Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's wrong with RB by committee??

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Perry1977
    A potential game-changing interception that bounced off of Bailey's helmet didn't help much either. That was an easy 6 and would have completely changed the landscape of that game.
    If we're looking for specific instance in the game that made a huge difference, there is also the time that Shanahan ran the ball on third and long only to gain 8 yards and set up fourth and very short right near the goalline. Then he just settled for the kick. I mean, why did he go for the improbable first down run on third and long when he wasn't willing to go for it on fourth and very short.

    That was an error and game changing decision in my opinion.
    My adopted fan is dogfish

    . . . . . . . . . . .
    . Post Your Artwork .
    . . . . . . . . . . .

    Comment


    • #17
      What's wrong with RB by committee you ask?

      It serious FUBAR's my fantasy football team. -_-

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Archimedes Owl
        I don't understand why people are so opposed to RB by committee.

        I mean, last year Denver had the second most rushing yards per game behind the team with, perhaps, the best running quarterback of all time.

        Only one other team had more yards per carry as a team.

        In other words, if you discount Micheal Vick, Denver had the statistically best rushing attack in the league despite not having a single elite back.

        This was a huge upgrade over 2004 when we had a pretty talented number one back that took the bulk of the carries.

        The running back by committee approach has several advantages. One is that it makes it difficult for teams to gameplan for the back. Another is that it keeps both backs fresher and causes the defenses to tire more quickly.

        The guys that will be starting for us next year had pretty good years last year. Tatum Bell nearly gained 1000 yards despite not starting and averaged 5.3 yards per carry. Dayne gained 250+ yards in very limited appearances and averaged 5.1 yards per carry.

        If we can duplicate the success of last year, I don't think that the running back by committee approach could be considered a mistake.

        Now, that isn't to say that I wouldn't mind finding a fantastic running back that could do it all and was impossible to gameplan for, but as it stands, we are in good shape at the position.

        If somebody that the coaching staff saw as a fantastic talent fell to us in the draft, I wouldn't say that we should pass on him, but we don't need an every down back.
        I agree with you about the advantages of RBBC. But also means could mean that there isn't one player talented enough to be as Shanahan calls it "the Stud Buffalo." Our ground although good for the majority of the year did tail off something fierce by seasons end for several reasons. Imo one of those reasons is that teams caught on to how we were using our two backs and the found away to stuff the run.

        I admit I like the idea of drafting a running back especially LenDale White in the first round. Imo the biggest reason to do so is that a running back of that calibur is going to have more impact immediately than say a WR or TE due to the complexity of the passing game and the need to be descent blocker.

        We'll see what happens. Ultimately whomever we draft at whatever position I hope will be able to help us get to where we want to go.
        John 11: 25-27

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



        Thanks Snk16

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by dontfeedthenerd
          What's wrong with RB by committee you ask?

          It serious FUBAR's my fantasy football team. -_-

          haha, probably the most honest answer to the question that i've seen. . .


          LOL!
          Officially Objectified by the GPA

          rest in peace, darrent williams and damien nash-- you will be missed!!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by HidEmu
            look at how our rushing game has been in the playoffs to see the problem with running game by committee
            That's because we were behind the whole game and abandoned the run pretty early.

            I'm not quite sure what to think about the run-by-committee attack right now though. I liked it at first but sometimes we just need that one back to find his groove and grind it out the entire game. A lot of backs, like Anderson, improve as the game goes on and they get more carries.
            The new website is about as ugly as Paris Hilton. Put the blue back!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TXBRONC
              I agree with you about the advantages of RBBC. But also means could mean that there isn't one player talented enough to be as Shanahan calls it "the Stud Buffalo." Our ground although good for the majority of the year did tail off something fierce by seasons end for several reasons. Imo one of those reasons is that teams caught on to how we were using our two backs and the found away to stuff the run.

              I admit I like the idea of drafting a running back especially LenDale White in the first round. Imo the biggest reason to do so is that a running back of that calibur is going to have more impact immediately than say a WR or TE due to the complexity of the passing game and the need to be descent blocker.

              We'll see what happens. Ultimately whomever we draft at whatever position I hope will be able to help us get to where we want to go.
              Tailed off near the end of the year??

              Really??

              Did this happen??

              I mean, sure Baltimore held us to 3.0 yards per carry, but to be fair, they had a pretty good defense in 2005. This includes the fact that they only allowed 3.7 yards per carry. Denver had a bad game in this game.

              Then again, we did average 4.8 yards per carry against Buffalo for 178 yards the next week.

              So, maybe you were referring to when the Raiders held us to 3.9 yards per carry for 155 yards?? Well, this isn't a very good performance against the Raiders, but the Broncos just kept pounding the ball in this game while Oakland just tried to stop us. When this happens, sometimes the per carry average will drop, but Denver did well by sticking with it and putting up 155 yards.

              Or maybe, you were thinking of the Chargers game where Denver averaged 3.9 yards per carry over the course of the game for 157 total rushing yards?? Well, the Chargers did lead the league in total yards allowed and they were second in the league in yards allowed per carry despite playing some excellent run offenses like Denver twice, KC twice, NY NFC, Dallas and Pittsburgh, so I find it tough to criticize Denver too much for not putting up a great average against them in the rain.

              If you start to look at the games directly preceding these four, you will see that Denver still had great output.

              But also that Denver had a worse statistical game against SD in the second week, so I don't know if we performed worse at the end of the year or if SD just did well against us.

              Another bad game was against Miami in the first week. In that game, Denver only gained 70 yards and averaged 3.5 yards per carry.

              Anyway, the point is that some teams played our running game better than others, but I think that this notion that we tailed off towards the end of the year is a bit overblown.
              My adopted fan is dogfish

              . . . . . . . . . . .
              . Post Your Artwork .
              . . . . . . . . . . .

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Archimedes Owl
                Tailed off near the end of the year??

                Really??

                Did this happen??

                I mean, sure Baltimore held us to 3.0 yards per carry, but to be fair, they had a pretty good defense in 2005. This includes the fact that they only allowed 3.7 yards per carry. Denver had a bad game in this game.

                Then again, we did average 4.8 yards per carry against Buffalo for 178 yards the next week.

                So, maybe you were referring to when the Raiders held us to 3.9 yards per carry for 155 yards?? Well, this isn't a very good performance against the Raiders, but the Broncos just kept pounding the ball in this game while Oakland just tried to stop us. When this happens, sometimes the per carry average will drop, but Denver did well by sticking with it and putting up 155 yards.

                Or maybe, you were thinking of the Chargers game where Denver averaged 3.9 yards per carry over the course of the game for 157 total rushing yards?? Well, the Chargers did lead the league in total yards allowed and they were second in the league in yards allowed per carry despite playing some excellent run offenses like Denver twice, KC twice, NY NFC, Dallas and Pittsburgh, so I find it tough to criticize Denver too much for not putting up a great average against them in the rain.

                If you start to look at the games directly preceding these four, you will see that Denver still had great output.

                But also that Denver had a worse statistical game against SD in the second week, so I don't know if we performed worse at the end of the year or if SD just did well against us.

                Another bad game was against Miami in the first week. In that game, Denver only gained 70 yards and averaged 3.5 yards per carry.

                Anyway, the point is that some teams played our running game better than others, but I think that this notion that we tailed off towards the end of the year is a bit overblown.
                Again I think you make valid points but look at what each back did individually down the stretch. Combined they did ok but neither of them put real solid numbers. Neither Anderson nor Bell had a 100 yard game the last half of the season and that to me is an indication that the running game was struggling.
                John 11: 25-27

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



                Thanks Snk16

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TXBRONC
                  Again I think you make valid points but look at what each back did individually down the stretch. Combined they did ok but neither of them put real solid numbers. Neither Anderson nor Bell had a 100 yard game the last half of the season and that to me is an indication that the running game was struggling.
                  Maybe, but I don't consider it worse if each player has 75 yards compared to if one has 100 and the other has 50.

                  What really matters is that the team as a whole does well.
                  My adopted fan is dogfish

                  . . . . . . . . . . .
                  . Post Your Artwork .
                  . . . . . . . . . . .

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think you all underestimate how well Dayne can do for us.

                    If the all-time leading rusher in college and heisman trophy winner can't run the ball in this system, then their is something afoul in Dove Valley.

                    I expect no less than a 1,400 yard season from him.
                    Last edited by RunByDesign; 03-25-2006, 03:11 PM.
                    Originally posted by boltzpride619
                    What's so funny is seeing all this mess that the Donks and the fans have placed on themselves. Can you say Raiders.

                    Originally posted by RunByDesign
                    True comedy is observing the Self Imploding Organization that is the Raiders and then asking yourself this question:

                    What separates them (Raiders) from us (Chargers)

                    Answer: Championships.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Archimedes Owl
                      I don't understand why people are so opposed to RB by committee.

                      I mean, last year Denver had the second most rushing yards per game behind the team with, perhaps, the best running quarterback of all time.

                      Only one other team had more yards per carry as a team.

                      In other words, if you discount Micheal Vick, Denver had the statistically best rushing attack in the league despite not having a single elite back.

                      This was a huge upgrade over 2004 when we had a pretty talented number one back that took the bulk of the carries.

                      The running back by committee approach has several advantages. One is that it makes it difficult for teams to gameplan for the back. Another is that it keeps both backs fresher and causes the defenses to tire more quickly.

                      The guys that will be starting for us next year had pretty good years last year. Tatum Bell nearly gained 1000 yards despite not starting and averaged 5.3 yards per carry. Dayne gained 250+ yards in very limited appearances and averaged 5.1 yards per carry.

                      If we can duplicate the success of last year, I don't think that the running back by committee approach could be considered a mistake.

                      Now, that isn't to say that I wouldn't mind finding a fantastic running back that could do it all and was impossible to gameplan for, but as it stands, we are in good shape at the position.

                      If somebody that the coaching staff saw as a fantastic talent fell to us in the draft, I wouldn't say that we should pass on him, but we don't need an every down back.
                      Okay you've stumped me but I just say it's nice for a change.
                      MMA News
                      MMA News 247

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        [QUOTE=Archimedes Owl]Maybe, but I don't consider it worse if each player has 75 yards compared to if one has 100 and the other has 50.

                        What really matters is that the team as a whole does well.[/QUOTE]

                        You'll get no arguement from me on this one.
                        John 11: 25-27

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



                        Thanks Snk16

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          im okay with the rbbc if its done right. and by right i mean making sure one guy, preferably the 'power' back, gets 20 carries per game. if you go back and look at the numbers from last year, you will see a marked drop in effectiveness when one back doesnt get 20 carries. yes, it could be that the fact the running game isnt working as well is the reason one back didnt reach 20, but i dont think so.

                          i like the rbbc when 35 carries are split 22-13 kind of thing, but not nearly as much when they are split 18-17. that magic number of 20 just seems to be the needed amount of carries to let the power guy (MA last year) wear down the defense and make the running game tick.
                          "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


                          • #28
                            [QUOTE=TXBRONC]
                            Originally posted by Archimedes Owl
                            Maybe, but I don't consider it worse if each player has 75 yards compared to if one has 100 and the other has 50.

                            What really matters is that the team as a whole does well.[/ QUOTE]

                            You'll get no arguement from me on this one.
                            You'll get no arguement from me either. Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

                            sigpic

                            Sig made by me. Click top sig to view my Graphics Portfolio.

                            There are three things you can expect in life:

                            1. Death
                            2. Taxes
                            3. The Ball Being Picked Off by Champ Bailey

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              i am definately not opposed to RB by commitee at all, but only under the circumstances that each RB is good to exceptional at certain attributes. A potential template

                              RB A (a.k.a Thunder)

                              -Good Size (220-235 lbs, 6-0)
                              -Hits the whole well
                              -Power
                              -Good feet
                              -Great Goal Line back
                              -Durable
                              -Good Blocker

                              RB B (a.k.a Lightning)

                              -Breakaway Speed
                              -Explosive Playmaking ability
                              -Shiftiness (or Elusiveness)
                              -Good Reciever
                              -Decent Blocker

                              Right now, a Lendale White-Tatum Bell Combination would fit the mold.

                              I also dont mind having a do it all back like Denagelo Williams who looks much like Ladainian Tomlinson v2
                              Blet

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by RoorRipper
                                there is nothing wrong with it.

                                After watching that video in the T.B. thread I am convinced Dayne and Bell can be a superb combo. The Marine did a great job starting last year and Dayne has big shoes to fill so we'll see if he's hungry enough to snag this oppurtunity. Training camp will be fun this year.
                                lol i think everyone knows that Dayne is hungry.....
                                "I'm also serious when I say: You can't stop Elvis Dumervil; you can only hope to contain him." -Peter King-

                                sigpic
                                -The best in the business-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X