Page 14 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 334
  1. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    9,593
    Quote Originally Posted by lvbronx View Post
    ...except in the last Super Bowl when it mattered most. Period.

    I remember having a D so great we made 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Our good D didn't shut down the Os in those Super Bowls. Not one time. Period.

    "Defense wins championships" is a quote taken from a Steelers DB from the 70s. One D player said it and now it's taken as gospel. Good players and good coaches win Super Bowls. Picking the best players available is the best way to win a Super Bowl. Period.
    This last superbowl is evidence now that the league favors a strong offense now.

  2. #197
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,012
    Quote Originally Posted by lvbronx View Post
    ...except in the last Super Bowl when it mattered most. Period.

    I remember having a D so great we made 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. Our good D didn't shut down the Os in those Super Bowls. Not one time. Period.

    "Defense wins championships" is a quote taken from a Steelers DB from the 70s. One D player said it and now it's taken as gospel. Good players and good coaches win Super Bowls. Picking the best players available is the best way to win a Super Bowl. Period.
    Excellent points!

    I still want a good D, but it's whoever scores more in games, whether you do it by lots of O, lots of D, or a combo. KC proved that they could score points when they needed to, and their D had improved enough to keep things within reach. But this was more about an O than a D.

    And yes, I believe what was is not always what is or will be in sports. The rules have changed a lot over the last decade or more, and they almost all favour the O, with a high chunk of it passing related. Hey, take advantage, rather than live on "the way it was".

    Having said that, I can see a team with a very strong D winning it all, but I feel that their O has to be a reasonable contributor. Until the pendulum swings, and Ds get a little more love, why not give yourself a chance and acquire players that can score points? Hey, a balanced overall roster isn't a bad solution either, because deficiencies on either side could prevent you from being a contender.

    Quote Originally Posted by myoung View Post
    Feel free to google the NFL summary of rule changes and points of emphasis at your leisure if you didn't notice it while watching the games. Here are some of the highlights.

    2017 Stiffer penalties on egregious hits. penalties and fines including more freedom to eject players
    2018 lowering the helmet is immediate penalty
    2018 enforcing the defenseless player rule (if you recall it was a point of emphasis because it was never previously enforced). Since that time Defensive players can get penalized for hitting a receiver that is defenseless EVEN if the WR is in the motion of catching the ball.
    2018 the lowering the weight on the QB rule, which went over really well with Clay Matthews
    2019 reviewing of Pass Interference, which I admit didn't have as much of an impact because the referees didn't seem to want to reverse anything
    I don't always agree with you, but I appreciate when folks verify their comments where possible, and these are very relative facts. And as we know, these are just the latest rule changes in favour of QBs and their weapons. So that is why you can not use old "sayings" about how to win, when one side of the ledger has been given a significant amount of support from the league....though as you say, safety does matter.

    Bottom line, you flow with what's the wiser way to go. Having said that, I still believe you can win with a good D and a sound running game. But unlike days of old (and not too old), if you neglect the importance of a quality QB and passing game opportunities, and the rule support thereof, you are not really paying attention to your environment.

  3. #198
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by TheAsianPA View Post
    This last superbowl is evidence now that the league favors a strong offense now.
    not really - 9ers had it in the bag then choked.

  4. #199
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    36,012
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltySnipes View Post
    not really - 9ers had it in the bag then choked.
    I think that was covered under...

    You Need Good Coaching


  5. #200
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    4,553
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltySnipes View Post
    not really - 9ers had it in the bag then choked.
    Or if their O was a little better and Garapolo hadn't "choked" and hit Sanders they would have won. The problem with many arguments on the Net is they only look at things that fit their opinion and disregard all the facts.

    There's multiple ways to build Super Bowl teams. I agree with the GMs that feel with today's cap issues, you want a great team on one side of the ball and a good team on the other.

    Now let's look at actual Broncos Super Bowl team and not just theory.

    D prominent Bronco teams are 1-4 in Super Bowls.

    O prominent Bronco teams are 2-1 Super Bowls.

    This doesn't mean we need to be have a great O to win a Super Bowl, but it does show we can win a Super Bowl with a great O and proves having a great D doesn't guarantee a Super Bowl champ. Even with a great D you still need good offensive players.

    BTW, we had a Hall of Fame QB for all 3 of our Super Bowl wins and our HOF QBs are 3-4 overall with SB QBs. I'm counting Peyton as a "presumed" HOF QB.

  6. #201
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the treasure valley, Idaho
    Posts
    16,606
    Quote Originally Posted by lvbronx View Post
    Or if their O was a little better and Garapolo hadn't "choked" and hit Sanders they would have won. The problem with many arguments on the Net is they only look at things that fit their opinion and disregard all the facts.

    There's multiple ways to build Super Bowl teams. I agree with the GMs that feel with today's cap issues, you want a great team on one side of the ball and a good team on the other.

    Now let's look at actual Broncos Super Bowl team and not just theory.

    D prominent Bronco teams are 1-4 in Super Bowls.

    O prominent Bronco teams are 2-1 Super Bowls.

    This doesn't mean we need to be have a great O to win a Super Bowl, but it does show we can win a Super Bowl with a great O and proves having a great D doesn't guarantee a Super Bowl champ. Even with a great D you still need good offensive players.

    BTW, we had a Hall of Fame QB for all 3 of our Super Bowl wins and our HOF QBs are 3-4 overall with SB QBs. I'm counting Peyton as a "presumed" HOF QB.
    I think this could be hotly contested although I’ll skip the “hotly” part.
    I would say Denver is 1-1 with defense oriented teams counting the 78 team; 2-4 with offensive teams.

    All 3 of those bowls Elway lost were with teams that wouldn’t have even sniffed the playoffs without Elway at quarterback, furthermore he was easily the best player on all of those teams; further yet still no team that gives up an average of 44 points per superbowl has even a shadow of a right to call themselves a defensive team.

  7. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    9,593
    I don't think that a dominant defense is a consistent way to get back to the SB, much less win it all. Yes, we did win one that way, but our defense was dominant in 2012, 2014, and 2016, and none of those years advanced past divisional round or even playoffs. You need a good QB with a strong offense now to stay afloat with how the league is changing itself. Drew Lock more than ever needs to be the answer, not trying to spend all the cap space on a dominant defense.
    Superbowl 50 Champions!

  8. #203
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    4,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Wilson 4 Mayor View Post
    I think this could be hotly contested although I’ll skip the “hotly” part.
    I would say Denver is 1-1 with defense oriented teams counting the 78 team; 2-4 with offensive teams.

    All 3 of those bowls Elway lost were with teams that wouldn’t have even sniffed the playoffs without Elway at quarterback, furthermore he was easily the best player on all of those teams; further yet still no team that gives up an average of 44 points per superbowl has even a shadow of a right to call themselves a defensive team.
    How many Pro Bowlers on O and how many on D on those 80s teams?

    On D we had Rulon Jones, an AFC Defensive Player of the Year, Mecklenburg, Dennis Smith, Steve Atwater, Simon Fletcher (who Von just passed in career sacks) and Tyronne Braxton. Of those only Fletcher didn't make the Pro Bowl and I believe still has the highest sack total for a season at 16 and still not make a Pro Bowl.

    On O, we had Elway. And Keith Bishop made a Pro Bowl or two...and maybe Winder? I don't consider the 3 amigos (Steve Watson was better than any of the 3) and I was never a big Winder fan.

    Bringing up the Ds performance in the 80s Super Bowls is fair. They were terrible in those Super Bowls. But so was Elway. We forget that his reputation before he won the last two was as a choker in the Super Bowls. Funny how he became "clutch" when he had a number of all pro offensive team mates a few years later.

    We also had Joe Collier and Wade Phillips as D coordinators on those teams. Who was the O coordinator back then again? Someone needs to post that question in the Bronco Trivia thread.

  9. #204
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    FORT COLLINS COLORADO
    Posts
    8,530
    Quote Originally Posted by lvbronx View Post
    How many Pro Bowlers on O and how many on D on those 80s teams?

    On D we had Rulon Jones, an AFC Defensive Player of the Year, Mecklenburg, Dennis Smith, Steve Atwater, Simon Fletcher (who Von just passed in career sacks) and Tyronne Braxton. Of those only Fletcher didn't make the Pro Bowl and I believe still has the highest sack total for a season at 16 and still not make a Pro Bowl.

    On O, we had Elway. And Keith Bishop made a Pro Bowl or two...and maybe Winder? I don't consider the 3 amigos (Steve Watson was better than any of the 3) and I was never a big Winder fan.

    Bringing up the Ds performance in the 80s Super Bowls is fair. They were terrible in those Super Bowls. But so was Elway. We forget that his reputation before he won the last two was as a choker in the Super Bowls. Funny how he became "clutch" when he had a number of all pro offensive team mates a few years later.

    We also had Joe Collier and Wade Phillips as D coordinators on those teams. Who was the O coordinator back then again? Someone needs to post that question in the Bronco Trivia thread.
    Atwater was on one of those teams and a rookie I believe. Also mike Shanahan and Chan gailey was the offense coordinator

    oakland raders gm
    latavis murray trade bait

  10. #205
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    6,626
    One WR I want to stay away from is Tee Higgins. He did not participate in any combine drills because of "rest". His explanation for it???

    “We had a long season. I only had like four or five weeks to prepare for this, and I feel like that’s not enough time compared to these other guys that had like what, two months, a month? I just felt like I needed to be more prepared to run a 40 [yard dash] and all the other drills.” – Tee Higgins

    Well genius, 4 weeks is a month LOL. Sounds lazy to me, this is the biggest job interview in this kid's life and this is what he says. Sorry, this shows me a lack of commitment and if I'm a coach or a GM I'm not touching him

  11. #206
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    7,662
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    One WR I want to stay away from is Tee Higgins. He did not participate in any combine drills because of "rest". His explanation for it???

    “We had a long season. I only had like four or five weeks to prepare for this, and I feel like that’s not enough time compared to these other guys that had like what, two months, a month? I just felt like I needed to be more prepared to run a 40 [yard dash] and all the other drills.” – Tee Higgins

    Well genius, 4 weeks is a month LOL. Sounds lazy to me, this is the biggest job interview in this kid's life and this is what he says. Sorry, this shows me a lack of commitment and if I'm a coach or a GM I'm not touching him
    Yeah that's a pretty weak excuse. I can understand not participating for a variety of reasons, but complaining that you didn't have enough time to prepare is lame as heck. The lead up to the combine is not to completely change yourself athletically and 4 weeks is more than long enough to practice the drills. Like he was the only player from the championship game at the combine, give me a break

  12. #207
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    16,507
    Quote Originally Posted by JvDub95 View Post
    One WR I want to stay away from is Tee Higgins. He did not participate in any combine drills because of "rest". His explanation for it???

    “We had a long season. I only had like four or five weeks to prepare for this, and I feel like that’s not enough time compared to these other guys that had like what, two months, a month? I just felt like I needed to be more prepared to run a 40 [yard dash] and all the other drills.” – Tee Higgins

    Well genius, 4 weeks is a month LOL. Sounds lazy to me, this is the biggest job interview in this kid's life and this is what he says. Sorry, this shows me a lack of commitment and if I'm a coach or a GM I'm not touching him
    Well he can’t come out and say he didn’t participate because he knows he’s slow. Pro day numbers tend to get lost in the shuffle if you worked out at the combine. Not that I’m advocating for him, that’s probably the only pick I’d hate. Bryan Edwards is pretty much the same WR and he will be there much later

  13. #208
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa-pwn View Post
    Yeah that's a pretty weak excuse. I can understand not participating for a variety of reasons, but complaining that you didn't have enough time to prepare is lame as heck. The lead up to the combine is not to completely change yourself athletically and 4 weeks is more than long enough to practice the drills. Like he was the only player from the championship game at the combine, give me a break
    Such a shame, definitely a huge red flag as a prospect. I really liked Tee Higgins’ body of work at Clemson, too. He was my WR3 all year right behind Jeudy and Lamb. Saw some AJ Green in his game. Can’t be having guys on the roster that don’t want to compete. He could easily slide to Round 3 now.

  14. #209
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    916
    Per Todd McShay :

    In the wake of the 2020 NFL Combine, ESPN draft analyst Todd McShay said he believes the Broncos could add "fighter jet" speed to their offense with the 15th-overall pick.
    McShay projected the Broncos would select Alabama wide receiver Henry Ruggs III in the first round of April's draft. He also suggested Florida cornerback CJ Henderson and South Carolina's Javon Kinlaw could be other potential options at No. 15.
    "With Ruggs and his fighter jet 4.27 speed still on the board, I'm getting a burner opposite Courtland Sutton for second-year quarterback Drew Lock," McShay wrote in his most recent mock draft. "Ruggs is explosive and has a skill set that offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur can design plays around. With some development to his route running and some tacked-on strength, Ruggs has the chance to be special in the NFL and could instantly be a favorite target of the big-armed Lock."
    McShay previously mocked Ruggs to the Eagles at No. 22.

    Ruggs, a 6-foot, 190-pound player, appears to have improved his stock with a 4.27-second 40-yard dash at last week's NFL Combine.
    He recorded the fastest time of any wide receiver and was one of just two players to break the 4.3-second mark.
    "Ruggs ran the only 4.27 in the history of the Combine that might've been met with a little bit of disappointment, just 'cause [of] the hype," McShay said in a conference call Tuesday. "But he's such a stud. In a group of receivers [from Alabama] that has four potential first-round picks in this year or next year's draft, he was the alpha dog. He loves playing special teams. He'll block. He had one dropped pass the entire season last year.
    "Usually the 4.27 receivers, those kinds of guys, they're inconsistent catching the ball, they're divas, one-trick ponies. And he's anything but."
    The Broncos may not have the opportunity to select the speedy Crimson Tide receiver; McShay said Tuesday some teams have Ruggs ranked ahead of Jerry Jeudy.

    Ruggs caught 40 passes for 746 yards and seven touchdowns in 2019. { 40/7 = That is called scoring on 20% of your touches, Total Stud }

    For those of you who think he was a third option in Alabama, wasn't Kamara NOT the primary running back in Tenn., I'm sure there's other examples that prove one can develop into more than what they were in college.

  15. #210
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    15,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam_Z View Post
    lol That San Francisco D stopped them but it was Jimmy G who stopped the San Francisco 49ers. Kyle put him in position with a good WR to make the play and Jimmy G failed them all.

    I agree that D stopped the chiefs offense!
    I disagree, Shanahan cost them the Super Bowl. He had some awful play calling, calling too many passes when trying to bleed the clock. And even on the last drive they had a big run to start things and then he went to nothing but passes. The team was built to run the ball, he quit calling plays to the team's identity.

Posting Permissions

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