Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Depth Chart

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by THEdraftnik View Post
    Schofield isn't a surprise to anybody?
    Yes and no. We have a lot of guards in the mix. The addition of Barbre, the versatility of McGovernor, I just felt Schofield wasn't in a stable place. But it is surprising that a 16 game starter from last year has fallen to 3rd team.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by SMR81 View Post
      Someone mentioned keeping 7, you posted 6 but it could really be 5, it's too early to tell how many will be kept.
      i posted 6....max
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
        i posted 6....max
        OK, maybe the team is thinking 5....max? It's too early to tell.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by SMR81 View Post
          OK, maybe the team is thinking 5....max? It's too early to tell.
          And if the team is thinking 5 max, he would still be correct by saying 6 max. He is saying that the team will not take anything more than 6. He isn't saying it can't be less than 6. Because 5<6. Just so you know...

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
            no, it isn't. 7 WR is too much capital tied up in one position...especially when at least 3 of them would hardly ever see the field. I don't think they have ever kept 7 WR.

            These are bare minumums:

            QB-2
            RB-3
            FB-1
            TE-2
            WR-4
            Oline-8
            Dline-6
            LB-8
            CB-5
            S-4
            ST-3

            Thats 46...leaving 7 more spots...they aren't going to use half of those to fill up 7 WR spots
            On offense the questions will be: 2 or 3 QBs; 3 or 4 RBs; 8 or 9 O-Linemen; 3 or 4 TEs? It sounds like they will keep the 1 FB and, like you, I doubt if there will be more than 6 WRs. We have no idea how much McCoy plans to go tight, 2 back, Single Back, 3/4 WR, Empty. That has a bearing on depth.

            On defense, a general rule of thumb for the three groups is two deep + 1: D-Line = 7; Backers = 9; DBs = 9. If they go just two deep at one position group, they can go deeper at another. Time will tell.
            "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

            Comment


            • #36
              I think Green needs to step up his play in the 1st PS game. Derby has been balling and will overtake him. Heuerman is right there as well.

              I hope we keep Taylor. I am about tired of Latimore. He better have put it together and show it this season. I am tired of waiting for his "potential".
              Jacksonville Jaguars Broncomania GM:

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by THEdraftnik View Post
                Schofield isn't a surprise to anybody?
                The depth chart linked by the OP is the one posted by Andrew Mason on the Bronco website. There is another depth chart on the same site which doesn't list Schofield. It has another error as well.
                "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ksubroncosfan View Post
                  And if the team is thinking 5 max, he would still be correct by saying 6 max. He is saying that the team will not take anything more than 6. He isn't saying it can't be less than 6. Because 5<6. Just so you know...
                  You two are too funny sometimes. Nobody knows how many WRs will make the team, but it is a loaded position with a 3rd rounder near the bottom of the chart that's almost certain to make the team. Bottom line is it's too early to tell how many will make it, final cut will be tough. You coming to his defense about being right doesn't make any sense. Maybe the team is thinking absolutely no more than 5? Well that would be 5 max, meaning no more than 5. The number 6 shouldn't even come into play. Again though, it's too early too tell.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by SMR81 View Post
                    You two are too funny sometimes. Nobody knows how many WRs will make the team, but it is a loaded position with a 3rd rounder near the bottom of the chart that's almost certain to make the team. Bottom line is it's too early to tell how many will make it, final cut will be tough. You coming to his defense about being right doesn't make any sense. Maybe the team is thinking absolutely no more than 5? Well that would be 5 max, meaning no more than 5. The number 6 shouldn't even come into play. Again though, it's too early too tell.
                    To say a max of 6 means anything less than or equal to 6. Therefore, 5 would qualify. I teach this math to my elementary students. Not that hard to understand his point. Well, for everyone else it isn't...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ksubroncosfan View Post
                      To say a max of 6 means anything less than or equal to 6. Therefore, 5 would qualify. I teach this math to my elementary students. Not that hard to understand his point. Well, for everyone else it isn't...
                      Easy there, pardner. Keep those hands where I can see 'em.
                      "Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes." ~ Publilius Syrus

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ksubroncosfan View Post
                        To say a max of 6 means anything less than or equal to 6. Therefore, 5 would qualify. I teach this math to my elementary students. Not that hard to understand his point. Well, for everyone else it isn't...
                        I'm shocked you teach kids, I say that with no disrespect.
                        If somebody says 5 max, that means no more than 5, 6 does not exist. There is a clear difference between 5 max and 6 max. What you are trying to included into the conversation does not fit. I do understand the argument you are trying to make, but it does not fit into this discussion, it doesn't matter that you teach it to kids, still doesn't fit.

                        If a coach says they are taking 5 players max, then to say they are taking 6 max is incorrect. It is not the same thing. My original post was not about correct or incorrect, but thank you for turning the convo that way. Whether it's 5,6 or 7, it is too early to tell.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by THEdraftnik View Post
                          Schofield isn't a surprise to anybody?
                          Can't say I'm shocked at all based on his "Human Turns Dial" impression from last season. Maybe they're trying to motivate him by listing him this low at the beginning. Wouldn't be shocked if they were doing it to other players... Like Doss or Taylor.

                          If they come out of the gate on fire on Thursday and rise, maybe the coaches knew how to motivate these guys....
                          sigpic
                          ******** Adopt a Bronco 2019 | #70 Ja'wuan James :thumb: ********
                          ***** Adopt a Bronco 2017-18 | #72 Garett Bolles *****

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ManhattanBronco View Post
                            "Human Turns Dial"
                            Turnstile?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ManhattanBronco View Post
                              "Human Turns Dial"
                              Originally posted by Bootleg View Post
                              Turnstile?
                              Oh, silly me. I thought it was literal...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Rastic View Post
                                Oh, silly me. I thought it was literal...

                                Hahahahaha I can not stop laughing ! Thanks !

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X