Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 14 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 211
  1. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    16,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa-pwn View Post
    Yeah, I don't buy it. Too many analysts are trying to overthink this. Flacco was not brought in to "win now", Elway has no delusions of grandeur. Flacco was brought in to hopefully be "not terrible" while a rookie is groomed to supplant him.

    We didn't give much up for Flacco, and his 18.5m salary is just as affordable as:

    1) Glennon's 15m AAV he got from the Bears in 2017, the same year they traded up to #2 for Trubisky

    2) Bradford's 17.5m AAV from Philadelphia in 2016, the same year they traded up to #2 for Wentz. They also signed Chase Daniels to a 3 year 21m deal that same offseason.

    3) Tyrod Taylor's 16m he got from Cleveland last year after they traded an early 3rd round pick for him the same offseason they took Mayfield 1st overall.

    I look for Elway to follow this trend.
    I donít disagree with you. At least on Flacco anyway. Well I donít think Flacco is anything more than that. Iím not sold that Elway doesnít legitimately think he bought himself some time on qb. He likes to try to hit on BPA at other positions first. He always believes the team is in win now mode. And if he sticks to that drafting a qb to sit at 10 doesnít fit doing that.

    Iím also starting to believe his love affair with lock was always early smoke screening. Last year he was supposedly in love with josh Allen. And he passed on him. I think he could easily pass on his love affair this year too.

    I honestly wouldnít be surprised either way. I do agree the sooner they find Flaccoís replacement the better. Iím just not sold that Elway doesnít think putting talent around Flacco isnít the better option that allows him to kick the can for another year.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa-pwn View Post
    Yeah, I don't buy it. Too many analysts are trying to overthink this. Flacco was not brought in to "win now", Elway has no delusions of grandeur. Flacco was brought in to hopefully be "not terrible" while a rookie is groomed to supplant him.

    We didn't give much up for Flacco, and his 18.5m salary is just as affordable as:

    1) Glennon's 15m AAV he got from the Bears in 2017, the same year they traded up to #2 for Trubisky

    2) Bradford's 17.5m AAV from Philadelphia in 2016, the same year they traded up to #2 for Wentz. They also signed Chase Daniels to a 3 year 21m deal that same offseason.

    3) Tyrod Taylor's 16m he got from Cleveland last year after they traded an early 3rd round pick for him the same offseason they took Mayfield 1st overall.

    I look for Elway to follow this trend.
    Lol this is laughable. Thinking we got rid of one bridge QB(Case) to get another bridge QB(Flacco) to have him just play ďnot terribleĒ so we can groom a young QB. Denver could have just got Fitzpatrick or some other scrub. Denverís not going to draft a QB early. JE wants to win now and the moves he made this off season show that. I do think Denver is hoping a QB drops to 10 though. Just so they can trade back unless a player like Oliver or White fall to 10(doubtful).

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    7,123
    Quote Originally Posted by DenverBlood View Post
    I donít disagree with you. At least on Flacco anyway. Well I donít think Flacco is anything more than that. Iím not sold that Elway doesnít legitimately think he bought himself some time on qb. He likes to try to hit on BPA at other positions first. He always believes the team is in win now mode. And if he sticks to that drafting a qb to sit at 10 doesnít fit doing that.

    Iím also starting to believe his love affair with lock was always early smoke screening. Last year he was supposedly in love with josh Allen. And he passed on him. I think he could easily pass on his love affair this year too.

    I honestly wouldnít be surprised either way. I do agree the sooner they find Flaccoís replacement the better. Iím just not sold that Elway doesnít think putting talent around Flacco isnít the better option that allows him to kick the can for another year.
    Maybe. I thought all last offseason that Elway was in love with Mayfield, to be honest. From the personal relationship Mayfield had with Elway and Kubiak(see: the hugs they shared at OU's pro day[1]), the amount of meetings, to the Keenum signing, to the things Elway alluded to liking from a QB prospect like leadership and fire. There were reports early on, and often, of things like there were people in the Broncos FO "pounding the table to go get Mayfield"[2]. A lot of that was pushed under the rug because it didn't fit the media's narrative. Honestly, I thought the Allen thing was mostly media contrived, based on the "hurr Elway luv tall qb!" meme.



    [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/FOXSports...0%2Fframe.html

    [2]
    from an interview on NFLN last draft cycle that has unfortunately been removed from youtube.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/DenverBronc...ble_for_baker/

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    7,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Murph2432 View Post
    Lol this is laughable. Thinking we got rid of one bridge QB(Case) to get another bridge QB(Flacco) to have him just play ďnot terribleĒ so we can groom a young QB. Denver could have just got Fitzpatrick or some other scrub. Denverís not going to draft a QB early. JE wants to win now and the moves he made this off season show that. I do think Denver is hoping a QB drops to 10 though. Just so they can trade back unless a player like Oliver or White fall to 10(doubtful).
    Laughable? Yet it happens plenty often in the NFL as I have shown above. Sure, Denver could have done that. It's what I would have done. But Elway wanted to save face with the veteran players. Signing someone like Fitz and drafting a QB signals "it's rebuild time, we might be bad a little longer, that's okay". Trading for a, while unspectacur, long time starter in Flacco tells the team that he still wants to remain competitive even should they pick a QB early. I don't believe Flacco will make us competitive, but his presence undoubtably carries more weight and respect with the vets than a Ryan Fitzpatrick or Josh McCown or even Case Keenum. Keenum could not have stuck around with a rookie behind him. If he performed any less than great, there would be whispers in the locker room; it would divide the team. Flacco has a longer leash with the vets due to his wins and his newness to the team. He hasn't burned any bridges yet with poor play like Keenum had.

    Anyway..What signings tell you that we're trying to win nke? We filled some holes in an effort to remain competitive, we didn't shell out for top tier FAs like we did when were really trying to "win now" in 2013-2015. We acquired a below average veteran QB with a contract darn near tailor made for a bridge QB. You do not trade a 4th round pick for a QB on a year-to-year contract trying to "win now". You do when you plan on taking a QB early though, it gives you flexibility to move on from him as soon as his heir is ready. Elway clearly sees the window as opening next year, since that is when our cap space really opens up for some significant signings, especially if Flacco is cut and we have a QB starter on a rookie deal. Then you will see signings like 2013-2015, moves like the Rams have made the last few years, with our cap space expected to be close to the 80m mark the next two years. That is when it time to "win now". Elway is just trying to keep the vets motivated and the ship afloat until then.

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa-pwn View Post
    Laughable? Yet it happens plenty often in the NFL as I have shown above. Sure, Denver could have done that. It's what I would have done. But Elway wanted to save face with the veteran players. Signing someone like Fitz and drafting a QB signals "it's rebuild time, we might be bad a little longer, that's okay". Trading for a, while unspectacur, long time starter in Flacco tells the team that he still wants to remain competitive even should they pick a QB early. I don't believe Flacco will make us competitive, but his presence undoubtably carries more weight and respect with the vets than a Ryan Fitzpatrick or Josh McCown or even Case Keenum. Keenum could not have stuck around with a rookie behind him. If he performed any less than great, there would be whispers in the locker room; it would divide the team. Flacco has a longer leash with the vets due to his wins and his newness to the team. He hasn't burned any bridges yet with poor play like Keenum had.

    Anyway..What signings tell you that we're trying to win nke? We filled some holes in an effort to remain competitive, we didn't shell out for top tier FAs like we did when were really trying to "win now" in 2013-2015. We acquired a below average veteran QB with a contract darn near tailor made for a bridge QB. You do not trade a 4th round pick for a QB on a year-to-year contract trying to "win now". You do when you plan on taking a QB early though, it gives you flexibility to move on from him as soon as his heir is ready. Elway clearly sees the window as opening next year, since that is when our cap space really opens up for some significant signings, especially if Flacco is cut and we have a QB starter on a rookie deal. Then you will see signings like 2013-2015, moves like the Rams have made the last few years, with our cap space expected to be close to the 80m mark the next two years. That is when it time to "win now". Elway is just trying to keep the vets motivated and the ship afloat until then.
    Being bad for a little longer to get your franchise QB next year is better than reaching in a QB class that is not that strong. If Elway really wanted a QB he want have grabbed one at 5 last year or moved up last year to get one. However, he was happy with Keenum. So youíre telling me he isnít okay with Flacco and trusted Case more? Interesting. The moves are clear but Iíll spell it out for you. You exercise Sanders who has little dead cap, you exercise Wolfe who has little dead cap, you sign an older CB in Jackson who signed a 3 year deal but really signed a 2 year deal. So unless you think that rookie can turn things around real quick that signing was pointless. Callahan is only a 3 year deal that really a 2 if they wanted too. The moves show that Denver is trying to go back to their old formula where they are trying to get an elite D and try to build an offense good enough to win. Flacco is an upgrade to arcade and Pm his final year. I actually think Flacco does a lot better than people expect him to. Plus he isnít going to be asked to do anything too crazy. We are clearly going to be a run heavy offense but what makes Flacco ideal is his dee ball threat to keep defense honest and that he knows this system.

    You did have to trade for Flacco because if he hit FA he gets to choose where he goes. So you sure things up by getting the guy whoís on a team friend deal with zero guarantee just in case he gets hurt or doesnít work out vs letting him hit FA and you have to put guarantees in it.

    With the cap space being so high for us next year we could go all in on the draft next year and get a QB in abetter draft class and not worry so much because we can fill holes in FA now. Thatís assuming we even do that. Denver history isnít so great at drafting QBs and molding them. We trade or pick up QBs in FA. Thatís what we done in the past and that works for us. Why change?
    Last edited by Murph2432; 04-19-2019 at 08:34 AM.

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,043
    Here is an interesting write up on Fangio's defense from 2015 when he was leaving the 49ers.

    Blurb;

    Here’s an example of a 3-4 under front from Fangio, with defensive end Justin Smith playing a 3/4i-technique to the open or weak side of the formation, and the Will backer playing in a nine-technique from a two-point stance.

    From this alignment, Fangio has given Smith – and other ends – both one- and two-gap responsibilities, but primarily his down linemen play with two-gap technique.





    Last edited by broncos SB2010; 04-19-2019 at 09:05 AM.

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,221
    welp sounds like oliver is off our board.
    For now....
    1. Reuben Badass LB; 2. Joe Mixon RB; 3. Jake Butt TE; 3B Sid Jones DB; 4. Bucky Hoges TE; 6. Ryan Switzer WR. Trade for Sheldon Richardson.

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Ft. Lewis, Washington
    Posts
    3,508
    Quote Originally Posted by underrated29 View Post
    welp sounds like oliver is off our board.
    ??? What you got?
    New England Patriots GM

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    Here is an interesting write up on Fangio's defense from 2015 when he was leaving the 49ers.

    Blurb;

    Hereís an example of a 3-4 under front from Fangio, with defensive end Justin Smith playing a 3/4i-technique to the open or weak side of the formation, and the Will backer playing in a nine-technique from a two-point stance.

    From this alignment, Fangio has given Smith Ė and other ends Ė both one- and two-gap responsibilities, but primarily his down linemen play with two-gap technique.






    Did you read the articles that Sam linked earlier?

    "In Fangioís scheme, the NT (#90 above) lines up off the centerís shoulder on the strong-side (same side as TE) and is only responsible for the gap in front of him. This requires a different type of NT as opposed to the classic space-eater used in standard 3-4 schemes. The NT in Fangioís scheme needs to have the quickness to beat interior lineman off the snap and the strength to hold his ground against double-teams in the run game. Iíll get into how the current Bears fit in Fangioís scheme in my next post."

    https://beargoggleson.com/2015/01/21...ensive-scheme/

    "Itís widely perceived that Fangioís Niners ran a 3-4 scheme, but thatís not entirely accurate. Occasionally his defense lined up in a traditional 3-4 alignment on obvious run plays, but the majority of the time they ran a 4-3 under scheme. The 4-3 under has been gaining popularity based on the success of proponents like the Seahawks, Broncos, and of course Fangioís 49ers. At itís core his scheme is a 4-3 under, but Fangio has made a few modifications that make it unique. The best description of the way Fangio runs his scheme is a 3-4/4-3 hybrid, but I will do my best to explain it in detail below.

    -snip-

    The beauty of the 4-3 under is that you can play it with essentially the same type of athletes as the traditional 3-4, to an extent. What we haven't touched on is the fact that while the true 3-4 uses 2-gap defensive linemen (as mentioned earlier in the post, making plays on either side of their man), the 4-3 under is a 1-gap principle. This means that each player is responsible for penetrating the gap in front of him, not standing and holding the point. The inside linebackers will handle anything that comes through the open gaps."

    https://www.ninersnation.com/2013/5/...ckel-4-3-under

    I don't think anything is thoroughly settled until we actually see them play. And Fangio may very well change things up depending on situational strategy. We might see a whole bunch of formations and concepts. The difference I am seeing in the articles is that yours is saying Fangio plays a 3-4 Under and the other two are saying he plays a 4-3 Under.

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,043
    Quote Originally Posted by listopencil View Post
    Did you read the articles that Sam linked earlier?

    "In Fangio’s scheme, the NT (#90 above) lines up off the center’s shoulder on the strong-side (same side as TE) and is only responsible for the gap in front of him. This requires a different type of NT as opposed to the classic space-eater used in standard 3-4 schemes. The NT in Fangio’s scheme needs to have the quickness to beat interior lineman off the snap and the strength to hold his ground against double-teams in the run game. I’ll get into how the current Bears fit in Fangio’s scheme in my next post."

    https://beargoggleson.com/2015/01/21...ensive-scheme/

    "It’s widely perceived that Fangio’s Niners ran a 3-4 scheme, but that’s not entirely accurate. Occasionally his defense lined up in a traditional 3-4 alignment on obvious run plays, but the majority of the time they ran a 4-3 under scheme. The 4-3 under has been gaining popularity based on the success of proponents like the Seahawks, Broncos, and of course Fangio’s 49ers. At it’s core his scheme is a 4-3 under, but Fangio has made a few modifications that make it unique. The best description of the way Fangio runs his scheme is a 3-4/4-3 hybrid, but I will do my best to explain it in detail below.

    -snip-

    The beauty of the 4-3 under is that you can play it with essentially the same type of athletes as the traditional 3-4, to an extent. What we haven't touched on is the fact that while the true 3-4 uses 2-gap defensive linemen (as mentioned earlier in the post, making plays on either side of their man), the 4-3 under is a 1-gap principle. This means that each player is responsible for penetrating the gap in front of him, not standing and holding the point. The inside linebackers will handle anything that comes through the open gaps."

    https://www.ninersnation.com/2013/5/...ckel-4-3-under

    I don't think anything is thoroughly settled until we actually see them play. And Fangio may very well change things up depending on situational strategy. We might see a whole bunch of formations and concepts. The difference I am seeing in the articles is that yours is saying Fangio plays a 3-4 Under and the other two are saying he plays a 4-3 Under.
    I posted another article a few days ago which said that Eddie Goldman was usually lined up as a 0 technique last year in Chicago which coincides with this one. I am sure he plays a variety of fronts but most are only in a limited amount. This article that I posted today seems to come from a pretty credible source. The article you posted is 2 years older than than mine. Maybe he changed?
    Last edited by broncos SB2010; 04-19-2019 at 09:53 AM.

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    7,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Gbt31 View Post
    ??? What you got?
    There's a longtime poster on another board who either works for the broncos or has some sort of connection on the inside. He puts little things out there every now and then and they're pretty much always right on the money. Anyway, he said that Oliver got into a verbal argument with Bronco reps at the combine as well as other team's staff at his pro day. His visit with the Eagles apparantly also when horridly.

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa-pwn View Post
    There's a longtime poster on another board who either works for the broncos or has some sort of connection on the inside. He puts little things out there every now and then and they're pretty much always right on the money. Anyway, he said that Oliver got into a verbal argument with Bronco reps at the combine as well as other team's staff at his pro day. His visit with the Eagles apparantly also when horridly.
    saw the same post. This type of info this close to the draft by 2 teams that logically would be in play for Oliver screams smokescreen.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    I posted another article a few days ago which said that Eddie Goldman was usually lined up as a 0 technique last year in Chicago which coincides with this one. I am sure he plays a variety of fronts but most are only in a limited amount. This article that I posted today seems to come from a pretty credible source. The article you posted is 2 years older than than mine. Maybe he changed?
    Im thinking more likely he changed to suit the skill set of his players. Seems more likely.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    30,748
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    Initially there was some confusion over whether Fangio's run D would be one or two gap with some expecting the latter. However, there is reason to believe that Fangio's run D will be one gap.

    http://www.milehighreport.com/2019/3...rr-work-as-nts

    If Fangio's D plays one gap, it will be a good thing because that's what Denver has played for the past four years. Swiching to two gap is a major project.
    Quote Originally Posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    Here is an interesting write up on Fangio's defense from 2015 when he was leaving the 49ers.

    Blurb;

    Here’s an example of a 3-4 under front from Fangio, with defensive end Justin Smith playing a 3/4i-technique to the open or weak side of the formation, and the Will backer playing in a nine-technique from a two-point stance.

    From this alignment, Fangio has given Smith – and other ends – both one- and two-gap responsibilities, but primarily his down linemen play with two-gap technique.





    When Denver plays some preseason games, we'll be able to see what they do. I suppose if Oliver was available at #10 and Denver didn't pick him, that might mean they are going two gap.

    Denver has played one gap the past four years. Switching to two gap at least calls for two big 0 techs who command a double and at least two Inside Backers who are great at reading blocks and taking good angles in overlapping triangles of responsibility.

    I'm puzzled because if the Switch was going to happen they should have done more to address it in free agency. They did re-sign Zach Kerr, but I'm not sure if he is more than a backup 0 tech. They could have signed Danny Shelton. I guess if they passed on Ed Oliver and picked Dexter Lawrence, that could indicate a switch to two gap.

    I'm skeptical of the idea that a defensive front can switch back and forth between one and two gap run D during the course of a game or season and be effective. On-the-field practices are limited. Because of that I think it's necessary to pick one and coach the heck out of it. One and two gap are so different being read and react versus attack.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    21,043
    Quote Originally Posted by samparnell View Post
    When Denver plays some preseason games, we'll be able to see what they do. I suppose if Oliver was available at #10 and Denver didn't pick him, that might mean they are going two gap.

    Denver has played one gap the past four years. Switching to two gap at least calls for two big 0 techs who command a double and at least two Inside Backers who are great at reading blocks and taking good angles in overlapping triangles of responsibility.

    I'm puzzled because if the Switch was going to happen they should have done more to address it in free agency. They did re-sign Zach Kerr, but I'm not sure if he is more than a backup 0 tech. They could have signed Danny Shelton. I guess if they passed on Ed Oliver and picked Dexter Lawrence, that could indicate a switch to two gap.

    I'm skeptical of the idea that a defensive front can switch back and forth between one and two gap run D during the course of a game or season and be effective. On-the-field practices are limited. Because of that I think it's necessary to pick one and coach the heck out of it. One and two gap are so different being read and react versus attack.
    agreed. excellent points.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •