Why offense is a bigger need than defense.
Why offense is a bigger priority than defense
I firmly believe that offense is a far bigger need for this team than defense. This is for a few major reasons, the N.F.L. is an offense oriented league; the Broncos have a better core of players on defense than offense, and this team's strength lies in offense (I am not contradicting myself, I mean in coaching and talent evaluation, which are more long lasting than personnel).
It is pretty the well known that the N.F.L. is an offense oriented league. Just look at how ridiculous the pass interference penalties and roughing the QB penalties are. To truly show that these penalties have such a large effect on the makeup of teams simply watch the playoffs. The four teams left the Giants, Patriots, Packers, and Chargers are all known (at this point in time) as offensive teams. Those teams with good defenses that even made it to the playoffs lost early. The Jaguars, Titans, and Steelers, all lost because of the inability of their offenses to put up enough points, and the fact that their defenses could not make the critical stop. Every time the Patriots have looked like they are going to lose it is their offense that pulled them through, with a game winning drive. It is quite obvious the dominant teams in the league are those with great offenses and decent defenses.
Those teams with great offense also make their defenses look better than they are. A perfect example would be the Patriots, every team feels like they have to pass the ball to beat the Patriots, and this puts the Patriots defense in a perfect position, they don't have to worry about fast HBs and TEs exposing their defense's slow LBs and safeties. They know what teams are going to do and can dictate the game with complicated blitzes. Further, teams like the Colts who have a reliably good offense have an easier time at putting together a good defense. The Colts put together one of the NFLs best defenses with only two star players (I don't consider Mathis a star). This is because they knew they only had to look for role players. Whereas defenses like the Ravens and Panthers that have no offense to lean on have to really on many multi-talented defenders.
As for having a better core of players on defense, I always read/hear people say that the Broncos have a great young "nucleus" of players on offense with Sheffler, Marshall, and Cutler. I would have to disagree, I don't think those players are bad by any means, but they all play skill positions. The nucleus of any offense or defense is made up in the trenches not by skill players. Manning's receivers may have been injured, but it was the injury of Tony Ugough that truly hurt that team.
Even if the skill players are considered to make a nucleus, I would rather have Williams, Lynch, Bly, and Bailey than Marshall, Sheffler, Graham, and Cutler. Bailey is on average (he had an off year due to a change in scheme), the best CB in the league, Bly is a top 15 corner, Lynch is a top 10 safety, and Williams was second in the AFC in tackles. Marshall is a top 10 Wide Receiver, Sheffler is a top 15 TE, Graham is a great blocking TE, but until the Broncos improve our OL he is nothing more than an OT, and Cutler is a top 15 QB. The Broncos simply have more talent on defense.
I believe our OL is far worse than our DL. I believe our DL simply needs one more DT, and some time.
At DL the Broncos currently have three-four good and improving defensive ends. It often takes two-three years for defensive ends to develop, so there is no need to get more defensive ends as the Broncos have two rookie defensive ends, and a great second year pass rusher specialist.
As for the tackle position, I believe given the time Thomas could develop into a good DT, however he most definitely needs time. At the second DT spot the Broncos need another DT, it is quite possible after cuts the Broncos won't have more than two DTs on the roster (McKinely, Thomas, Mallard is a DE technically right?). Hothe Broncosver, I don't think the Broncos need a great DT to line up opposite of Thomas. Instead the Broncos just need a serviceable DT. If one looks around the league they realize that very few teams have more than one good DT, in fact only Jacksonville and Minnesota come to mind. Further, those teams with the "big, space eating, run-stopping" DT that everyone wants can be found on the following teams; Detroit, Carolina, Baltimore, and Tennessee (I excluded Jacksonville and Minnesota because I already addressed them). Something should jump out at you, none of these teams made the playoffs except Tennessee, and Tennessee did not look like a playoff team. I believe the Broncos would be fine with a second maybe third round Defensive Tackle, and some depth. This can be achieved through FA and a draft pick or two.
Now the Broncos look at our OL, I firmly believe that our OL is in far more trouble than our DL. Unlike the DL there is no position that I can say the Broncos don't need help with, maybe the Broncos have right guard settled, maybe. Also, unlike the DL those teams that are truly dominant have good OLs, Brady and Peyton would never have the years they have without their OL. Now, let's look at the OL player by player.
Nalen is our next to ancient center. He says he will be coming back after his messy bicep injury (his muscle was literally disconnected from the bone). Hothe Broncosver, the Broncos have to wonder how much he has left. I mean his play has been declining as it is, I think he will have a year like Lepsis had this year. His only value will be as a veteran presence. In fact I am extremely surprised he is returning.
Hamilton is a big question mark for me. Truly I thought he was done with football period. He will probably be the best player on our OL, or he could be inactive and call it quits. However, Shanahan loves him and if Hamilton can play he will start. If he does come back and plays for the Broncos he will fix the center spot. Yet, he is simply too big of a question mark to count on.
Myers played decently at center, however, if one looks at styg50's post "NPLB End of Season Report: Holding the Lines" it is quite clear the Broncos need some work on the interior of the OL. As most all 3rd and 4th short runs are from between the Tackles, a place the Broncos particularly struggled. This really can be placed on Myers shoulders in my mind.
I think the Broncos will be fine at center next year, not great, but fine. The Broncos should draft a late round center and work on developing him over the next two-three years. Even if Hamilton comes back to play center he is pretty old, and as I said before that injury really worries me.
Kuper and Holland, played decently, but the Broncos really struggled in the interior running game. These two players seem pretty similar to me, they are both bigger than the typical Denver OL and a little slower. I think Kuper has more potential than Holland, and Holland is just a temporary replacement. I think that with time Kuper will develop into a good guard, and that Holland will be fine. In a ZBS scheme the guards really need to play together a lot, something our OL has missed for years, I think other than depth guard is fine.
I really hope the Broncos draft maybe a guard, or sign a decent guard from FA. As long as the Broncos don't sign Faneca I will be fine.
Tackle is where I am really worried. We did well running off tackle this year, but in my opinion that was due more to the Bronco's guards and Graham than the Bronco's Tackles.
I am not to sure about Ryan Harris, but since the team invested a third round draft pick in him I believe he deserves a chance to start. I think Pears is nothing more than a backup. My preferred solution for Tackle would be to draft a LT in the first (Oher would be my favorite, his potential is amazing, and he could spend almost his entire career with Cutler) and put Harris at RT. The only problem with this is that Shananhan never starts first year players and I think his ego is too big to draft a OL in the first (especially with the Foster incident). So, I think it is more likely we putt Harris at LT, draft a Guard and maybe a Center, and pick up Gordan Gross in the FA market.
Now after, coming close to the end of this I have had a few realizations. We really need OL help, probably need another WR, and need a HB. However, I believe Shanahan will draft a DT in the first and address our other needs with later round draft picks.
I don't believe we will draft a RB because of Shanahan's comments about "thinking of a players first few games" when evaluating a player with an injury. This is clearly talking about Henry, and to me is a sign we look to keep Henry. I think a healthy Henry, Selvin Young, and Andre Hall is fine. I just don't think it will happen.
As for WR, I really hope we keep Javon, but if we don't we need to draft a WR who can spread the defense, and has good hands. I am all in favor of the WR from Vanderbilt.
Well, that is it for now.
This is my first "diary", so let me know what you think.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
0 recs |
10 comments
Comments
Very nicely done!
You also do a good job of not only making proactive arguments for your position, but you anticipate the counters and address them too. I hope to read a lot more from you; you've got the right stuff.
I'm at work right now, so I'll have more on Friday. Keep up the excellent writing!
by Steve Nichols on Jan 16, 2008 10:17 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Me too.
I will go as far as to say we can get by with drafting only one DT this year. But we would need to address LB and S early next year.
So I believe the best option would be to take the player the we think would make the most impact, with lowest risk, whether they are on O or D. Look at it as a two year reload.
Ideal is 1st DT; 2nd WR; 3rd FS; 4th TE; 4th OT; 5th WR; 5th OL; 7th FS; 7th DT
Then we address LB early next year. And if one of the late 08 Safeties works well, then we don't even need to deal with Safety in 09.
by amirebram on Jan 17, 2008 2:03 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I anticipated disagreement
by calvinandhobbes on Jan 16, 2008 10:23 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
I'm still at work
In general, I have some issues on how we both would rate players, as well as where our team needs help overall. I think our offense is young and growing, and seems to be moving in the right direction. Our rush defense was one of the worst I've ever seen, and several positions on defense are currently filled by underachievers.
I will give your post the long and detailed response it deserves. If you had written a short piece of work with no thought I could have just pounced on it. But you did a very solid job, and you deserve a solid answer when I can get some time from work.
by Steve Nichols on Jan 17, 2008 5:13 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell
by John Bena on Jan 17, 2008 6:32 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate to be dramatic...
by Steve Nichols on Jan 18, 2008 6:47 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome Diary
I particularly like the title and the general angle. Very thought provoking, especially considering that 85% of our offseason discussions are going to involve our 28th ranked defense and its overhaul...
I agree completely with the notion that nucleus should apply to the trenches, but I will add one caveat: outside of center, nothing is as important to a football team as the QB. He simply handles the ball too much and has too much responsibility in even the most rudimentary game plan. But give me an O-line any day of the week over stud skill players!
I will take a point of disagreement with you. Anyone who follows any of my comments knows I am a sucker for Erik Pears, so I will officially disagree with the notion that he is at best a backup. No way, buddy! Pears is a project, and a major one. He is not even the average project typically taken by Denver (i.e. incubated for 2-3 years). He needed even more time than average, and instead he has recieved even less time than average. He was thrust into LT as a rookie and survived, then moved to his more natural RT spot where he also survived (as you say with Graham and the Guards (sounds like a pop-band) to help, but, hey, this is a team game, no?). This trial by fire is going to prove more valuable in his development than 4 years as a backup ever could have, and this coming year is the real test for Pears. He should improve even more this coming year, and while I would like to see him competing for the LT spot, I have a sneaking suspicion that he will not get that opportunity and will instead be kept at RT. Regardless, I expect him to Dominate whichever position he nails down. I am ready to eat crow if he fails me, of course, but I have a really good feeling about this kid. He will explode when he finally 'gets it'.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 17, 2008 1:26 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Where we disagree
1. I see the following needs for defense:
DT, SAF, and OLB.
DT - Rookie Thomas looked good when he finaly got a shot. But he isn't domineering, and he needs help either way. I think he is a future great at the position, but we need two DTs now. Why? Because we need at least three to four for rotation (include Thomas and McKinley). We can debate on if Thomas is ready to start or not. We need a bare minimum of 1, but really 2 DTs. McKinley (like Thomas) is, in my opinion, solid as a rotational DT, but not a strong starter.
OLB - Wherever you think Williams should play (OLB or MLB), we need two more guys. Winborn got signed to an extension, so he might be considered a project (perhaps for special teams). But Gold and Webster did not perform well this year (and I say this as a big Gold fan). Like DT, we need a bare minimum of one, but really need two.
SAF - Lynch may return, but his two neck injuries and the fact that he is slowing with age at the very least makes his value debatable. He is good in zone near the line of scrimmage, but he can't cover a fast TE as well as he should, and his speed won't improve if he is needed in deep zone. Hamza looks like a good fit for SAF. Whether Lynch leaves, or stays to play a short yardage role, we really need a coverage safety.
That's three to five players needed on defense. (Five actual, three bare minimum).
We agree on CBs and DEs being strong for this team, and even agree that Thomas is a work in progress.
2. I see the following needs for offense:
OL, maybe a WR.
If Walker returns we are set. If not, you and I agree we need a WR to spread the field. This is based on if Walker returns, so it is iffy at best as a need.
We agree that our three top RBs are coming back too. FB (as I mentioned in a story earlier in the week) is a position filled by our best blocking RB hybrid.
We are lucky to have two excellent TEs (most teams do well to have one). We also have two reasonably good back-ups at TE.
So our biggest disagreement is on the OL. First let me say that I agree with Styg's comment above that Pears is the real deal. I think you sold Pears a little short, but I won't eleborate beyond Styg's comment.
Harris has been getting positive press from the coaching staff. The word is that he has learned the scheme quicker than normal, and the staff is eager to get him on the field (this was well before Lepsis announced retirement).
I thought Nalen would retire, but it looks like he wants to stay another year. He was on IR this year, and is an injury risk in my opinion. But he still plays very well. For Hamilton, read my comments about Nalen. I advocate two OL pick-ups for depth in case of injury or to develop for '09 and beyond. I think Hamilton is a serious injury risk; Nalen very much less so.
Myers held his own at C, even though he is a more natural fit at G. The poor guy gets moved around a lot, but how many guys can step in and hold their own at C? Holland and Kuper are both good as well (Holland has gotten a lot of praise for his ability to fill different positions on the line).
So I see seven good players for five positions (Nalen, Hamilton, Pears, Harris, Kuper, Myers, and Holland). I don't know much about players behind this group in reserve (Alexander?), but I think we are ok overall. My concern is that we face two probable retirements next year, and the possibility of injury. This is why I think we need a bare minimum of one, but really two players for OL.
- So my count is 5 for defense, 2 for offense (and those two offensive guys are for depth; the 5 on defense are needed as starters).
- I know that some football theorists like offense for today's game. Others like defense overall. Each side has it's points. But I think both sides miss the point. It takes a well balanced team.
Look at the mighty NE offense. It's fun to watch Brady and Moss hook up. People forget that the brilliance of the NE system is the ability of the defense to adapt to any type of offense. It's not the flashy side of the team, but it is the most profound element.
Both of these dominating teams have excellence on both sides of the ball.
Another recent SB team is PITT. Sure everyone watches Big Ben. But look closely and you'll see the only true smash mouth 3-4 scheme in the league (the Lebeau zone blitz scheme). Just a tad further back and we had two defensive teams fight it out (Baltimore and NYG).
My point is that at the very least it is a combination of offense and defense that has won SBs in recent years. We can even go back to the last dynasty before NE, and remember that the 49ers not only had Montana and Rice, they also had Deion Sanders (at CB). In rare cases defense alone has carried teams (last year's Bears for example).
5. I also agree with some of the commentors above, that we are already getting gashed by the run. Our offense can't win games if opposing teams can control the clock. We must fix our run defense.
The defense is just terrible, while the offense is a bright spot with several young players. Cutler has the weapons in place (three outstanding recievers, two outstanding TEs, and three outstanding RBs). Give him some depth at the o-line (which was playing injured in '07) and we are fine on that side of the ball.
Just a couple more players should make a world of difference on the o-line, but the defense needs quite a few guys.
6. Also don't forget that the depth we build on defense has a direct correllation to our special teams personnel. That's an area we need help in too.
by Steve Nichols on Jan 18, 2008 9:17 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
3 for thought
- P.J. Alexander. Think of him as the litmus test of our O-line offseason work. If he is present on our roster after final cuts, we failed in the offseason to acquire depth at o-line, and we will be on the razor's edge again next year. I reserve the right to alter this comment if he were to 'get better,' or anything like that...
- Point 5 is a HUGE point. Our offense can do nothing without the ball. At least if we cna force teams to throw, they will score quicker. Though I have a feeling that if we can force teams to throw we will have them right where we want them. Bailey and Bly could actually focus on turnovers, then, but....we need a fast safety who can cover his half of the field...
- Point 6 is almost as HUGE as point 5. Also, there are a few safeties in the draft who can return punts... I for one would like to see Hall NOT seeing too many plays until he is called on as a backup running back, but I'm sure he would disagree...
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 18, 2008 6:03 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome Diary, V.2
What has not been addressed so far is the need for balance amongst all THREE components of a good team: Defense, Offense and SPECIAL TEAMS. Our ST play was not special, it was usually blah. As HT stated, Chicago made the SB because they had a hot D, but they also had the best returner in the game and I am assuming that their talent on D led to them having good coverage teams.
I had many disappointments watching our ST play and I see the quickest way of fixing that by bringing in some young blood at LB and Safety. I agree that the OL needs two new additions, but by getting fast Defensive players we fix weaknesses at two areas of need: D & ST.
by Arctic Bronco on Jan 19, 2008 11:08 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

by 




























