Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's wrong with RB by committee??

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

  • Jrhampton
    replied
    Originally posted by dogfish
    seriously folks-- am i the only one on here you is perfectly content and happy with tater in his current productive role? maybe i'm exaggerating, but it seems as though everyone is either pressing for bell to have an expanded role, or complaining about him-- all i hear is he needs to do this and that, he needs to get better, he needs to be our featured back (and top this isn't directed at you just because it follows your post ), he'll be great if they just give him a chance etc etc. . . or tater sucks, we should trade him, he can't break tackles, etc etc. . .

    i really don't understand why no one can seem to just be happy with the situation as it is. . . he's a 12-15 touches per game back, and a major contributor to our offense the way it is-- the coaching staff, unlike most posters, understands that he seems to be most productive in this limited role. . . i just can't come to grips with why everyone seems to be so polarized on this issue, either wanting him to become the workhorse that he clearly isn't, or wanting him to be gone or replaced. . .

    i know he was a high pick and people have expectations of him, but he is very much a productive member of our team-- no, he can't block or run over LBs, and he'll probably never be portis, but what's wrong with using him exactly the way we did this year? seriously, am i the ONLY one who is entirely happy with him the way we used him this year, the only person who really likes him but doesn't expect him to be more than he is already?


    it just makes no sense to me that people don't appreciate an explosive playmaker who has certain limitations and fills an important role for us and does it very well. . . we have been spoiled with TD and the success of our running game over the years methinks!
    I'm with you on this one, tater is tater to expect more out of him is not bright. Until he decides he want it moere than Q did his first year and MA last year.

    It is a safe bet that Dayne will take it away from him this year.

    Would I like studbuffalo? 20-25 runs a game getting 150+yards sure but unless one develoes in TC we are most likely gonna see what we did last year RD getting 18-24 caries and tater his 10-12.

    OK by me.

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    I agree with you. I would also say that at times he trys to dance through the hole and at others he just he doesn't see a cut back lane.
    Well, if I've learned anything about Shanny and Turner, if Tater doesn't learn the one-cut-and-go, he may be once-cut-and-gone.

    (That just popped up in my little ol' head. )

    -----

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by topscribe
    IMO, Tater has to produce more in the area of blocking before he can be depended on as a full-time starter.

    -----
    I agree with you. I would also say that at times he trys to dance through the hole and at others he just he doesn't see a cut back lane.

    Leave a comment:


  • dogfish
    replied
    seriously folks-- am i the only one on here you is perfectly content and happy with tater in his current productive role? maybe i'm exaggerating, but it seems as though everyone is either pressing for bell to have an expanded role, or complaining about him-- all i hear is he needs to do this and that, he needs to get better, he needs to be our featured back (and top this isn't directed at you just because it follows your post ), he'll be great if they just give him a chance etc etc. . . or tater sucks, we should trade him, he can't break tackles, etc etc. . .

    i really don't understand why no one can seem to just be happy with the situation as it is. . . he's a 12-15 touches per game back, and a major contributor to our offense the way it is-- the coaching staff, unlike most posters, understands that he seems to be most productive in this limited role. . . i just can't come to grips with why everyone seems to be so polarized on this issue, either wanting him to become the workhorse that he clearly isn't, or wanting him to be gone or replaced. . .

    i know he was a high pick and people have expectations of him, but he is very much a productive member of our team-- no, he can't block or run over LBs, and he'll probably never be portis, but what's wrong with using him exactly the way we did this year? seriously, am i the ONLY one who is entirely happy with him the way we used him this year, the only person who really likes him but doesn't expect him to be more than he is already?


    it just makes no sense to me that people don't appreciate an explosive playmaker who has certain limitations and fills an important role for us and does it very well. . . we have been spoiled with TD and the success of our running game over the years methinks!
    Last edited by dogfish; 03-27-2006, 09:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    Well . . .

    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    Show me where I said you were calling the plays? I'll restate what I said earlier, if you (meaning Jr) are going to complain that Bell isn't producing enough and at the same time say that we are throwing to the backs LESS I see your criticism as illogical.
    IMO, Tater has to produce more in the area of blocking before he can be depended on as a full-time starter.

    -----

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by Jrhampton
    I'm not calling the plays you'll have to ask Mikey.
    Show me where I said you were calling the plays? I'll restate what I said earlier, if you (meaning Jr) are going to complain that Bell isn't producing enough and at the same time say that we are throwing to the backs LESS I see your criticism as illogical.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jrhampton
    replied
    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    You're contridicting yourself on the one hand you say Bell needs to increase his production yet on the other hand we are throwing to the backs less. That's illogical guy.
    I'm not calling the plays you'll have to ask Mikey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jrhampton
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos4ever
    Actually that is really puzzling to me. I have watched Tatum for two years now in training camp and he has caught almost everything thrown at him.

    I think they totally used him wrong last year in the passing game. For some reason he was getting 5-8 yard passes on 3rd down and every time there was a linebacker to blast him just as the ball got there.

    I did not see any times when they let him use his speed like that did in training camp and have him catch the long ball.
    I agree why have they not thrown to him or MA or for that matter Q when he was here. It used to be a staple of our game like the toss to TD. What happened?

    Leave a comment:


  • TXBRONC
    replied
    Originally posted by Jrhampton
    But we have thrown less to teh RB for several years now 18 catches mean squat.

    He really need to increase his production on this are. He should be a natural for it with his speed and a littel space he should be gone most of the time.

    One has to wonder why his number has not been called much.
    You're contridicting yourself on the one hand you say Bell needs to increase his production yet on the other hand we are throwing to the backs less. That's illogical guy.

    Leave a comment:


  • dogfish
    replied
    well. . .

    Originally posted by topscribe
    Yes, I am fully aware of how things turned out, but it appears more as if they blundered into it through moves that were otherwise unnecessary. But yes, it turned out all right.

    Except for what happened to MA . . .

    -----


    you may be right here-- i sincerely hope we can make some more blunders that get us players like champ!! it ain't pretty, but whatever works. . .

    Leave a comment:


  • cadencesdad
    replied
    Originally posted by dogfish
    water under the bridge, in any case. . . good post whether i agree with it or not-- it's tough for me to be very critical of shanny on this particular topic considering the results we've gotten. . . portis was a great value pick and has become a FAR better runner and more complete player than t j duckett, william green, or deshaun foster, all of whom were taken ahead of him. . .

    and tater, despite his limitations, has been a very valuable player for us-- he averaged a full ypc better than MA, and scored 8 TDs to MA's 12 on significantly fewer carries. . . and don't forget, you need two good backs when you depend on the run as much as we do-- you never know when one of them will go down, and you need a reliable second option. . . besides, if we hadn't drafted portis and turned him into a star, we wouldn't have champ now! considering our unique success at the position, maybe we should always draft RBs and trade them?

    this may be the ONLY time you hear me actually defend shanny's drafting, but WTH!!

    I agree, we, and all other teams should have depth at the RB position, however, as far as trading them, I believe other teams are starting to realize it's the "system" that makes these RB's appear more valuable than they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    Originally posted by dogfish
    water under the bridge, in any case. . . good post whether i agree with it or not-- it's tough for me to be very critical of shanny on this particular topic considering the results we've gotten. . . portis was a great value pick and has become a FAR better runner and more complete player than t j duckett, william green, or deshaun foster, all of whom were taken ahead of him. . .

    and tater, despite his limitations, has been a very valuable player for us-- he averaged a full ypc better than MA, and scored 8 TDs to MA's 12 on significantly fewer carries. . . and don't forget, you need two good backs when you depend on the run as much as we do-- you never know when one of them will go down, and you need a reliable second option. . . besides, if we hadn't drafted portis and turned him into a star, we wouldn't have champ now! considering our unique success at the position, maybe we should always draft RBs and trade them?

    this may be the ONLY time you hear me actually defend shanny's drafting, but WTH!!

    Yes, I am fully aware of how things turned out, but it appears more as if they blundered into it through moves that were otherwise unnecessary. But yes, it turned out all right.

    Except for what happened to MA . . .

    -----

    Leave a comment:


  • broncos4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by Jrhampton
    But we have thrown less to teh RB for several years now 18 catches mean squat.

    He really need to increase his production on this are. He should be a natural for it with his speed and a littel space he should be gone most of the time.

    One has to wonder why his number has not been called much.
    Actually that is really puzzling to me. I have watched Tatum for two years now in training camp and he has caught almost everything thrown at him.

    I think they totally used him wrong last year in the passing game. For some reason he was getting 5-8 yard passes on 3rd down and every time there was a linebacker to blast him just as the ball got there.

    I did not see any times when they let him use his speed like that did in training camp and have him catch the long ball.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jrhampton
    replied
    Originally posted by TXBRONC
    I hope you realize Jr that Anderson and Bell each had 18 receptions this past season. Also you know that Bell didn't see action last year until about the midway point his rookie season. So it stands to reasons that he wouldn't have many receptions.

    But we have thrown less to teh RB for several years now 18 catches mean squat.

    He really need to increase his production on this are. He should be a natural for it with his speed and a littel space he should be gone most of the time.

    One has to wonder why his number has not been called much.

    Leave a comment:


  • dogfish
    replied
    Originally posted by topscribe
    Although he did not have Tater's speed, I'm not sure MA lacked football speed all that much. He didn't look slow during that 93-yard run nor that 80-yard screen pass this last year. They did occasionally send him to the outside on a pitch, but not enough, IMO. Moreover, I wonder whether they should have run MA just a little more and Tater a little less.

    I believe they just committed a grievous all-around blunder with MA throughout his career. Here we had a RB with 1,487 yards in his rookie year and 1,014 yards in his last year with us at age 32 . . . while splitting time with Tater. In between, we had this kind of runner positioned at FULLBACK, while we were passing up tons of talent at other positions, just so we could get Portis and Tater.

    To me, this was the most asinine set of moves since the drafting of Bobby Anderson instead of an offensive lineman to help Floyd Little, who was still here and in his prime.

    Just to get a load of how we wasted MA's talent, TD did not match MA's ROOKIE yardage until his (TD's) SECOND year, and MA STILL had a better YPA (5.0 ) than did TD (4.5). Moreover, TD still had Zimmerman and Schlereth blocking for him and Elway as his QB.

    Maybe we need a RBC now, but I'm not sure we did before.

    -----

    water under the bridge, in any case. . . good post whether i agree with it or not-- it's tough for me to be very critical of shanny on this particular topic considering the results we've gotten. . . portis was a great value pick and has become a FAR better runner and more complete player than t j duckett, william green, or deshaun foster, all of whom were taken ahead of him. . .

    and tater, despite his limitations, has been a very valuable player for us-- he averaged a full ypc better than MA, and scored 8 TDs to MA's 12 on significantly fewer carries. . . and don't forget, you need two good backs when you depend on the run as much as we do-- you never know when one of them will go down, and you need a reliable second option. . . besides, if we hadn't drafted portis and turned him into a star, we wouldn't have champ now! considering our unique success at the position, maybe we should always draft RBs and trade them?

    this may be the ONLY time you hear me actually defend shanny's drafting, but WTH!!

    Last edited by dogfish; 03-26-2006, 06:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X