Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ted Sundquist (merged)

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by topscribe
    It's called "figurative speaking."

    -----

    That very well may be, but Chop could easily mean that literally.
    John 11: 25-27

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



    Thanks Snk16

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by topscribe
      What is there to answer? You already have your answer, Jav. You just don't seem to want to accept it.

      Quarterback is the most important position in football. The Broncos have a shot at probably the best QB candidate on the board and maybe the best one since Elway . . . . who has Elway-type abilities. Jake is good, but he's closing in on 32. Besides, he's not "Elway-good" (IMO . . . . let's not somebody jump in here and prolong a stupid argument). Cutler is probably that good.

      I am in agreement that I would have liked a good DL added to the squad. However, a receiving TE was a deep need, too, and Scheffler was available, and his measurables and performance was in V. Davis' category, except for speed, but Scheffler is still fast.

      Perhaps the best thing they are doing . . . if they are really going to do it . . . . is to turn loose the DL a little more to pressure QBs. I believe they have the talent already there if that will only happen. Sundquist also said he believes it.

      There. I answered for you.

      For what it's worth.

      -----
      If you'll notice, I did say "continually neglect" as in over many drafts. I understand the rationale of picking up Cutler, even if I don't entirely agree with it. What I was asking is why we almost never address the D-line early.
      "You can't take the sky from me..."
      ------
      "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Javalon
        If you'll notice, I did say "continually neglect" as in over many drafts. I understand the rationale of picking up Cutler, even if I don't entirely agree with it. What I was asking is why we almost never address the D-line early.
        If you can ever get the answer to that question I would sure like know.
        John 11: 25-27

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



        Thanks Snk16

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Emancipator
          Sunquist never said Lelie was struggling. As matter of fact he said , "Certainly Lelie has been productive for us".
          There has been no mention out of any coach that Lelie was struggling.

          The truth is Denver needed more playmakers at the WR position. Although Rod Smith is producing well for the Broncos, he is getting up in years. If Rod has an injury it would be very tough for him to come back from that. Picking up Javon was a good move.
          __________________________________________________ ___________________________________

          Struggling with short-intermediate routes, he was built to go long......

          Comment


          • #20
            Dang...

            We still don't know if Shanny likes his coffee with or without cream and sugar.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              What I found interesting to note is that in one question, Lelie was regarded as "on his way out" by a fan. I expected Ted to dispute this point but he never even addressed it in his answer. I guess the decision has already been made.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by HORSEPOWER 56
                What I found interesting to note is that in one question, Lelie was regarded as "on his way out" by a fan. I expected Ted to dispute this point but he never even addressed it in his answer. I guess the decision has already been made.
                Maybe, maybe not..............but, if it HAS been made...........

                TRADE HIM, ALREADY!!
                My blog : "A new machine" http://dgalemore.blogspot.com




                R.I.P. Darrent Williams 1982-2007

                Comment


                • #23
                  This one was mine!

                  After our season was over, I really felt we had two main needs: explosive wide receiver & a pash rush from our D-line. While I think we solved our wide receiver problem with Walker and the draft, I am not so sure about the pash rush. Is Kenard Lang and Elvis Dumervil the answer, or is there something I am missing?

                  John Robins
                  Highland, Calif.


                  My question would be, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" Sacks are the glamour play. Turnovers change football games. It's tougher to recover from a turnover. That, coupled with how much pressure we put on the quarterback to force those turnovers -- you can't necessarily say that we didn't get to the quarterback. That was discussed last season: that we were getting to the quarterback; we were pressuring the quarterback. It's not that we don't have individuals who aren't capable of getting to the quarterback; it's that the scheme predicated playing the run first and rushing the passer second. Thus, we were one of the top run-defense teams in the National Football League. That being said, I think some adjustments will be made in the overall scheme of things that will loosen up some guys that are good enough and athletic enough to get to the quarterback.


                  I think in the first part of the answer, he is dancing around my question as I specifically mentioned the pash rush of the D-line, and he was talking about the overall pash rush of the defense. I agree with his answer 100%, turnovers are more important than sacks, but his response did not answer my specific concern until the last.

                  So it seems, that he is admitting that the scheme may have prevented full potential of the D-line (read: Warren & Brown). I think I read earlier that Coyer assured Warren during negotiations that he will be freed up this year to rush the pasher.

                  Based on his answer and the actions ( or non-actions) in FA, it appears the Broncos are satisfied with the players they have, and it is a scheme issue, not a talent issue. I hope they are right.
                  "I've always thought that Raider fans in Oakland were not so much fans as they were 50,000 people out on a work-release program." - John Elway.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by topscribe
                    Not many interviews do I come out of, happy that I really, honestly, have had some questions answered.

                    In this one, I did. Terrific interview! Thanks for the read, Chop.

                    -----

                    Same here... too bad Sund. dont need a cp jp
                    Bronco fan from Packer Land.
                    Lefty Writer on The Sports Show with Woody Paige and Les Shapiro
                    Tweet me @JoRo_5551

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jcrobins
                      This one was mine!

                      After our season was over, I really felt we had two main needs: explosive wide receiver & a pash rush from our D-line. While I think we solved our wide receiver problem with Walker and the draft, I am not so sure about the pash rush. Is Kenard Lang and Elvis Dumervil the answer, or is there something I am missing?

                      John Robins
                      Highland, Calif.


                      My question would be, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" Sacks are the glamour play. Turnovers change football games. It's tougher to recover from a turnover. That, coupled with how much pressure we put on the quarterback to force those turnovers -- you can't necessarily say that we didn't get to the quarterback. That was discussed last season: that we were getting to the quarterback; we were pressuring the quarterback. It's not that we don't have individuals who aren't capable of getting to the quarterback; it's that the scheme predicated playing the run first and rushing the passer second. Thus, we were one of the top run-defense teams in the National Football League. That being said, I think some adjustments will be made in the overall scheme of things that will loosen up some guys that are good enough and athletic enough to get to the quarterback.

                      He also contends that we had one of the top rush defenses when we ranked around the league average in yards allowed per carry. Sure, we ranked well in yards allowed per game, but this was in part due to the fact that we held the lead so often. Teams didn't really have a good chance to run the ball against us and as a result, we were run on less than any other team in the league. That is, we faced the fewest rushing attempts in the league.

                      Our statistics were skewed by circumstance.

                      And I think that they are ignoring our needs on the defensive line a bit.
                      My adopted fan is dogfish

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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Archimedes Owl
                        He also contends that we had one of the top rush defenses when we ranked around the league average in yards allowed per carry. Sure, we ranked well in yards allowed per game, but this was in part due to the fact that we held the lead so often. Teams didn't really have a good chance to run the ball against us and as a result, we were run on less than any other team in the league. That is, we faced the fewest rushing attempts in the league.

                        Our statistics were skewed by circumstance.

                        And I think that they are ignoring our needs on the defensive line a bit.

                        Wow, good point. I guess I didn't realize that.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by jcrobins
                          This one was mine!

                          After our season was over, I really felt we had two main needs: explosive wide receiver & a pash rush from our D-line. While I think we solved our wide receiver problem with Walker and the draft, I am not so sure about the pash rush. Is Kenard Lang and Elvis Dumervil the answer, or is there something I am missing?

                          John Robins
                          Highland, Calif.


                          My question would be, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" Sacks are the glamour play. Turnovers change football games. It's tougher to recover from a turnover. That, coupled with how much pressure we put on the quarterback to force those turnovers -- you can't necessarily say that we didn't get to the quarterback. That was discussed last season: that we were getting to the quarterback; we were pressuring the quarterback. It's not that we don't have individuals who aren't capable of getting to the quarterback; it's that the scheme predicated playing the run first and rushing the passer second. Thus, we were one of the top run-defense teams in the National Football League. That being said, I think some adjustments will be made in the overall scheme of things that will loosen up some guys that are good enough and athletic enough to get to the quarterback.


                          I think in the first part of the answer, he is dancing around my question as I specifically mentioned the pash rush of the D-line, and he was talking about the overall pash rush of the defense. I agree with his answer 100%, turnovers are more important than sacks, but his response did not answer my specific concern until the last.

                          So it seems, that he is admitting that the scheme may have prevented full potential of the D-line (read: Warren & Brown). I think I read earlier that Coyer assured Warren during negotiations that he will be freed up this year to rush the pasher.

                          Based on his answer and the actions ( or non-actions) in FA, it appears the Broncos are satisfied with the players they have, and it is a scheme issue, not a talent issue. I hope they are right.
                          I don't really buy his answer to that one. You're right that he was skirting the issue.

                          We got pressure on the QB when we all-out blitzed. But the pressure from the D-line when we weren't blitzing was sporadic at best. Teams can (and did) adjust to the all-out blitz but it's much hard to stop a good pass rushing defensive line.

                          It seems like being in denial for him to say, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can actually have sacks AND turnovers.

                          It was a good question on your part. But I wasn't satisfied with his answer.
                          "You can't take the sky from me..."
                          ------
                          "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Javalon
                            I don't really buy his answer to that one. You're right that he was skirting the issue.

                            We got pressure on the QB when we all-out blitzed. But the pressure from the D-line when we weren't blitzing was sporadic at best. Teams can (and did) adjust to the all-out blitz but it's much hard to stop a good pass rushing defensive line.

                            It seems like being in denial for him to say, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can actually have sacks AND turnovers.

                            It was a good question on your part. But I wasn't satisfied with his answer.
                            Yeah I remember reading that question and answer and came away with pretty much the same conclusion. Sundquist skirted the issues.
                            John 11: 25-27

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



                            Thanks Snk16

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Javalon
                              I don't really buy his answer to that one. You're right that he was skirting the issue.

                              We got pressure on the QB when we all-out blitzed. But the pressure from the D-line when we weren't blitzing was sporadic at best. Teams can (and did) adjust to the all-out blitz but it's much hard to stop a good pass rushing defensive line.

                              It seems like being in denial for him to say, "What's more important: turnovers or sacks?" It doesn't have to be one or the other. You can actually have sacks AND turnovers.

                              It was a good question on your part. But I wasn't satisfied with his answer.
                              One other thing, he never addressed another concern I had within the same question, and that is:
                              Is Lang and Dumervil the answer?

                              I would have really liked him to elaborate on this because as far as the typical Broncos fan is concerned, that is who we have to improve the D-line. Maybe they are the answer, but I would like to be convinced. Oh well, I guess we will all have to wait until September for that one.
                              "I've always thought that Raider fans in Oakland were not so much fans as they were 50,000 people out on a work-release program." - John Elway.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X