good thing. I don't think Alexander was too "hesitant" on the play in question, but feel free to double check the tapes; he started right with his line, saw the D had read the play and took off to the left where there was NOBODY once he got around the corner. Fortunately for us, Ekuban made sure he didn't get around the corner. Or even make it to the line of scrimmage. And as he ran sideline to sideline to get around the end Alexander didn't hesitate at all; he was on a dead run. He just didn't get there because a 275 lb. DE ran him down from behind and tackled him in the backfield.

I'd say Dumervil isn't starting because he's severely undersized and he tires easily. He's a part-time player anyways, so I don't exactly get the drift of your thinking here.

He's 7 lbs. lighter than Lang, but he starts. I'm saying Dumervil is a future star and our sack leader but, unlike Lang and Ekuban, he's not starting his rookie year, and I don't think it's because there's just no way he could do it; it's because we have better ends in Ekuban and Lang.

You're entitled to your opinion, but many would agree when I say our current corps of ends has nowhere near the level of talent that a top defense should have. Just go down the list--not one of them is a consistent pass-rush threat.

They have been other places. Maybe not Pro Bowlers, but quite good. The difference is they have no help from the interior line here, just Warren when he's healthy and not being double teamed (which is never; they only time he's not double teamed is when he's playing hurt from being double teamed all season. ) Again, you can ignore the gaping hole in the middle of our line where our tackles are supposed to be getting push and collapsing pockets and say our ends only have 23 sacks because they're not starter quality. Is that also your explanation for why our LBs (widely considered the best 4-3 group) only have ONE sack all season? Or is it because the middle of our defensive line isn't occupying blockers and that leaves them free to deal with ends and LBs? Regardles, we need starter quality DTs more than we need ends, because as I see it (and maybe I'm wrong) we have 3.5 good ends and 1 good DT who's hurt a lot because he's having to do the job of two people.

[Morambar]

Strange didn't you just prove my point by saying we have an issue at DT? We had a 1500+ probowl back who was a beast, but guess what happened? We still went 10-6 because of the other issues with our team.

We can use extra backs, but as I said we have a huge and I mean huge problem on the D-Line. As several of the last superbowl winners have shown, you don't need a star running back, but you do need a pass rush.

I proved MY point; we just happen to agree on that one. If it helps clarify things my offseason priorities (for whatever they're worth) are:

DT(X2)
RG
RB who can pass block, catch move the pile, finish games/seasons, the first two probably needing a FA.

We don't need a star RB either; the issue, and I can't stress this enough, isn't the fact Tatum doesn't have 2000 yards. The issue is that neither he nor Mike can pick up the blitz, he can't move the pile and Mike hasn't shown himself to be a reliable check down man. That, and that Tatum missed games last year and four this year. Part of why we're wondering whom the starter is Sunday is talk about him getting hurt again last week. I might could live with that, but I can't live with my QB getting blindsided by an all out blitz and getting hurt and/or coughing up the football (Cutler has twice as many fumbles as Ints, though he only lost 2, thank God, but that doesn't happen when you protect your QB; Manning's fumbled twice ALL YEAR!) Or watching him drop back for a pass on 4th and 2 at SD even though he's only in his second game. 4th and 2 with the season on the line you don't ask your second game QB to pass, you have your starting RB hit the line for the first down. Unfortuately we don't have one of those, so we tried the pass, it was tipped incomplete and SD took over in our territory to see about extending that 8 point lead.

I'm not saying we need someone to win the rushing title, I'm saying we need someone to do EVERYTHING ELSE, and the top two in my book are 1) pickup the blitz and 2) move the pile. We need a HB who can be in there on third down and convert it on short yardage as well as pickup the blitz on long yardage so Cutler can convert it. What's so hard to get about this? Am I happy with our line? I'm thrilled with our ends; I just wish they didn't have to be a 3 man line with Warren. But that doesn't mean I'm satisfied with our backs by a long shot. Geez, I actually had to scroll up to make sure I wasn't getting into an off topic RB debate in a defensive line thread.... :P

Draft standout DT, draft standout guard who fits our system, acquire all around FA back. Do that, find a good FA backup for Cutler (Garcia looks good, if we can afford him; so does Brunell, though he's not young) and figure out which CB we want playing FS with Brandon so Lynch can play SS with Fergie and I'll happily shut up, sit back and await the Super Bowl. ;)

[WABronco]

I believe I conceded that we don't need to replace either Bell to have a productive running game, at least in terms of yardage, and Mike at least seems to be able to grind 'em out in short yardage. That's not the issue because, as you yourself also concede and I've already stated, pretty much any back we put behind our line will gain 1000 yards. Tatum's missed four games and he only needs 73 more to get there. The issue is ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE NEED FROM A STARTING BACK!

Pass blocking: nope, sorry; talk to Kyle Johnson if you want that Jay. What's that you say? Your blindside's being covered by a talented rookie? Oh, well; sucks to be you....

Receiving: Tatum can do this reasonably well, but Mike hasn't established that he can do it consistently, though he had a nice one last week.

Short yardage: Mike can do this reasonably well, and has three times Tatums TDs as the BACKUP. Unfortunately his pass blocking, at least for now, is worse than Tatums and he's not a great check down man.

Durability: Hopefully Mike's got it, because Tatum clearly doesn't

Stamina: See above.

Again, the issue isn't just "we don't need a back; Tatum has almost 1000 yards. " Yeah, no kidding; when's the last time Denvers starter (and there've been many since TD retired) didn't?

It seems I forgot to paste the rest of my response back in.

The gist of it was that there are maybe a handful of true, complete backs in the league today. To get one of similar ilk (at least potentially--Lynch hasn't exactly proven to be durable back at Cal), it would require massive investments in both the draft and in cap space.

Given our other needs, our current level of production, and the fact that you can address areas such as 3rd down back (Kenny Watson, UFA) and power-back (Dwayne Wright/Tyrone Moss) quite easily through other avenues I just don't buy the idea that we need to go all-out for a no. 1 back in this draft.

That's not what their stats indicate.

Ebenezer Ekuban
Yr Team GS Tkl Solo Asst Sacks
1999 Cowboys 16 23 19.0 4 2.5
2000 Cowboys 12 28 21.0 7 6.5
2001 Cowboys 1 2 1.0 1
2002 Cowboys 16 31 26.0 5 1
2003 Cowboys 15 26 18.0 8 2.5
2004 Browns 16 37 28.0 9 8
2005 Broncos 16 27 19.0 8 4
2006 Broncos 13 49 37.0 12 5.5

Kenard Lang
1997 Redskins 11 34 25.0 9 1.5
1998 Redskins 16 54 46.0 8 7
1999 Redskins 16 36 33.0 3 6
2000 Redskins 16 16 16.0 0 3
2001 Redskins 16 65 50.0 15 4 (also had an Int this year)
2002 Browns 15 45 32.0 13 5.5 (another Int returned 71 yds, somehow, not for a TD)
2003 Browns 15 60 46.0 14 8 (and another Int)
2004 Browns 16 62 49.0 13 7
2005 Browns 16 41 28.0 13 2
2006 Broncos 14 31 25.0 6 6

Looks to me like a couple guys with a lot of starts every place they've ever played. Including here, for obvious reasons.

You can pull out all the statistics you want--that doesn't change the fact that neither player is a consistent pass rush threat.

Ekuban is indeed a hustle player, and that's a good thing. I don't think Alexander was too "hesitant" on the play in question, but feel free to double check the tapes; he started right with his line, saw the D had read the play and took off to the left where there was NOBODY once he got around the corner. Fortunately for us, Ekuban made sure he didn't get around the corner. Or even make it to the line of scrimmage. And as he ran sideline to sideline to get around the end Alexander didn't hesitate at all; he was on a dead run. He just didn't get there because a 275 lb. DE ran him down from behind and tackled him in the backfield.

That's wonderful...and yes, I've seen that play many times before. So, pencil him in for starting LE next year, correct?

I'm pretty sure Engelberger's a hustle player too, and he forced a fumble last week in pursuit. Where's he starting next year?

He's 7 lbs. lighter than Lang, but he starts. I'm saying Dumervil is a future star and our sack leader but, unlike Lang and Ekuban, he's not starting his rookie year, and I don't think it's because there's just no way he could do it; it's because we have better ends in Ekuban and Lang.

The fact that he's 5-11 on a good day has nothing to do with that, right? The fact that he's been a successful pass rush specialist (one of two that we play in passing situations...for obvious reasons) also has no bearing on his potential starting status, right?

I'm not suggesting in any way that he should be a starter, either. I'm just saying that I don't think you're not making a valid argument.

Again, you can ignore the gaping hole in the middle of our line where our tackles are supposed to be getting push and collapsing pockets and say our ends only have 23 sacks because they're not starter quality.

I'm not ignoring anything--that seems to be your department. The defensive line needs to be improved as a whole (preferably starting at RE, then DT, then LE).

Notice how I haven't even brought up the complete dearth of youth on the defensive line, either.

Is that also your explanation for why our LBs (widely considered the best 4-3 group) only have ONE sack all season? Or is it because the middle of our defensive line isn't occupying blockers and that leaves them free to deal with ends and LBs? Regardles, we need starter quality DTs more than we need ends, because as I see it (and maybe I'm wrong) we have 3.5 good ends and 1 good DT who's hurt a lot because he's having to do the job of two people.

Apparently you haven't noticed the dramatic scale-back in blitzes this year from both the LB's and secondary. Not that it really matters, as not one of our starting backers is a capable blitzer (I share that opinion with many others).

We both want to address the DL, I just want to go RE first.

[NickTranOwnz]

I think we have good D-linemen already, but they could be better. But I also like the frequent rotations to keep the guys fresh and having something different on the D-line each play.

[Morambar]

It seems I forgot to paste the rest of my response back in.

The gist of it was that there are maybe a handful of true, complete backs in the league today. To get one of similar ilk (at least potentially--Lynch hasn't exactly proven to be durable back at Cal), it would require massive investments in both the draft and in cap space.

Given our other needs, our current level of production, and the fact that you can address areas such as 3rd down back (Kenny Watson, UFA) and power-back (Dwayne Wright/Tyrone Moss) quite easily through other avenues I just don't buy the idea that we need to go all-out for a no. 1 back in this draft.

Well, let me be clear: I don't mean to say a back who doesn't do so much as one of the things I listed well can't start for us. I just think it would be nice if we have a back who could do MORE than one of them. With a talented rookie QB and our zone blocking line all I really want is someone who can pick up the blitz, move the pile, and play the whole game/season. SOME receiving ability is probably necessary, but if he does those three things I wouldn't ask a lot more. I do NOT want to sign a bunch of different guys who can only do one: "this is our third and long pass blocker, this is our goal line guy, this is our checkdown man. " Because that's the same as telling 31 DCs "this is what we're running when this guy is in, this is what we're running when this guy is in.... " No, thanks.

Seems like only yesterday I was reading about this guy who was such a fearsome rusher in the open field AND at the goal line that his coach sent him back into the Super Bowl even though he could barely see because of a migraine, ran him on a fake left and the whole D followed him while his QB scored a TD. I miss those days, when defensive coordinators didn't know what we were going to do before we did just by looking at our personnel and recognizing what we CAN do. To be fair, I DO think this should be done through FA because I'm looking for NFL skills that are rarely at a high level fresh out of a Bowl game.

You can pull out all the statistics you want--that doesn't change the fact that neither player is a consistent pass rush threat.

*shrug* Considering all we've had at DT all year is a banged up (wonder why) Gerard Warren, I think those four DEs have done good to get 23 sacks practically unaided. And if you look at Warren and Langs stats as Browns (or Redskins/Cowboys; how'd those two end up on the same team twice?) I think they reflect that. The difference is they weren't alone then; I don't think Lang got those three Ints rushing the passer: someone ELSE rushed the passer, forced a bad throw, and there was Mr. Sticky Fingers to make a(nother) play.

That's wonderful...and yes, I've seen that play many times before. So, pencil him in for starting LE next year, correct?

Nah, just let him keep starting like he's done all year. Not like that's the only play he's made, though I think it's one of the more spectacular. I seem to remember hearing he made some nice plays last week, but don't quote me on that because !#!@$ local affiliate thought I should watch the Titans beat the Jags.

I'm pretty sure Engelberger's a hustle player too, and he forced a fumble last week in pursuit. Where's he starting next year?

He's not the leading tackler on our line. A better question would be where he's started in the past, because in Ekubans case I know the answer. Remember, I live in TX; I remember his rookie year with the Cowboys. Because he made plays. Still does.

The fact that he's 5-11 on a good day has nothing to do with that, right? The fact that he's been a successful pass rush specialist (one of two that we play in passing situations...for obvious reasons) also has no bearing on his potential starting status, right?

Isn't it the pass rushing that we're always getting our ends dogged on? You'd think as horrible as Lang and Ekuban are that pass rushing specialist would be in there more....

I'm not suggesting in any way that he should be a starter, either. I'm just saying that I don't think you're not making a valid argument.

Don't see any reason why he couldn't be. If he was better than the guys we've got, and a lot of folks seem to think he's pretty good (though being the sack leader his rookie year doesn't hurt. ) Are you saying he can't tackle runners are something? I'm not quite following what Ekuban and Lang bring to the table that he doesn't, especially since Lang has all of 7 lbs. on him.

I'm not ignoring anything--that seems to be your department. The defensive line needs to be improved as a whole (preferably starting at RE, then DT, then LE).

Unless you're ready, willing and able to shell out a lot o' cash we don't have the ends aren't getting any better any time soon, certainly not with the draft. The tackles, on the other hand, could be improved almost without trying. I do wish I knew more about Burton; the coaches must not think he's ready if he's not even in the rotation, but that aside we have one, count 'em ONE DT I'd want back next year. And you don't have much of a "rotation" with one guy. You can rest him, but if you don't have someone as good or better to sub you'll take a beating while you do. And heaven help you if, just as a hypothetical, the only guy who actually CAN collapse the pocket and occupy blockers gets double teamed constantly and gets hurt as a result. Now the offense has blockers free to deal with your ends. Who still managed to come up with all but half a dozen of your sacks.

Notice how I haven't even brought up the complete dearth of youth on the defensive line, either.

Well, the NFL won't let you sign 'em younger than Burton and Dumervil. Veal's in, what, his third year? Lang's been around a while, but should have several good years left, and Ekuban's in his prime.

Apparently you haven't noticed the dramatic scale-back in blitzes this year from both the LB's and secondary. Not that it really matters, as not one of our starting backers is a capable blitzer (I share that opinion with many others).

Depends on how you do it, but that's a whole other argument; reducing the blitzes still doesn't explain how three good LBs (one a Pro Bowl MLB) have ONE sack all year (and I've never liked the all out blitz, it's just asking to get picked apart with screens, delays, quick outs, quick slants, you name it, anything that happens just about the time your LBs are in the backfield hearing the QB say, "don't hit me! Ball's over there.... " ) It's sounds like you're saying what I never imagined you'd say: our LBs sack total is off 'cos they suck at rushing; our ends sack total is off 'cos they suck at rushing. Maybe instead of replacing the whole D we should think about replacing the guys who're supposed to make those blitzes possible. Maybe if offenses couldn't practically ignore Myers and double Warren, or go one on one with an injured Warren and Myers, maybe then we'd see more blitzes 'cos they'd actually have a snowballs chance of working....

We both want to address the DL, I just want to go RE first.

So it would seem Even if I concede Chucky and Engleberger are scrubs (which I'm not prepared to do; I haven't seen enough of them to form a conclusion) we've still got two quality starters and a rookie who'll probably be our starter next year or the one after. At DT we have Gerard Warren trying to do the work of two men and, worse, the PARTICULAR two men whose work he's trying to do are supposed to be tying up multiple blockers. "Go out there and shove those three guys in the QBs face, or at least make 'em block you so we can get to him, Gerard. " Hurt? I'm surprised he can WALK! It's time he had some quality help that would make our whole D better. Alternatively we can trade Ekuban and Lang and talk about how "so what if they have a dozen sacks with two weeks left; look who they're playing with!" Yeah, and who controls THAT?

[WABronco]

Well, let me be clear: I don't mean to say a back who doesn't do so much as one of the things I listed well can't start for us. I just think it would be nice if we have a back who could do MORE than one of them. With a talented rookie QB and our zone blocking line all I really want is someone who can pick up the blitz, move the pile, and play the whole game/season. SOME receiving ability is probably necessary, but if he does those three things I wouldn't ask a lot more. I do NOT want to sign a bunch of different guys who can only do one: "this is our third and long pass blocker, this is our goal line guy, this is our checkdown man. " Because that's the same as telling 31 DCs "this is what we're running when this guy is in, this is what we're running when this guy is in.... " No, thanks.

That's not what I'm proposing. I'm saying you don't have to go ape-**** all-out for a back that can "do it all." You can have role players...

To be fair, I DO think this should be done through FA because I'm looking for NFL skills.

...and the only "available" player who even comes close to having any type of potential in the multiple areas you speak of is Michael Turner. Unless he's coming with the third round tender, he's not leaving SD.

*shrug* Considering all we've had at DT all year is a banged up (wonder why) Gerard Warren, I think those four DEs have done good to get 23 sacks practically unaided. And if you look at Warren and Langs stats as Browns (or Redskins/Cowboys; how'd those two end up on the same team twice?) I think they reflect that. The difference is they weren't alone then; I don't think Lang got those three Ints rushing the passer: someone ELSE rushed the passer, forced a bad throw, and there was Mr. Sticky Fingers to make a(nother) play.

In 2004, when all three (Warren, Ekuban, Lang) were in Cleveland, they had a below-league-average pass rush (adjusted sack rate) and had the 2nd-to-worst run defending line in the league (adjusted line yards). The only area they were above average in was preventing runs of 10+ yards. There's that hustle again...

In 2003, when both Warren and Lang were present, they had a league average pass rush and a well below average run defending line.

Nah, just let him keep starting like he's done all year. Not like that's the only play he's made, though I think it's one of the more spectacular. I seem to remember hearing he made some nice plays last week, but don't quote me on that because !#!@$ local affiliate thought I should watch the Titans beat the Jags.

Like I said earlier, Ek (and Lang) has been a primary player by necessity.

He did make some nice plays because he was lined up inside on passing downs.

He's not the leading tackler on our line. A better question would be where he's started in the past, because in Ekubans case I know the answer. Remember, I live in TX; I remember his rookie year with the Cowboys. Because he made plays. Still does.

Your standards are extremely low...that's all I have to say to that.

Isn't it the pass rushing that we're always getting our ends dogged on? You'd think as horrible as Lang and Ekuban are that pass rushing specialist would be in there more....

You'd think with being called a "pass rushing specialist" would be rather self-explanatory.

Don't see any reason why he couldn't be. If he was better than the guys we've got, and a lot of folks seem to think he's pretty good (though being the sack leader his rookie year doesn't hurt. ) Are you saying he can't tackle runners are something? I'm not quite following what Ekuban and Lang bring to the table that he doesn't, especially since Lang has all of 7 lbs. on him.

I don't think you're grasping the reality of his short, smallish stature.

Unless you're ready, willing and able to shell out a lot o' cash we don't have the ends aren't getting any better any time soon, certainly not with the draft. The tackles, on the other hand, could be improved almost without trying. I do wish I knew more about Burton; the coaches must not think he's ready if he's not even in the rotation, but that aside we have one, count 'em ONE DT I'd want back next year. And you don't have much of a "rotation" with one guy. You can rest him, but if you don't have someone as good or better to sub you'll take a beating while you do. And heaven help you if, just as a hypothetical, the only guy who actually CAN collapse the pocket and occupy blockers gets double teamed constantly and gets hurt as a result. Now the offense has blockers free to deal with your ends. Who still managed to come up with all but half a dozen of your sacks.

We have plenty of cap space (projected) this offseason to make an impact signing. The fact that you don't recognize the draft as a way to improve our DL almost completely invalidates your post(s). We can invest a day one pick on an end and that player would almost surely be a plug-and-play improvement.

I agree, Myers could be improved upon. So could our starting end duo.

Well, the NFL won't let you sign 'em younger than Burton and Dumervil. Veal's in, what, his third year? Lang's been around a while, but should have several good years left, and Ekuban's in his prime.

In no way does Burton qualify as a "young player." He's a developmental, UDFA, practice squad scrub until he proves otherwise.

I would prefer a new/young player in the places of Myers, Brown, and Chukwurah (or replace Chukwurah as a rush-specialist).

Depends on how you do it, but that's a whole other argument; reducing the blitzes still doesn't explain how three good LBs (one a Pro Bowl MLB) have ONE sack all year (and I've never liked the all out blitz, it's just asking to get picked apart with screens, delays, quick outs, quick slants, you name it, anything that happens just about the time your LBs are in the backfield hearing the QB say, "don't hit me! Ball's over there.... " ) It's sounds like you're saying what I never imagined you'd say: our LBs sack total is off 'cos they suck at rushing; our ends sack total is off 'cos they suck at rushing. Maybe instead of replacing the whole D we should think about replacing the guys who're supposed to make those blitzes possible. Maybe if offenses couldn't practically ignore Myers and double Warren, or go one on one with an injured Warren and Myers, maybe then we'd see more blitzes 'cos they'd actually have a snowballs chance of working....

Our linebackers are poor pass rushers. They are too small to defeat blockers (any blockers). Ask any of the top 4-3 LB's how many times they get a free shot at QB's (Peterson, Hill, Scott, Thomas, Washington, etc)...I bet they say "once every blue moon" or something along those lines.

So it would seem Even if I concede Chucky and Engleberger are scrubs (which I'm not prepared to do; I haven't seen enough of them to form a conclusion) we've still got two quality starters and a rookie who'll probably be our starter next year or the one after. At DT we have Gerard Warren trying to do the work of two men and, worse, the PARTICULAR two men whose work he's trying to do are supposed to be tying up multiple blockers. "Go out there and shove those three guys in the QBs face, or at least make 'em block you so we can get to him, Gerard. " Hurt? I'm surprised he can WALK! It's time he had some quality help that would make our whole D better. Alternatively we can trade Ekuban and Lang and talk about how "so what if they have a dozen sacks with two weeks left; look who they're playing with!" Yeah, and who controls THAT?

Listen, I'm not saying dump our entire DL like others here want. I'm saying improve the overall talent level, and if that means bumping Lang (most likely) or Ek down the depth chart, so be it.

Seriously though, I am simply flabbergasted by your insistence that our starting end combo is acceptable--for now and for the future. Forget about our tackle situation...well, actually, neither situation is a good one. It's just...your views are so far into the minority it's shocking. Whatever though, they're your views...have fun with them. You do at least sound like you know what you're talking about (in this and other threads)...that's good.

[SM19]

Count me among those who don't buy into the need for a first-round running back. We've been drafting 'em later than that for years, and the only real misfire we've had on a guy we thought was a starter was Quentin Griffin. In this department, I trust the ability of Shanahan and Bobby Turner to find talent late.

As for our defensive line, I'm not picky on who we take in the first round. Like WABronco says, we need help at DT and both ends; I'll be happy with the best available lineman provided he's not a one-dimensional run-stuffing LE (our lowest priority and the kind of guy we can get later). A guy like Amobi Okoye who can really push the pocket from the middle would be ideal, but just seeing Shanahan acknowledge that there's a problem would be a good start.

[Sevenis7]

I think we've been arguing about 6 of one versus half-a-dozen of another. Some want D-line to be addressed via free agency and draft a high round RB. Others want to get a RB in free agency and draft D-linemen.

I'm in the former camp, as I think drafting D-line is a bigger chance to go bust. I say get Justin Smith (DE- Cincy) or Sands (DT- Oakland) as some have mentioned in other posts. Get a stud RB (like Marshawn Lynch IF he's available) in 1st round. Look at SD and KC (Even Denver, when we had Portis) to see what a great run game does for your team. DE or DT can be addressed in 2nd round.

As for Lynch, he plays tomorrow in the Holiday Bowl against Texas A & M. Check him out.

[gobroncsnv]

just seeing Shanahan acknowledge that there's a problem would be a good start.

Ain't it the truth...

How about we look at it this way?

1) How many rushing yards did we have against the Colts? (around 200)
2) How many points did we score in that game? (31)
3) How many times did Peyton have a chance to go through all of his progressions on a passing play? (every time they threw the ball)
4) Who won the game? (Colts)

It's pretty easy for me to draw a conclusion based on the above... If you get 200 yards rushing, score 31 points, and LOSE THE GAME, your problem is on the defensive side of the ball. :brick: :brick:

[rogue719]

In SI (Sports Illustrated) latest issue... they predict Cal RB Marshawn Lynch will win Rookie-of-the-YEar next year in NFL. COuld he achieve such a feat in a Bronco uniform?

Good question: do you think he will last as long as the fourth or fifth round in the draft for the Broncos to take him?

Our most pressing need is defensive line and perhaps offensive line and safety. I don't see the Broncos looking to pick up a running back in the first or second round unless he's decided to go back to a mediocre defense and build an offense to outgun and outscore all opponents, and see how well that's worked for Indianapolis?

[bec25]

a rb in the 3rd round could be minnesota`s gary russell. he was kicked off the team before the season, but look as good as the rookie the pats drafted this year. i dont know why he was kick off

[22cannon]

Yes, Lynch is a complete back and will be awesome for whom ever he plays for. If we want him we better get in front of the Jets!

[SuperD77]

I'd rather pick up an established DL in free agentcy then draft one, and use our draft pick to get rb.

[Buffalo118]

I disagree whole heartedly. We've all seen the foley of coaches picking players that fit their needs in the 1st and 2nd round instead of grabbing the best available player, usually with the effect of grabbing someone who fits your systems needs, but doesn't become a real effective player *cough* *cough* Foster *cough* *cough*.


Right on the money!

However look at the grab of Cutler. We didn't ned to address the QB position after last years run to the AFCCG, but we picked him up because Shannahna saw talent and went after it. If someone of great talent is still available in the 1st round (such as Marshawn Lynch, Adrian Peterson, or others) then I say we grab him. Otherwsie we'll grab someone who might fill a hole for us for a couple of years instead of grabbing a franchise capable player.

In the latter rounds 3 - 7, I think you have to address picks by the needs of the team, but the first and second round should be looking for the best available players and how they would fit into your scheme. Obviously some positions are out the window for the draft this year (QB and TE IMO) for all draft picks, but to choose to attack the first round based upon position instead of skill/ability more often then nought will leave a team with a good enough player to start, but not a great enough player to help create wins...

Just my :2cents:

Oh, and on a side note, I think that the most important positions to fill this year are in the trenches, and they have to be addressed, but I still stand by what I posted...


I couldn't agree more!

[The Hamburgler]

I like marshawn lynch but I like Mike Bell a lot better. He has been doing great recently.

[Sevenis7]

Ain't it the truth...

How about we look at it this way?

1) How many rushing yards did we have against the Colts? (around 200)
2) How many points did we score in that game? (31)
3) How many times did Peyton have a chance to go through all of his progressions on a passing play? (every time they threw the ball)
4) Who won the game? (Colts)

It's pretty easy for me to draw a conclusion based on the above... If you get 200 yards rushing, score 31 points, and LOSE THE GAME, your problem is on the defensive side of the ball. :brick: :brick:

Three things to consider though:

1) We had a turnover in that game (Jake's fumble near our goalline to start the 2nd half); they didn't. Those seven points could have made the difference. We continue to make turnovers (even w/Cutler). Maybe we should draft people who hold on to the football.

2) Ineffective redzone play. We had to settle for a FG on our last drive instead of getting a TD. Result? Indy only needs a FG to win, rather than having to get a TD.

3) We didn't seem to have this problem the first 6 games of the season, so what magically happened against the Colts?

Turnovers, ineffective redzone play, and lack of QB pressure have been problems for the Broncos the past few years and have not been adequately addressed. I think a stud RB would help w/the first two problems. Get D-linemen via draft or FA for the third.

[LoyalSoldier]

Three things to consider though:

1) We had a turnover in that game (Jake's fumble near our goalline to start the 2nd half); they didn't. Those seven points could have made the difference. We continue to make turnovers (even w/Cutler). Maybe we should draft people who hold on to the football.

2) Ineffective redzone play. We had to settle for a FG on our last drive instead of getting a TD. Result? Indy only needs a FG to win, rather than having to get a TD.

3) We didn't seem to have this problem the first 6 games of the season, so what magically happened against the Colts?

Turnovers, ineffective redzone play, and lack of QB pressure have been problems for the Broncos the past few years and have not been adequately addressed. I think a stud RB would help w/the first two problems. Get D-linemen via draft or FA for the third.

If you look our Redzone % has been one of the best(8th) this year, but our problem has been getting into the redzone. Special teams has had a hand in that.

[Sevenis7]

If you look our Redzone % has been one of the best(8th) this year, but our problem has been getting into the redzone. Special teams has had a hand in that.

Thanks for reminding me about our woeful special teams play. Yet another problem that has lingered for the past few years.

As far as Redzone %, is that Scoring % (which includes FGs) or strictly TD % (which I feel is a problem)?

[LoyalSoldier]

Thanks for reminding me about our woeful special teams play. Yet another problem that has lingered for the past few years.

As far as Redzone %, is that Scoring % (which includes FGs) or strictly TD % (which I feel is a problem)?

TD% we are 8th in. We are 1st or 2nd in Scoring %.

[Sevenis7]

Turnovers, ineffective redzone play, and lack of QB pressure have been problems for the Broncos the past few years and have not been adequately addressed. I think a stud RB would help w/the first two problems. Get D-linemen via draft or FA for the third.

Hate to quote myself, but all these were contributing factors to our OT loss against the Niners. Two fumbles and two interceptions (one for a TD). Three trips with 1st and goal from w/in the 5 yard line and we get 3 FGs. With a stud RB who could have punched it in from the 2 yard line, we would be in the play-offs rather than watching them.

BTW, Marshawn Lynch had 111 yards rushing on 20 carries (2 TDs) in Cal's Holiday Bowl win.

[LoyalSoldier]

Hate to quote myself, but all these were contributing factors to our OT loss against the Niners. Two fumbles and two interceptions (one for a TD). Three trips with 1st and goal from w/in the 5 yard line and we get 3 FGs. With a stud RB who could have punched it in from the 2 yard line, we would be in the play-offs rather than watching them.

BTW, Marshawn Lynch had 111 yards rushing on 20 carries (2 TDs) in Cal's Holiday Bowl win.

I am not so sure that was because of the running backs. If you look our line was getting pushed around a ton in that game. Any holes to the endzone were quickly shut and both Jay and Jake had people in their face. You have to remember even though LT is a great RB that he couldn't get that many TDs without his line playing so well.

[fraguela09]

I see M-Lynch just announced he's turning pro... A=Peterson had so-so bowl performance. I dunno?

[LoyalSoldier]

I see M-Lynch just announced he's turning pro... A=Peterson had so-so bowl performance. I dunno?

Even though I was cheering for Boise since I am from Idaho, Peterson had a decent one for not playing in any games before that.