Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Broncos in talks with Putzier?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by dogfish
    no problem, no one can be online all the time-- i'd rather have a good answer than a fast one. . .

    you did-- i'm not arguing that he wasn't productive as a receiver, or even that i don't want him back-- merely that i don't expect that he will be back. . .

    nothing specific, just my feelings on the matter. . . read the last paragraph of this denver post article, putz's agent says the team could have retained putz for a lower price but didn't seem inclined to. . . but we have heard all along that the team was working on lepsis, warren and dayne, and they have all gotten done-- i have NOT heard anywhere that they are working on putz, so i have no reason to believe any differently. doesn't mean that they aren't, or won't-- i just haven't heard that they ARE, and until i do, i'll assume that they're NOT working on anything with him. . .
    "Putzier's agent, Joe Linta, said the Broncos could have restructured Putzier's cap number to $1.4 million and kept him, instead of getting charged $800,000 by releasing him."

    So if I'm reading this correctly had they restructured the deal, he would have only cost them 600k to keep him over eating the cap money without him here.

    Now add that to what we will have to pay a rookie if we get a top one does not seem like a big difference to me.

    i remember reading this in a post article, which i can't find right now-- if i have a chance later i will look for it. . .

    agreed-- i have to believe it was money versus performance in putz's case also, otherwise why cut him from a contract we just signed him to last year? either we signed only to keep him away from the jets and never meant to honor the contract, or shanny didn't think he could improve his blocking enough to be a full-time starter, and didn't want to pay him as much as we were to be a situational player, even a valuable one. . . not saying this was right or wrong, mwerely my attempt to figure out their reasoning. . .

    i believe putz's blocking is what got him pulled in the red zone, and a desire to hide our intentions-- difficult to sell play-action when you have your receiving TE in. . .

    again, although others have, i persoanlly am not arguing putz's worth-- i liked him and would have no problem with him coming back-- i just don't really expect it to happen at this point, though it's certainly still possible. . .

    i think the point may be that putz wasn't being paid like a second TE. . . .

    i would say you're right here, but putz may have forced shanny's hand if he wasn't blocking the way we needed. . . . he's been here, what, 4 years? guys only get so many chances with shanny before he'll look for someone else who will play the way he wants. . . .

    i still see some significance in the fact that duke played in the AFCCG, although neither putz nor alexander was hurt to the best of my knowledge. . . .

    I see this as a change up pitch. trying to throw the defense off. BTW Putz did catch 4 for 55 yards
    absolutely-- i never tried to present it as more than a guess.
    I still think as noted above in red, it was a dumb move by both.

    I don't get to hear all the radio talk show stuff from DEN nor see any of the local TV shows. SO I'm at the mercy of this board or alot of my info.

    There are so many clowns on the board, that it seems all I ever here is I want, I want and almost sounds like someone crying and throwing a tantrum if they don't get it.

    I'd still like to see him back as I think he has a lot of upside. Considering how long it is gonna take a rookie to learn the playbook, and if he is a top one (Mikey has yet to DAFT one ever) it will be years before he reaches Putz production levels. And more importantly Jakes comfort levels.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by topscribe
      I like the way you broke that down, and you brought out some good points. The most salient aspect of Putz's deficiencies, as I believe you implied, was his blocking. This made him a very expensive #2 TE.

      One thing, however, that caught my eye was your attributing the Broncos' relatively mediocre third-down percentage to Putz. Rod and Ashley were also part of that receiving corps . . . . were they not, then, a part of the third down problem? Also, you mentioned only 12 of his 37 catches came on third down. So 32% of Putz's catches were on third-down. As a team, the Broncos completed 62 third-down passes out of 277 total completions (off the hands of Plummer). That means that 22% of all completions were on third down. Therefore, Putz's average significantly exceeded the team's average.

      I really have nothing at all against Putzier's performance as a pass receiver, in any area. It is his blocking on the LOS that falls short.

      -----
      i agree completely with every thing you say here. i know it sounded like i was laying the majority of the blame for our 3rd down woes on putz, but that was more to prove a point. i do think a dominant presence in the middle of the field (TE) that requires attention and can STILL make the plays would be a huge boost for our offense. and while i would hesitate to say rod was part of the problems (he was double teamed constantly and still making catches), it would be nice for lelie (and others) to be a little more active on 3rd downs and in the red zone (but that is another thread).

      like you, i have nothing against putz as a pass reciever, other than he is not a play maker. he has good hands and can pick up yacs. and he has had one of the best ypc amongst TEs the last two seasons. so if he agreed to a much cheaper contract (more in alexanders range), i dont mind bringing him back. he could give us some nice 3 TE options, or could be effective as an H-back. but i want a dominant all-around TE and i dont think putz will ever be that. he may yet, but i would be surprised.
      "Philosophers have hitherto merely interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."--Karl Marx


      "And I tell you this, that you must give an account on judgement day of every idle word you speak. The words you say now reflect your fate then; either you will be justified by them or you will be condemned."--Jesus Christ




      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by bcbronc
        i agree completely with every thing you say here. i know it sounded like i was laying the majority of the blame for our 3rd down woes on putz, but that was more to prove a point. i do think a dominant presence in the middle of the field (TE) that requires attention and can STILL make the plays would be a huge boost for our offense. and while i would hesitate to say rod was part of the problems (he was double teamed constantly and still making catches), it would be nice for lelie (and others) to be a little more active on 3rd downs and in the red zone (but that is another thread).

        like you, i have nothing against putz as a pass reciever, other than he is not a play maker. he has good hands and can pick up yacs. and he has had one of the best ypc amongst TEs the last two seasons. so if he agreed to a much cheaper contract (more in alexanders range), i dont mind bringing him back. he could give us some nice 3 TE options, or could be effective as an H-back. but i want a dominant all-around TE and i dont think putz will ever be that. he may yet, but i would be surprised.
        The problem, then, was not Putz. The problem was that we had one good receiver (Rod), one decent deep receiver (Lelie) who was generally not proficient short, and one decent TE (Putz, of course). We had virtually NO ONE beyond that. In my mind, we don't need a T.O. We just need someone, as you seemed to imply, to go over the middle and take the double-teams off Rod. Putz can do only so much.

        IMHO.

        -----

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by topscribe
          The problem, then, was not Putz. The problem was that we had one good receiver (Rod), one decent deep receiver (Lelie) who was generally not proficient short, and one decent TE (Putz, of course). We had virtually NO ONE beyond that. In my mind, we don't need a T.O. We just need someone, as you seemed to imply, to go over the middle and take the double-teams off Rod. Putz can do only so much.

          IMHO.

          -----
          i agree. but it is also important that that guy that goes across the middle be an effective blocker as well. not necessarily at the los, but in the second level. that is why, imo, putz does not see much time in the offensive parts of the field. if we could get that TE that had hands like putz, but was better at getting seperation and can seal off a cutback lane, our offense will benefit.

          the way i see it now, when a linebacker is assigned putz in pass coverage, he can engage putz right off the line of scrimmage. if it is a pass play, putz has not shown he can then seperate from his man. if it is a run play, the linebacker is having no problem shedding putz and going to the ball.

          if we can get that guy that forces the linebacker to first read run rather than engage the TE (because he will not be able to shed the block as easily), that first step allows the TE to get behind his man for some big yards. then when the linebacker has to worry about the TE catching the ball (say a 3rd and 4), the backer is practically blocking himself by having to close the distance between himself and the guy wanting to block him.

          unfortunately, putz's lack of blocking prowess allowed the linebacker to first take putz out of his pattern and still get to the ball carrier on a run pattern. but like i say, as a 2nd or 3rd TE, i like putz. but he has to be paid as such.
          "Philosophers have hitherto merely interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."--Karl Marx


          "And I tell you this, that you must give an account on judgement day of every idle word you speak. The words you say now reflect your fate then; either you will be justified by them or you will be condemned."--Jesus Christ




          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by bcbronc
            i agree. but it is also important that that guy that goes across the middle be an effective blocker as well. not necessarily at the los, but in the second level. that is why, imo, putz does not see much time in the offensive parts of the field. if we could get that TE that had hands like putz, but was better at getting seperation and can seal off a cutback lane, our offense will benefit.

            the way i see it now, when a linebacker is assigned putz in pass coverage, he can engage putz right off the line of scrimmage. if it is a pass play, putz has not shown he can then seperate from his man. if it is a run play, the linebacker is having no problem shedding putz and going to the ball.

            if we can get that guy that forces the linebacker to first read run rather than engage the TE (because he will not be able to shed the block as easily), that first step allows the TE to get behind his man for some big yards. then when the linebacker has to worry about the TE catching the ball (say a 3rd and 4), the backer is practically blocking himself by having to close the distance between himself and the guy wanting to block him.

            unfortunately, putz's lack of blocking prowess allowed the linebacker to first take putz out of his pattern and still get to the ball carrier on a run pattern. but like i say, as a 2nd or 3rd TE, i like putz. but he has to be paid as such.
            My supply of CP is exhausted for a few hours. But I owe you one when I get them back.

            This is the best discussion on him I have seen. You have managed to educate even me.



            (Gotta go. Got a lot to do.)

            -----

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by bcbronc
              i agree. but it is also important that that guy that goes across the middle be an effective blocker as well. not necessarily at the los, but in the second level. that is why, imo, putz does not see much time in the offensive parts of the field. if we could get that TE that had hands like putz, but was better at getting seperation and can seal off a cutback lane, our offense will benefit.

              the way i see it now, when a linebacker is assigned putz in pass coverage, he can engage putz right off the line of scrimmage. if it is a pass play, putz has not shown he can then seperate from his man. if it is a run play, the linebacker is having no problem shedding putz and going to the ball.

              if we can get that guy that forces the linebacker to first read run rather than engage the TE (because he will not be able to shed the block as easily), that first step allows the TE to get behind his man for some big yards. then when the linebacker has to worry about the TE catching the ball (say a 3rd and 4), the backer is practically blocking himself by having to close the distance between himself and the guy wanting to block him.

              unfortunately, putz's lack of blocking prowess allowed the linebacker to first take putz out of his pattern and still get to the ball carrier on a run pattern. but like i say, as a 2nd or 3rd TE, i like putz. but he has to be paid as such.


              I for one have not seen this while watching him from normal TV coverage. I have had Putz as my TE in FF for a couple of years and watch him quite a bit. Considering the amount of playing time he has been getting I have not seen any inability to get separation from LB's as his stats are pretty comparable to other TE and better than some on a per completion basis than other on the field more.

              The only area that I see Putz having problem with blocking is LOS. I've seen some pretty good blocking down field spring a RB and WR on more than one occasion.

              Where are you getting your information?

              Have you studied the film this much?

              Or are you making assumptions again?

              Most of this is probably moot, as unless something turns around, it is unlikely from what I've seen over the past couple of days he'll be back.

              IMHO our loss someone else's gain.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Jrhampton
                I for one have not seen this while watching him from normal TV coverage. I have had Putz as my TE in FF for a couple of years and watch him quite a bit. Considering the amount of playing time he has been getting I have not seen any inability to get separation from LB's as his stats are pretty comparable to other TE and better than some on a per completion basis than other on the field more.

                The only area that I see Putz having problem with blocking is LOS. I've seen some pretty good blocking down field spring a RB and WR on more than one occasion.

                Where are you getting your information?

                Have you studied the film this much?

                Or are you making assumptions again?

                Most of this is probably moot, as unless something turns around, it is unlikely from what I've seen over the past couple of days he'll be back.

                IMHO our loss someone else's gain.
                Good post Jr and imo right on the money. Putz's receiving skills are good as any TE in the game imho but as you mentioned its his blocking at the LOS that still needs improvement. I'm reasonably certain that this caused him not be in line up very often when we were in the red zone this year.

                If can just become a adequate blocker like Sharpe became imo he would be one of the better TE in the game. A notch below TG and AG.
                John 11: 25-27

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



                Thanks Snk16

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by TXBRONC
                  Good post Jr and imo right on the money. Putz's receiving skills are good as any TE in the game imho but as you mentioned its his blocking at the LOS that still needs improvement. I'm reasonably certain that this caused him not be in line up very often when we were in the red zone this year.

                  If can just become a adequate blocker like Sharpe became imo he would be one of the better TE in the game. A notch below TG and AG.

                  That how I see it also, everyone forgets that sharpe was not a great bloker for almost all of his career. He stepped it up in thelast few years. He was kept around because he was witty. When he came back from BAL I think one of the reason Mikey brought him back was he promised to work harder on it.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X