Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    5,365
    For one thing, he is better than what we had at this position. For another thing, he can defend the pass too, not all that great, but he does a good job for us.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,544
    Excellent post. Everyone read Ravage's post. JOHN LYNCH IS NOT THAT GOOD! He is basically what Kenoy is, a running stuffing DB. You have to do more in the defensive backfield than stuff the run.
    No we have 0 good safeties.
    I would consider Lynch a "good" safety. Not great as he is in the latter part of his career, and is not great in coverage. But is good against the run as you state. This year it will seem more balenced with Ferguson at safety now that Kennoy is gone. So we upgrade in coverage there.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by BVP
    For one thing, he is better than what we had at this position. For another thing, he can defend the pass too, not all that great, but he does a good job for us.
    LMAO, I take it you didn't watch the Playoff game or the Raider game. HAHAHAHA.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeSmoke
    LMAO, I take it you didn't watch the Playoff game. HAHAHAHA.
    didn't Lynch have a cast on in that game . can't expect his best with one good hand.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    184
    That's beyond the point. He still had 2 wheels, he could have at least COVERED the TEs, instead of letting them run by him.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeSmoke
    Excellent post. Everyone read Ravage's post. JOHN LYNCH IS NOT THAT GOOD! He is basically what Kenoy is, a running stuffing DB. You have to do more in the defensive backfield than stuff the run.
    He is not that good? Maybe because he's playing out of his natural position at SS. See in Tampa Bay, he had teammates Dwight Smith, Ronde Barber, i forget who the other CB was, Derrick Brooks and a whole cast of players. Lynch was able to do what he did best, and that's stuff the run, and not worry so much about coverage. Saying John Lunch is not that good is completely false considering he did go to the Pro Bowl 5 times before ever stepping foot in Denver. He is what he is, a run defending SS, not a ball hawk. Roy Williams isnt that great in coverage either and people are saying he's amazing, try to tell him to do more in the backfield.

    Regardless of Lynch, the future of the Broncos safeties is in the hands of Jeremy LeSueur, Sam Brandon, Chris Young, and possibly Brandon Browner. I can imagine that in the near future, Brandon Browner at SS, and Jeremy LeSueur at FS, just because they are both ball hawks, and Browner can lay a hit.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    13,489

    Thumbs up Yes . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by ttejuco
    He is not that good? Maybe because he's playing out of his natural position at SS. See in Tampa Bay, he had teammates Dwight Smith, Ronde Barber, i forget who the other CB was, Derrick Brooks and a whole cast of players. Lynch was able to do what he did best, and that's stuff the run, and not worry so much about coverage. Saying John Lunch is not that good is completely false considering he did go to the Pro Bowl 5 times before ever stepping foot in Denver. He is what he is, a run defending SS, not a ball hawk. Roy Williams isnt that great in coverage either and people are saying he's amazing, try to tell him to do more in the backfield.

    Regardless of Lynch, the future of the Broncos safeties is in the hands of Jeremy LeSueur, Sam Brandon, Chris Young, and possibly Brandon Browner. I can imagine that in the near future, Brandon Browner at SS, and Jeremy LeSueur at FS, just because they are both ball hawks, and Browner can lay a hit.
    You just posted the best comment in the thread.

    Points to you!



    -----

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by topscribe
    You just posted the best comment in the thread.

    Points to you!



    -----
    Top I agree

    He took the cake on that post

    I hooked him up too

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    5,365
    Man, why can't I make the good points.

    But I hooked him up with some CP.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    993
    Nothing like a little common sense and some research. John Lynch isnt that good, ha ha ha. Kill this thread, its over.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Realism.
    Posts
    2,362
    Nick Fergerson is the real deal. This thread is irrelevant unless your looking for a replacement for Lynch. Im not a fan of Lynch's coverage but he's Kennedy's equal as far as laying heads out.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    166
    I meant coverage safety. Lynch is a good strong safety. Strong safetys are used to clog the line of scrimmage, in run support. Rodney Harrsion is another example. Free safetys main task is for coverage. How do you know Nick Fergueson is solid? He hasn't even played a game yet.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ttejuco
    He is not that good? Maybe because he's playing out of his natural position at SS. See in Tampa Bay, he had teammates Dwight Smith, Ronde Barber, i forget who the other CB was, Derrick Brooks and a whole cast of players. Lynch was able to do what he did best, and that's stuff the run, and not worry so much about coverage. Saying John Lunch is not that good is completely false considering he did go to the Pro Bowl 5 times before ever stepping foot in Denver. He is what he is, a run defending SS, not a ball hawk. Roy Williams isnt that great in coverage either and people are saying he's amazing, try to tell him to do more in the backfield.

    Regardless of Lynch, the future of the Broncos safeties is in the hands of Jeremy LeSueur, Sam Brandon, Chris Young, and possibly Brandon Browner. I can imagine that in the near future, Brandon Browner at SS, and Jeremy LeSueur at FS, just because they are both ball hawks, and Browner can lay a hit.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    993
    Quote Originally Posted by Denver'sChamp
    I meant coverage safety. Lynch is a good strong safety. Strong safetys are used to clog the line of scrimmage, in run support. Rodney Harrsion is another example. Free safetys main task is for coverage. How do you know Nick Fergueson is solid? He hasn't even played a game yet.
    Omg.

    How do we know Nick Ferguson is solid? Last time i checked, he started 10 games in 2003 replacing Kenoy Kennedy and then starting at free safety. He racked up 72 tackles in 10 starts. He also is a role player on special teams. He is definately a solid player. Why else would you get a nick name "Train Wreck".

    Ferguson isnt the replacement for Lynch anyways. Both of them are in their 30's already and are getting slower. Like i said before, the replacements are in the younger players. Before you say something like "He hasnt played a game yet", you better know what your talking about.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    166
    Is Feugerson a good coverage safety? Let's hope so for Bailey sake.

Posting Permissions

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