Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lone Tree
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by rst08tierney View Post
    Our running back by committee is just too suspect. All the Homer's think we can count on Lindsay but his frame just isn't there to out last an entire nfl regular season and playoffs.

    ILB scares me on defense more then anything and I'm sure DCs around the league are licking their chops. My gut says stopping the runs going to be an issue early.
    So tired of the narrative that is always pushed with smaller backs. The idea that if you're a big back you can handle a heavy workload is not based in fact.

    Lindsay was used heavily in college and stayed relatively healthy. His frame is fine. He's the best back on the roster. We don't need to limit him because of his size.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6,546
    Quote Originally Posted by JW7 View Post
    So tired of the narrative that is always pushed with smaller backs. The idea that if you're a big back you can handle a heavy workload is not based in fact.

    Lindsay was used heavily in college and stayed relatively healthy. His frame is fine. He's the best back on the roster. We don't need to limit him because of his size.
    Right now he's 0/1 on staying healthy off 227 touches so yes the narratives a factor.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    986
    Playoffs would be nice but my biggest concern is the WR's. Do we have enough weapons?
    http://forums.denverbroncos.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=31018&dateline=138207  1129

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Canmore View Post
    I don't see the playoffs.
    Brutal schedule.
    9-7
    I agree with this. If the schedule were more kind, I'd say 11-5, maybe even 12-4

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,012
    Looking at the roster from a quality and depth standpoint, we have questions on the o-line and d-line, QB, ILB, and secondary. I'm not as worried about RB's as some, just because much of their success depends on the o-line and other factors like how concerned a defense is about the passing game. WR and TE will also depend a lot on the time afforded to Flacco. If Flacco has time to allow routes to develop and deliver with accuracy, I think our inexperienced WR's and TE's will be OK. If he's running for his life, we're in for a long season. I have concerns about generating interior pressure from the d-line and stopping the run with the starting group, and those concerns really multiply with the lack of depth. If the defense starts giving up decent yardage on first and second down or QB's can step up in the pocket like they did last year, not only will Von and Chubb be less effective, but the secondary will struggle as well.

    On the strength of upgrades to the o-line and hopefully better situational play from Flacco, I think we improve to 8-8. But given the question marks amongst the starting units and a lack of experienced depth, it's tough to see going much past average for this year. Maybe 9-7, maybe 7-9.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    16,665
    Quote Originally Posted by rst08tierney View Post
    Right now he's 0/1 on staying healthy off 227 touches so yes the narratives a factor.
    Didnít David Johnson suffer the same injury the year before at a much larger size?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    D-Town
    Posts
    1,506
    I think this defense is going to be really, really good if we stay healthy. Top 5.

    Offense will be bottom half again, unfortunately. Flacco's been average his whole career. I don't see any reason for that to change dramatically.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Las Manzanitas, NM
    Posts
    30,913
    Quote Originally Posted by JW7 View Post
    So tired of the narrative that is always pushed with smaller backs. The idea that if you're a big back you can handle a heavy workload is not based in fact.

    Lindsay was used heavily in college and stayed relatively healthy. His frame is fine. He's the best back on the roster. We don't need to limit him because of his size.
    Denver will probably use both Lindsay and Freeman. The game plan will determine if one or the other gets more touches. Lindsay fits the WCO formation mismatch of a speedy receiver covered by a Backer or SS. It will be interesting to see how the RB situation is handled. It's good to have two, good, different kinds of RBs.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Lone Tree
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by rst08tierney View Post
    Right now he's 0/1 on staying healthy off 227 touches so yes the narratives a factor.
    Injuries happen to all types of players. The idea that small backs can't handle a heavy workload is trash. Fournette is always dealing with injuries. David Johnson missed a whole season. Gurley limped his way through the end of the year and will probably have a short career. All those backs are around 230.

    It's a narrative that is always pushed but I never hear about bigger backs being injury prone because of their size. That is only designated to smaller backs for some reason.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    111
    Tough schedule, new coach, new QB, young squad. 8-8/9-7, 10-6 if we catch some luck. No playoffs. I just want to see progress after two brutal years of crap. With progress, I think next year will be a high expectation year (with results as well).

Posting Permissions

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