Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 46 to 59 of 59
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    14,706
    Quote Originally Posted by Rastic View Post
    It's the NFL ranking they have posted on their site but , though categorically it's for "offensive line" it looks exclusively for rushing and likely weighted accordingly according to their metrics. How that differs from FO would be interesting to know - maybe giving better or worse weighting depending on results vs. efficiency. I swear, stats can be so annoying.
    The Football Outsiders stats usually have to do with success rate over certain areas, and how many times stuffed on different run plays. Denver has a very good rate of not having the RB stuffed (stopped at or behind the LOS) so that's probably pushing them up the FO rankings.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    14,706
    Quote Originally Posted by DenverBlood View Post
    Is anyone really looking at our rushing attack and feeling all that great about it?

    I’m hearing a lot of “we rank high in run blocking just not pass blocking” but I just don’t really feel like we run as well this year. I mean there are times we look good but I just feel like it isn’t as potent as last year.

    Although I just checked mid post and Lindsay is still at 766 and could reach 1k again with a modest 59 yards per game.

    But he was closer to 1k at this point a year ago before the offense went wack at the end and then the injury.

    I’ll accept that the line is better than my first paranoia because there have been several games where I’m like hey no sacks yet and it’s late.

    As long as we get rid of Bolles and use a high pick on a quality Lt then I’m good.

    I don’t agree with posters saying a top 10 pick needs to be skill weapons or defense. I don’t trust Elway picking tackles and you could easily argue Bolles at LT is the biggest problem with this team. And usually you get the top tier Lt’s between 1-15. So why would we not draft one top 10?
    My biggest problem with the run game is they don't stick with it enough. Nor do they have a lot of variety to it. Every time they run stretch it seems to be to the right side, which Denver is much worse at running outside on.

    Bolles isn't even the worst problem on the o-line. Wilkinson at RT is worse than Bolles at LT, and I'm not saying that to pump up Bolles, but Wilkinson at RT has been that bad. Both seem to be better suited for G (where they don't have to block the edge against a speed rush). One could argue Denver is using a 5 guard o-line right now.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FORT COLLINS COLORADO
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler By'Note View Post
    My biggest problem with the run game is they don't stick with it enough. Nor do they have a lot of variety to it. Every time they run stretch it seems to be to the right side, which Denver is much worse at running outside on.

    Bolles isn't even the worst problem on the o-line. Wilkinson at RT is worse than Bolles at LT, and I'm not saying that to pump up Bolles, but Wilkinson at RT has been that bad. Both seem to be better suited for G (where they don't have to block the edge against a speed rush). One could argue Denver is using a 5 guard o-line right now.
    hopefully james plays, but we need to add depth at both tackle spots. we need a LT and a guy who is a swing tackle but can play either tackle. i am not sure that is possible in one draft. this O-line is still a mess any way any one wants to paint it. Leary is not a scheme fit at all .

    oakland raders gm
    latavis murray trade bait

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    10,804
    Everyone agrees we need a LT. Bolles could be salvaged moving inside, possibly RG. JaíWuan James canít be trusted to play RT even when healthy, so RT is a need. With a $51 million contract for James itís not realistic to sign another FA. McGovern is average at best. When Shaq Lawson called out McGovern that says something about your center. We need a LT, RG, RT and possibly a C. Risner is the only truly capable player at this point.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
    Everyone agrees we need a LT. Bolles could be salvaged moving inside, possibly RG. JaíWuan James canít be trusted to play RT even when healthy, so RT is a need. With a $51 million contract for James itís not realistic to sign another FA. McGovern is average at best. When Shaq Lawson called out McGovern that says something about your center. We need a LT, RG, RT and possibly a C. Risner is the only truly capable player at this point.
    He called him out because McGovern said he didn't know who Lawson was. That's a non story to me. I think McGovern has done an admirable job this year. James will still be the starter next season because of his contract. Right or wrong that's just the way it's going happen. We draft or sign for depth behind him but he remains the starter.

    Imo, all we need is a new LT. Maybe another guard if Bolles doesn't work there but I have to think he will do ok. Denver will have, last I looked, close to 60 mil in cap space? So there is some cash to buy whatever we need to go along with a high draft pick. I expect Denver to have one of the best lines next season

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    10,804
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    He called him out because McGovern said he didn't know who Lawson was. That's a non story to me. I think McGovern has done an admirable job this year. James will still be the starter next season because of his contract. Right or wrong that's just the way it's going happen. We draft or sign for depth behind him but he remains the starter.

    Imo, all we need is a new LT. Maybe another guard if Bolles doesn't work there but I have to think he will do ok. Denver will have, last I looked, close to 60 mil in cap space? So there is some cash to buy whatever we need to go along with a high draft pick. I expect Denver to have one of the best lines next season
    Lawson called him out because he beat McGovern badly. If he hadnít beat McGovern thereís no reason to call him out. James isnít a viable starter because heís soft and has no desire to play. At a minimum the Broncos need to plan on covering for James.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    14,706
    An interesting look at some of the short yardage plays this season. The 3rd and short play last week (the pitch to Lindsay that was blown up) was the result of a missed block by one lineman, and no it's not the one everyone hates. That lineman actually had a great block at the second level, but the RT whiffing and allowing backside pursuit stopped the play dead in its tracks.

    https://www.milehighreport.com/2019/...n-or-execution

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
    Lawson called him out because he beat McGovern badly. If he hadnít beat McGovern thereís no reason to call him out. James isnít a viable starter because heís soft and has no desire to play. At a minimum the Broncos need to plan on covering for James.
    He hardly beat anyone. He wasnít blocked on his first sack because Bolles slid down for some reason and the second sack McGovern was looking to help Leary while he slipped in behind McGovern so he really didnít get blocked there either. Looked like they just identified the front wrong, not sure if thatís McGovernís job or the QB though. Or they didnít think Lawson was worthy of blocking with anyone

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Pittsburg, KS :(
    Posts
    3,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler By'Note View Post
    An interesting look at some of the short yardage plays this season. The 3rd and short play last week (the pitch to Lindsay that was blown up) was the result of a missed block by one lineman, and no it's not the one everyone hates. That lineman actually had a great block at the second level, but the RT whiffing and allowing backside pursuit stopped the play dead in its tracks.

    https://www.milehighreport.com/2019/...n-or-execution
    On that play both 72 and 87 went directly to the 2nd level to block and nobody blocked 54. In my view that is what blew up the play initially. Certainly Wilkinson's miss on Bosa allowed Bosa to at least assist in the tackle - I am not excusing Wilkinson - I guess you could say that Lindsey would of beat Ingram on a cut back if Bosa hadn't been able to get there? I don't know what each players blocking assignment is but it looks like maybe 72 should have blocked 54? I think 87 was being covered but engaged in a block since it was a run play?

    Interesting stat that the author stated ... Denver has had 47 3rd and short (1-3 yards) plays this year. 33 passes and 14 runs. Their success rate on passes is 42%. Success rate on runs is 57%.
    The offense has passed in those situation more than double the run. that would not indicate "conservative" play calling. Denver did convert on 46% of 3rd downs in that game too; that would easily be in the top 5 in the NFL if they could do that consistently, unfortunately they don't.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Derby, Kansas, United States
    Posts
    27,087
    Couple of obnoxious penalties today, but another great showing by this oline. Looks like we just needed a QB that doesn't hold the ball for a year, that said there were a lot of plays where lock had an eternity in the pocket today.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    14,706
    Quote Originally Posted by brianmcfarlane View Post
    On that play both 72 and 87 went directly to the 2nd level to block and nobody blocked 54. In my view that is what blew up the play initially. Certainly Wilkinson's miss on Bosa allowed Bosa to at least assist in the tackle - I am not excusing Wilkinson - I guess you could say that Lindsey would of beat Ingram on a cut back if Bosa hadn't been able to get there? I don't know what each players blocking assignment is but it looks like maybe 72 should have blocked 54? I think 87 was being covered but engaged in a block since it was a run play?

    Interesting stat that the author stated ... Denver has had 47 3rd and short (1-3 yards) plays this year. 33 passes and 14 runs. Their success rate on passes is 42%. Success rate on runs is 57%.
    The offense has passed in those situation more than double the run. that would not indicate "conservative" play calling. Denver did convert on 46% of 3rd downs in that game too; that would easily be in the top 5 in the NFL if they could do that consistently, unfortunately they don't.
    They left him unblocked because that was the play design. Get to the second level, leave the end, allow Lindsay a two way go.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    10,804
    Quote Originally Posted by beastlyskronk View Post
    He hardly beat anyone. He wasnít blocked on his first sack because Bolles slid down for some reason and the second sack McGovern was looking to help Leary while he slipped in behind McGovern so he really didnít get blocked there either. Looked like they just identified the front wrong, not sure if thatís McGovernís job or the QB though. Or they didnít think Lawson was worthy of blocking with anyone
    Come on, you canít be serious that Lawson wasnít worth blocking. On the sack with 1:44 left in the 3rd quarter on 3rd and 3, they only had one lineman in the right side over our RG/RT. That was McGovernís job to block Lawson. Whether he was beat not knowing the protection or just couldnít react fast enough, he got beat.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Fantaztic7 View Post
    Come on, you canít be serious that Lawson wasnít worth blocking. On the sack with 1:44 left in the 3rd quarter on 3rd and 3, they only had one lineman in the right side over our RG/RT. That was McGovernís job to block Lawson. Whether he was beat not knowing the protection or just couldnít react fast enough, he got beat.
    Iím saying McGovern didnít attempt to block him. That isnít Lawson beating McGovern or anyone, thatís Lawson running through uncontested. Both of his sacks no one even attempted to touch him. I jest that the Broncos didnít think he was worth blocking but thatís what it looked like on his 2 sacks.

    McGovern isnít an elite C but heís not a bad C either. Heís adequate and replacing him should be a good bit down on the priority list unless itís someone already on the roster.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    10,804
    Quote Originally Posted by beastlyskronk View Post
    Iím saying McGovern didnít attempt to block him. That isnít Lawson beating McGovern or anyone, thatís Lawson running through uncontested. Both of his sacks no one even attempted to touch him. I jest that the Broncos didnít think he was worth blocking but thatís what it looked like on his 2 sacks.

    McGovern isnít an elite C but heís not a bad C either. Heís adequate and replacing him should be a good bit down on the priority list unless itís someone already on the roster.
    Weíre looking at being beat in a different way. There was another sack McGovern gave up to Lotulelei. He had Lotulelei blocked to the outside but didnít square up to keep him there. Lotulelei worked back inside for the sack. McGovern is mediocre and maybe Munchak can coach him up. I would agree there are higher priorities.

Posting Permissions

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