Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good insight into Arrington signing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Poindexter View Post
    I'm just pitching an idea out here:

    McDaniel's is known for creating the pass happy scheme we have gotten used to seeing from the Pats the last few years. It stands to reason that he will want to implement something similar in Denver. That scheme does not lend itself well to the heavy zone blocking, running play offense that we are used to seeing from the Broncos over the years. My feeling on the subject is that by picking up Arrington, McDaniel's is looking for a back that can pass block well, as well as catch the ball on the move as opposed to having the ball handed off. Faulk excelled at both of those traits, and I think they are the same traits McD is looking for in Arrington. I would imagine that in the coming season we will be seeing the ball aired out more consistently and fewer I formation running plays.

    Looking at Arrington's body of work, as well as the recent Pats offensive schemes I believe we can expect a heavy amount of pitches, and fake hand off type scripted plays that require a good blocking back. I'm no expert, and I don't run the team, but I don't think seeing Gaffney, Stokley, Marshall, and Royal in almost every play is going to be a far stretch either.

    Time will tell.

    I read somewhere that the ZBS is being replaced with a more power run type run offense. McD wants bigger, tougher Olinemen that can dominate the LOS. They said they will still use some zone blocking but I think it will be gone a couple years.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
      I read somewhere that the ZBS is being replaced with a more power run type run offense. McD wants bigger, tougher Olinemen that can dominate the LOS. They said they will still use some zone blocking but I think it will be gone a couple years.
      He said he wouldn't go away from the pulling guard, which was a key component in NE's running scheme. Maybe that's why they had such a hard time stopping Denver's running game the last ten years, because they didn't realize it was a key component of the ZBS.

      I do think that it will stay around for as long as it is effective to some degree. Otherwise I don't see why they would have kept Dennison.
      sigpic
      Thank you to my grandfather jetrazor for being a veteran of the armed forces!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor View Post
        He said he wouldn't go away from the pulling guard, which was a key component in NE's running scheme. Maybe that's why they had such a hard time stopping Denver's running game the last ten years, because they didn't realize it was a key component of the ZBS.
        Well, there are certainly some similarities. A good example of what McD is talking about is the counter where you set up a gap (e.g. double team the DT inside and push the end/LB outside), then pull an OL into the gap as a lead blocker. Actually, this is very complementary to a zone play - get the defense worrying about the counter action then gouge them with the zone on the other side.

        Anyway, McD isn't going to ditch the zone running as a) the Pats run a fair amount of zone, and b) he's got the OL in Denver to make it work.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Warhawk View Post
          Well, there are certainly some similarities. A good example of what McD is talking about is the counter where you set up a gap (e.g. double team the DT inside and push the end/LB outside), then pull an OL into the gap as a lead blocker. Actually, this is very complementary to a zone play - get the defense worrying about the counter action then gouge them with the zone on the other side.

          Anyway, McD isn't going to ditch the zone running as a) the Pats run a fair amount of zone, and b) he's got the OL in Denver to make it work.
          I hope he doesn't get rid of it, because we have arguably the best OL in the league with it.
          sigpic
          Made by Houshmazode

          Comment


          • #20
            I think that he got the better back for picking up blitzes and catching passes out of the backfiels, but Arrington also has some very good KO returning skills. so he gets a very versital back. good pick up I think..





            :salute!:
            Kyle Orton Army #24sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              Goal Line?

              With, shall we say a finesse back and a less than dominant run blocking line, what will we see at the goal line?
              I like the addition of Arrington, but I can't help but think Hillis is more versatile since he can block and catch plus has 20+ lbs. to play a little smash mouth.
              This is not a complaint as the team has not measured up in the red zone the last few years either, short roll outs seemed to be more effective than a run, but it is nice to be able to pick up a yard or two on the ground when you need to. It's just one more thing for a D-coordinator to be aware of.

              Comment


              • #22
                Until Hillis got hurt, the Broncos were 8th in the league in the red zone. At the end of the season they were 16th. I think they only converted 2 more red zone trips into TDs after Hillis' injury.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The thing that jumped out at me when reading this is the idea that Josh thinks he found his guy watching the Super Bowl.

                  Anyone remember Larry Brown - the CB that won the MVP of the Super Bowl for Dallas. That got him a big contract from the Raiders, he flopped, and was gone from the Raiders 2 years later and out of the league a year after that.

                  Of course, Josh would have watched other film on him, but I hope he didn't put too much emphasis on his SB 'discovery' ...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    We are talking about 5´7 J.J. Arrington aren´t we?
                    mooncamping is a new Cleveland Browns fan


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by mooncamping View Post
                      We are talking about 5´7 J.J. Arrington aren´t we?
                      No...he'll be taller in altitude.



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mooncamping View Post
                        We are talking about 5´7 J.J. Arrington aren´t we?
                        Actually, we're talking about 5'9" 212 lbs. J.J. Arrington.
                        My Opinion isn’t determined by what the Popular Opinion is. Sometimes I agree with the Majority, Sometimes I Don’t. If My Opinion is Different than Yours, I have to Ask One Question:
                        You Mad Bro?
                        Don’t Be A Mean Girl

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X