Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Now should we trade Q?

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

  • #31
    The reason we had 4 different 1000 yard backs in 5 years is simply that 3 of them had to go down with season ending injuries (Davis twice).

    Whether they were actually carrying the ball at the time they got hurt is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is the amount of time they are spending on the field. Every play over a certain amount is an additional exposure to hits. Too many hits, too many runs, whatever, it all adds up to potential injury.

    Many teams with much better starting tail backs and lesser depth than the Broncos still utilize their bench more than we do. Why is that? It seems like it should be the other way around. If this system is so conducive to creating successful running backs, why is it that we steer so far from playing the bench?

    Comment


    • #32
      Trading Q would not be a good thing. He doesn't suck that bad.
      sigpic

      DISCLAIMER: MY REVIEWS OFTEN CONTAIN SPOILERS. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

      Comment


      • #33
        The reason we had 4 different 1000 yard backs in 5 years is simply that 3 of them had to go down with season ending injuries (Davis twice).

        Whether they were actually carrying the ball at the time they got hurt is irrelevant.

        What is relevant is the amount of time they are spending on the field. Every play over a certain amount is an additional exposure to hits. Too many hits, too many runs, whatever, it all adds up to potential injury.

        Many teams with much better starting tail backs and lesser depth than the Broncos still utilize their bench more than we do. Why is that? It seems like it should be the other way around. If this system is so conducive to creating successful running backs, why is it that we steer so far from playing the bench?
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        I think you've "refined" your point a bit. Not that that's a bad thing!

        If you are talking about minimizing total *plays* on the field (including special teams), I could probably go along with that. I am not convinced that only running Reuben 15-23 times a game is the key.

        I think I could make a fairly convincing argument that his single greatest risk of getting hurt was on broken plays, or special teams, or the broncos not scoring TDs instead of FGs, etc. I believe he is at greater risk from any of the above that from running the ball a prescribed # of times per game.

        Keep from turning the ball over and score some TDs. The game won't be in doubt and Shanahan will turn to someone else. If it's a close game and he thinks he'll need him--he'll run him 50 times if necessary. I would too. I think Oakland was an exception. I don't believe Mike normally keeps running his lead dog that much in a blowout.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by RealBronco
          Trading Q would not be a good thing. He doesn't suck that bad.
          Trading Q for McCardell would be bad trade for us. It would be nowhere near equal value.
          John 11: 25-27

          My Adopt-A-Bronco is D.J. Williams



          Thanks Snk16

          Comment


          • #35
            There will come a time when they need the little guy to hide behind the o-line and break through for a huge gain. keep em
            “The Oakland raiders are so bad.”
            “How bad are they???”
            “They’re so bad that they get ______ed by every
            Team”

            04 plummer4presdnt 139
            10/11+ / 8 / 8+ / 9+ /11/ 10 / 9+ / 7 / 8 / 8 / 9 /7 /6 /6+ / 7

            4th in Bronco pick'em

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by plummer4presdnt
              There will come a time when they need the little guy to hide behind the o-line and break through for a huge gain. keep em

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ProgMatinee
                The reason we had 4 different 1000 yard backs in 5 years is simply that 3 of them had to go down with season ending injuries (Davis twice).

                Whether they were actually carrying the ball at the time they got hurt is irrelevant.

                What is relevant is the amount of time they are spending on the field. Every play over a certain amount is an additional exposure to hits. Too many hits, too many runs, whatever, it all adds up to potential injury.

                Many teams with much better starting tail backs and lesser depth than the Broncos still utilize their bench more than we do. Why is that? It seems like it should be the other way around. If this system is so conducive to creating successful running backs, why is it that we steer so far from playing the bench?
                I get your point. If you are coaching I guess you would keep this fear in mind. In the hood, there is this saying"If you scared call the police". Imo Shanny couldnt coach out of fear of a potential injury.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I wouldn't mind seeing a trade for another proven cornerback maybe someone like azumah(bears im not sure if i spelt his name right) Gary baxter (ravens)
                  or maybe even treade Q and a draft pick to Lions for Dre Bly something like that

                  and if all else fails trade Q for just a draft pick if not a corner because we don't need Q Bell needs time to develope Droughns is amazing and MA will be back next season


                  ^Snk16

                  Broncos Kick Ass

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    or trade Q to the dolphins for surtain! thatd be sick lol:jump:


                    ^Snk16

                    Broncos Kick Ass

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      or trade Q to the dolphins for surtain! thatd be sick lol

                      I love it!!

                      Other than the fact that the Dolphins would be giving up a Pro Bowl cornerback for a 2nd/3rd string RB!!!

                      Where would we get the salary cap money to sign him?

                      What else would we have to give the Phins to get him.

                      While we're "wishing", could we get Taylor too??

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: or trade Q to the dolphins for surtain! thatd be sick lol

                        Originally posted by WildHorse
                        I love it!!

                        Other than the fact that the Dolphins would be giving up a Pro Bowl cornerback for a 2nd/3rd string RB!!!

                        Where would we get the salary cap money to sign him?

                        What else would we have to give the Phins to get him.

                        While we're "wishing", could we get Taylor too??
                        Wildhorse, you have been to negative today on this board.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X