Player types for '08, Part one (Offense)
There are going to be some great articles about the draft on MHR. I enjoy contributing articles on football from a coach's view, but I hold that the real draft experts are the members of MHR who have a passion for college ball or the draft itself. When it comes to the draft season, I'm just an onlooker.
In this post I want to do something a little different than what the real experts are doing. While the MHR professionals are doing research and putting together outstanding work on "who" we are looking at for the draft, I'm going to look at the player types that I think we should be targeting. I'll give my impression of what type of player we should go after for every position (whether we have a need or not) and what direction I think Denver will ultimately go in.
QB
Denver has no need for a QB in the draft. Denver has an up and coming superstar with Cutler, and a solid #2 in Ramsey.
But if Denver went after a #3 what kind of QB would they want? Believe it or not, they would go after a pocket, accuracy oriented guy even though this doesn't match the Denver scheme. Why? Because if (God forbid) injuries led to the need for a third string QB, the goal would be to have someone who can hand off the ball and make rare, high percentage short passes to buy time for an injured QB to return.
HB
Here again, Denver is set. But there are considerations for the draft.
- Denver is known for trading away good RBs and getting others late in the draft.
- Of all the HBs Denver has, the most endangered RB is Henry, due to injury.
- Run up the middle
- Wear down the defense
- Be a change-up RB to compliment the speed backs
FB
Denver will not go after a FB in this draft, nor any future draft. First, Denver (like most teams) is phasing out the position in favor of the TE position. Second, Denver likes to fill the roster with HBs, and use the best blocker of the bunch as a FB.
Denver's FB is used on screens as a receiver, and as further bait to help sell the defense to the wrong side of the field when the QB bootlegs the other direction. Sapp will possibly be resigned to this position. Denver has not used a true FB in the Shanahan era.
OL
No question here. Any draft for a Denver o-lineman will require an athletic guy with quick footwork. Even though several teams are moving to the zone block scheme, Denver can probably get their OL from the mid-rounds because of limited competition.
The only discussion is how many guys we should get this year. I say a bare minimum of one, two would be best, and three would be icing on the cake if we meet our defensive needs.
Lepsis retired. It looks like Nalen and Hamilton will return (though this is not yet certain). Even if they do, there is a heightened chance of injury to either or both players. Denver claims that Harris is a future star at OT, and he will be bumping Pears to the opposite side. Hamilton, Kuper, Holland and Myers will round out the OL, while Nalen will take his C position back.
Considering that it takes at least two years (in most cases) to develop into a starter, it seems reasonable to assume that we may need up to three players (in terms of both starting and depth) for '09 and '10. We should get three players in the next three years, with at least a bare minimum of one right now. Two would be ideal, and we could get the third in the '09 draft. The longer we put this work off, the more it will bite us in a critical draft later on (and the less time to develop the players as well).
TE
We have an excellent group at TE. We have the League's best blocking TE in Graham (who has underrated hands in my opinion), and an awesome up and coming receiving TE in Scheffler. In the second tier we have Mustard (a blocking TE who proved he can catch toward the end of the season), and Jackson (who can catch, but isn't well rounded enough to start). We don't really need a TE at this point. But if we take one, what type do we want?
I advocate the less sexy option; a blocking TE. He still needs good hands to be a TE and not an o-lineman, but his specialty should be blocking. Why?
- Graham isn't in enough trouble with his arrest to be a suspension threat in the NFL yet. But his actions may indicate the potential to be endangered down the road if he doesn't straighten up. If he screws up, we'll want a blocking TE to replace him.
- If the new guy blocked well enough, he could be a threat on two-TE sets with Graham versus 3-4 defense formations. In three-TE sets we could drop off our FB and get a heck of a run formation for short yardage (as well as disguised pass threats).
Amirebram and I have been going back and forth on the type of WR needed in this draft. He makes a very sound argument for his position, and you owe it to yourself to read his work (as well as the comments section) so that you understand his position.
http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/1/11/155320/767
Normaly in a post I would just put down my own opinion and accept other views in the comments section. But Amir's appeal for a sound WR in the mid to high draft is worth tagging into this article because his view, while different from mine, is just as meritorious. I'll ask forgiveness in advance if I in any way misrepresent his views.
In a nutshell, I want speed. Amir favors a good WR. Both of us have good points, and I would go so far as to say that both of us are right. It is a matter of what your philosophy is. Look at me as a coach that wants something for the scheme, and Amir as a manager (or president of football operations) that has several variables to wrestle with in addition to what a coach wants.
Amir's position is based on four points. All of them are correct.
- Speed is no good without good hands.
- In our potential draft positions, we may not have fast WRs with good hands.
- Speed receivers don't usually truly outrun their coverages.
- For our scheme, WRs must be able to run block.
Consider this. I hold that the biggest threat to a defense in the passing game is a three pronged attack. A speed receiver (like Walker) streaks up the field and forces his CB to go after him (and pulls the SS into deep coverage on the strong side). A YAC receiver (like Marshall) is a perfect midfield threat on the weak side, forcing a CB to cover him. A third type of receiver, a "possession" receiver (like Stokely) takes the midfield to the strong side. Now what does the FS do? He can't cover both Marshall and Stokely.
Walker is iffy for next year. If he returns I think he will be an awesome WR, and a deep threat. If he doesn't we face some problems.
- Stokely is not an every down receiver (according to Shanahan in his recent conference). He needs rest in between plays.
- If Walker doesn't return, Marshall will move to #1 (meaning his CB coverage will be more difficult to overcome).
- Martinez is a fast guy, but nowhere near ready to play at number #2 (he is better suited to returns).
My concern with a "best available receiver" option in the draft is this:
- Without the deep threat each WR gets man coverage and the safeties can play their own side of the field and not have to commit too early to which receiver they need to go after (as they would if a deep threat was racing down the line),
- In a typical zone defense (like a Tampa-2) the midfield will be covered, and that's where all of our threats will be. Against a zone coverage, three types of receivers cause match-up troubles for the defense.
I realize that there are a heck of a lot of terrific receivers in this draft, but my position is that we have a specific need for a specific kind of receiver. That is a valid point. Amir's view is that we have a golden opportunity to grab a great WR in this draft, and we should take the best one available. This is also a valid view. Again, it is a matter of what kind of approach you want to take, and both views are reasonable.
It is to be hoped that Walker returns and the whole issue becomes a moot one.
Conclusion
In my opinion, our biggest need is one man on the o-line, but this can be handled in the fourth or even fifth round. If we pick up an extra draft pick by trading a player (or trading down) I would be open to getting a WR if a deep threat player was available. I really think we should address our defensive needs this year before worrying about anything on offense.
On offense, my priority would be:
OL (Need)
OL (Strong want)
WR (want)
TE (extra)
HB (extra)
My strongest guess on offense is that Denver will get at least one o-lineman in the draft, no matter what. Other decisions on the offense depend on the return of Walker, Henry, and perhaps Graham.
In the next post, I'll take a look at player types needed on defense. This will be tricky, since we don't yet know the scheme that will be used. But since my background is defense, and since I've been studying my butt of on Slowik, I'm up to the challenge.
Please chime in with your thoughts, questions, disagreements, and of course compliments! : )
A special thanks to Amir for reference to his post. Without his thoughts, my work on the WR position would not have had as much depth. If anyone wants to start as good of a discussion on another position as I have been having with Amir, let's do it!
0 recs |
22
comments
Comments
No true FB in the Shanahan era ...
by johng on Jan 15, 2008 5:37 PM MST 0 recs
Even Griffith...
by TheSportsGuru on
Jan 15, 2008 5:45 PM MST
up
0 recs
I agree
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 16, 2008 12:01 AM MST
up
0 recs
Well, in other news,
On ESPN.com....
"Ravens reportedly offer head coaching vacancy to Cowboy's Garrett."
Bah.
by broncodude793 on Jan 15, 2008 7:57 PM MST 0 recs
Power RBs?
by ejruiz on Jan 15, 2008 9:07 PM MST 0 recs
I'm not a personnel expert
They don't have to be slow by the way. As long as they are one-cut and powerful (keep their legs moving on tackles).
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 16, 2008 12:04 AM MST
up
0 recs
Why "Slow" Is Important.
by ejruiz on
Jan 16, 2008 3:17 PM MST
up
0 recs
Continuing the talk.
Now what about this as a scheme. What if we had two Marshall type players at WR? They can get open often enough, and they would be dangerous enough, to draw the attention of the safeties to the outside. Add in good run mix, and BOOM! A slot receiver (Or TE like Scheffler) could easily get open deep down the middle.
Another point is that what I think we really missed when Walker was out was his Slant routs. Slants pull up the Safety from his deep zone. Marshall still needs to develop in this area. What we could do is get a guy like Bennett who is already an expert in running slants because of the scheme at his school. He has the surest hands in this draft, and he blocks well.
So what do you think?
BTW. I agree with everything else you said. I even mentioned taking a blocking TE in the 4th (before taking a catching TE).
by amirebram on Jan 16, 2008 3:24 AM MST 0 recs
That's All I'll support...
by TheSportsGuru on
Jan 16, 2008 5:16 AM MST
up
0 recs
Say
Remember, you can't coach speed either.
As I mention to Amir below, I like pairing Marshall with a fast guy, but I like the kind of big WRs you want. They're my favorites. (I remember a particular DAL receiver revolutionalizing the position by beating the living tar out of CBs. You know who I mean). : )
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 16, 2008 6:33 AM MST
up
0 recs
True...
I'll take football speed. I'll take elusiveness. And when push comes to shove, I'll take a guy like Brandon Marshall who will just run over you to get that pivotal first down.....
by TheSportsGuru on
Jan 16, 2008 6:51 AM MST
up
0 recs
Two excellent points
- I very much agree that "football" speed is more important than "speed" speed. Anyone who has coached football has seen track speed not convert into football speed with a ball in hand and equiptment on. I couldn't agree more.
- As for the fast guys who can't play worth a damn, I hope there isn't anything I'm writing that indicates I want a fast player with crappy hands. If a guy is fast and nothing else I don't want anything to do with him. I'm advocating a WR who has all of the skills (to include run blocking) but has unusual speed. I very much agree that speed without hands is worthless.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 16, 2008 12:36 PM MST
up
0 recs
No,
But then again, the same is true about of alot of the big "powerful" guys. I supose there is a reason that a certain size seems to be optimal.
by amirebram on
Jan 17, 2008 1:47 PM MST
up
0 recs
Not bad at all
I like to stretch a field horizontaly (as you are suggesting, east/west) AND verticaly if possible. If we have a deep threat on the stong side, a short or medium threat on the weak side, and a medium or short threat in the middle (TE or slot) then we spread the field in every direction. We also keep players bck from or run threat.
It's just my opinion. You can build a team around possession guys (like PITT) or around speed guys or around big YAC guys. I just think you can scheme an opponent to death (from a coach's perspective) when you can force the opponent to account for multiple types of threats.
I am with you and Guru on one thing. My favorite receivers are NOT speed guys. I like the Marshall type hands down.
But I also like power runners too, and I want a team that features power AND speed RBs to screw with the other team. I look at WRs the same way. When I have players that can specialize in different types of routes I can bring more to the table and open up the playbook.
As a defensive guy I thought it was easier to plan for a team that was one dimensional (fast, tough, smart, deep, shallow, passing, running, etc). The toughest teams seemed to me to be the guys that had a little of everything. I'm oversimplifying of course, but you know what I mean.
But the bottom line is that I'm not "right" on this. Both views on how to build the receiver corp has advantages and drawbacks. One disadvantage in my approach is the inablity to plug in back-ups effectively if they need to fit a specialty. One advantage is the difficulty the opponent has in covering the entire field. One disadvantage for your approach is the difficulty in running certain plays that one type of WRs aren't built for. The big advantage to your approach is specialty and focus on perfecting a position for a specific purpose.
In the end, whoever coaches his approach best will prevail.
One thing I really want to point out though. While I want a speed guy to play opposite of Marshall I won't accept a guy who is all speed and nothing else. He still has to be able to catch the ball, and he still has to block in our system. Idealy we get Walker back. He's what I'm looking for (without the baggage).
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 16, 2008 6:28 AM MST
up
0 recs
line
by tbone on Jan 16, 2008 1:58 PM MST 0 recs
Offensive Line
I'm not sure a rookie wr is what you need either, it would be interesting if one of NE's went free agency, it's hard to imagine them keeping everyone and staying under the cap, Stalworth would be the most likely. Buster Davis hasn't really shown much for the Chargers, we had to trade for Chris Chambers who has been excellent. I don't even think Calvin Johnson really panned out as well as Detroit hoped. WRs seem a lot like quarterbacks, it's hard to find the great ones.
Brian
by Brian on Jan 16, 2008 7:09 PM MST 0 recs
Good points
- I think most Denver fans will agree that the weak spot for Denver was the defensive line. The DEs looked pretty good, but the DTs were horrible.
- The o-line wasn't as good as it has been, but it was also crippled with two IRs and other game to game injuries. We need depth more than starters for '08.
- Given the conferences by Shanahan (Coach) and Bowlen (owner) it is reasonable to assume that Denver is wary of FA this year. WR might be a major need if Walker walks, but if he doesn't we can obtain a project WR in the draft.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 16, 2008 9:54 PM MST
up
0 recs
linemen
Defensively Shanahan has said that there is a big jump from year one to year two for d-line players?? Are the players currently in place going to be formiddable enough for next year?
by tbone on Jan 18, 2008 7:59 AM MST 0 recs
Some fun stuff there!
- No on Faneca. He hasn't been playing in a zone blocking system for one. He may be great, but he doesn't fit. Our system really builds OL through the draft and two to three years of learning.
- Big jump year one to two: I agree with Coach. First, we have several excellent players at DE, and I think they'll be even better next year. At DT I think Thomas will show good improvement.
- I don't think we need the top offensive lineman in the draft. Because we go for smaller, but athletic guys that are quick on their feet we can often get those guys later in the draft (since only a few other teams look for those traits). We sometimes also like OL from colleges that run zoneblocks in their system.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 18, 2008 9:48 AM MST
up
0 recs
yes.....but
The only rookie is Harris. Kuper, and Pears are in their second. Myers and Snell in their third. Holland is in his fifth. Hamilton with his injury will be going into his eighth and the stalwart Nalen will be entering his fifteenth! Are they developing into a great unit??????
Fenton and Katnik are two rookies on the practice squad. I wonder how they have progressed?? Enough to make an impact? I guess time will tell.
I'll admit I did not know that Faneca was not in tune with the zone blocking scheme....wishful thinking...As for offensive drafting,my opinion, if the organization drafts high on this side of the ball has to be line. Maybe not the top offensive lineman, but one in which is "high" on their draftboard.The skill positions are there, but the engine(line) is sputtering.
by tbone on Jan 18, 2008 11:41 AM MST 0 recs
I think Shanahan employs the ZB system
- It is 'execution' based. As in, you play what you practice, and if you execute, adjustments by the defense have very little effect. Outside of schemeing around all-world defenders, the 'system' allows you to do what you do.
- It puts a premium on smarts and fitness, and thus allows both O-line and to some extent RB to be 'lesser' specimens, if you will, thus saving money initially and creating more opportunities for acquiring personell. The drawback is the incubation period required to teach the system, which in my opinion is only worth running when it is of the Shanahan variety, i.e. of higher complexity and flexibility.
I just reread the comment and noticed where I essentially said that 'smarts and fitness' equate to 'lesser specimens.' Is it just me or does that seem insanely contradictory and funny? The thing is, its true. The 'greatest specimens' historically have been powerful and, forgive me Munoz, fat. I had a coach in high school who held the Broncos and cowboys (1994-96) up to us as shining examples of the proper fitness level for sports, with the lowest body fat percentages in the NFL. I personally find Denver's attitude toward the fitness of their O-line to be quite congruent with my own outlook on fitness, and is part of what makes rooting for the Broncos enjoyable. I prefer the system even if at any given time it isn't the most successful in the league. And, fact is, it has at times been the most successful in the league. And in history.
by styg50 on
Jan 18, 2008 4:55 PM MST
up
0 recs
Agreed
And while I agree with Tbone about the unit not being as excellent recently, I think this is transient. The OL (in our system) requires the same guys in the same position playing together as a team over time. They have to know each other's tendancies. We haven't had that (due to injuries for the most part). I am confident that this will improve. After all, the rest of the league (and even the anti-Broncos media) admit that you can stick almost anyone behind our line and they'll gain a 1000 yards. It isn't true, but it is close.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 18, 2008 7:49 PM MST
up
0 recs
















