A Statistical Analysis of the 2008-2009 Denver Broncos Running Game
by calvinandhobbes on Nov 25, 2008 10:20 PM MST
53 comments
When people think of the Denver Broncos they often think of an Offensive Line where, "that would let my grandmother run for 1,000 yards." This year the Denver Broncos have proven that your grandmother most definitely could not run for 1,000 yards.
In this article I will attempt to show three things:
1.) The state of the Denver Broncos’ running game in comparison with the rest of the league.
2.) The state of the Denver Broncos’ running backs in comparison with the rest of the league.
3.) The effect of the Denver Broncos’ running game on their overall performance.
This article is hopefully the first in a series of articles examining the Denver Broncos Offensive and Defensive Lines.
1.) The state of the Denver Broncos’ running game in comparison with the rest of the league.
According to Football Outsiders Offensive Line Rankings (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol) the Denver Broncos are ranked number one in run blocking. The Denver Broncos have an Adjusted Line Yards per carry of 5.01. This is .81 higher than the league average of 4.20. 5.01 Adjusted Lines Yards per carry is also .37 or 8% higher than the fifth ranked San Francisco 49ers. Further, 5.01 is .99 Adjusted Line yards higher than the twenty-second ranked Kansas City Chiefs (or %23.13 percent higher), who rank second highest in the A.F.C. West.
This remarkably high Adjusted Line Yards per carry of 5.01 would suggest that the Denver Broncos are dominating the league with their running game. However, this is not the case. Instead, the Denver Broncos are ranked fourth in rush offense by Football outsiders, their rushing DVOA of %11.0 is less than half of the %23.8 Rushing DVOA of the number one ranked New York Giants.
These statistics may make one ask how the disparity between Rushing DVOA and Adjusted Line Yards per carry can occur. Football Outsiders attempts to describe this possible separation:
"Why are these rankings different from the team offense DVOA ratings for rushing? Among other reasons, they don't include quarterbacks or fumbles, long runs are truncated, and a different set of adjustments is used, attempting to isolate line playrather than total team offense.
A team with a high ranking in Adjusted Line Yards but a low ranking in 10+ Yards is heavily dependent on its offensive line to make the running game work. A team with a low ranking in Adjusted Line Yards but a high ranking in 10+ Yards is heavily dependent on its running back breaking long runs to make the running game work.
However, it is important to understand that these ratings only somewhatseparate the offensive line from the running backs. A team with a very good running back will appear higher no matter how bad their line, and a team with a great line with appear lower if the running back is terrible."
Football Outsiders’ suggestion for the difference leads us to the second part of this article.
2.) The state of the Denver Broncos’ running backs in comparison with the rest of the league.
via media.scout.com
The Denver Broncos rank twenty-sixth in runs over ten yards, with only %13 of their runs going over ten yards. The thirty-second ranked Indianapolis Colts have %9 of their runs go over ten yards. So, only four percent more of the Denver Broncos’ runs are in excess of ten yard, than the worst team in the Nation Football League at runs over ten yards. If Football Outsiders is correct in their assertion that a team with a low percentage of ten plus yards and high Adjusted Line Yards per carry means that the team has a better Offensive Line than Running Back, the Denver Broncos therefore probably have mediocre Running Backs and an excellent Offensive Line.
Football Outsiders’ third assertion that, "a team with a great line with appear lower if the running back is terrible" seems to suggest that the Denver Broncos must not have terrible running backs. I will set out to prove that the Denver Broncos in fact do have mediocre running backs, but an absolutely amazing Offensive Line.
The first thing I noticed when researching the Denver Broncos running backs this year was the amazing amount of injuries the backfield has suffered. No Denver Bronco has more than ninety-five carries, while EVERY other team in the National Football League has at least one Running Back with at least ninety-five carries. Eight teams even have two Running Backs with ninety-five carries.
The highest ranked Running Back according to Football Outsiders DYAR (as shown here http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb) is Michael Pittman at fifteenth (due to his low amount of carries I had to add him to Football Outsiders list by myself, which is rather telling). However, due to Michael Pittman’s age and injury he has very limited carries. The second ranked Denver Bronco is Selvin Young, who is ranked thirtieth in DYAR, however he has not played in awhile. The Denver Broncos’ current starting Running Back Peyton Hillis is ranked fortieth.
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to calculate the success rates of these Running Backs, as defined by Football Outsiders.
These statistics seem to suggest that the current Running Backs of the Denver Broncos are not mediocre, instead they are awful. This means that the Denver Broncos’ Offensive Line is in fact absolutely amazing; they are managing to rank first Adjusted Line Yards per carry by a sizeable margin, despite their poor running backs.
3.) The effect of the Denver Broncos’ running game on their overall performance.
To find the effect of the Denver Broncos’ running game on their overall performance I compared Football Outsiders’ Offensive Lines and their Rushing DVOA to Football Outsiders’ Drive Charts. The rushing rank of a team’s Offensive Line seems to have no correlation to a team’s yards per drive. However, a team’s percentage of stuffed runs does seem to strongly correlate to their touchdowns per drive. This bodes well for the Denver Broncos’ as they rank seventh in stuffed runs.
I would imagine however that as the season comes to close and the weather worsens the running game will become more important.
In closing, imagine a Denver Bronco Running game where the running back is as good as the Offensive Line and what this could allow the Denver Broncos’ Offense to do.
Terrell Davis Tribute (via broncofan547)
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
8 recs |
53 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Oh By the Way
I am in now way competing with Claus Vestergaard. This was just something I wanted to put together during a down day.
by calvinandhobbes on Nov 25, 2008 10:22 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
You should, though - great read!
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 6:32 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Good thread....
Recommended.
I have to wonder why we abandon the run game so early, especially against the Riaders when Hillis was averageing around 4.5 per carry.
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
by boydy2669 on Nov 26, 2008 6:14 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Right.
If we would stick with the run, we would get the break away runs that are missing from the stats. I think our RBs would look better if they carried the ball enough to wear down opposing defenses and to get more shots at longer gains.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Nov 26, 2008 9:07 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I've noticed that when our backs come through the line untouched
they rarely beat the first man they meet at the second level. They just don’t juke anybody out. Maybe that’s why we don’t have those long runs. If we did have soem big runs that would shock the defense into cheating up and focusing on the run, which would open up the passing game and make it easier for the receivers to get open. Maybe I’ll change my mind about us not drafting a back in the first or second round. This post oughta be on the front page.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on Nov 26, 2008 3:25 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
If thats the truth
the inventor of AjustedLineYards can go to bed happily tonight!
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 4:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Denver's coaches...
buy into a school of thought called “downhill running”. The idea is that a player, after the one cut, should charge ahead and never attempt any juke moves. Get the extra few yards, and don’t try for the big gain by juking. The idea is that more yards are lost by getting hit when one stops and jukes, than are usually gained by “dancing” or cutting “again” east/west. It’s one of the reasons that Clinto Portis didn’t fit our system. He’s a great runner, but not meant so much for our scheme.
It is neither the right or wrong philosophy, just a difference in coaching beliefs. I myself coached defense, but I lean heavily towards the downhill running school.
The Denver RBs should beat the second level with either momentum (a power back) or with the second tier blocking of the zone block. We have a lot of speed guys, which is fine, but they should be used as change-ups (especially late in the game). For some reason, we are neither running often enough to wear down defenses, and not using enough power backs.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Nov 27, 2008 1:19 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a difference
between dancing behind the line of scrimmage (see Bell, Tatum) and faking a man out beyond the line, and the latter doesn’t have to mean stopping and juking, or dancing, but can (and should) mean subtle shoulder fakes, setting up angles, etc., without necessarily losing momentum. If the runner is always tackled by the first unblocked defender he meets he’s not going to break many big runs. One cut and go refers to what happens behind the line and doesn’t have to mean that the runner runs in an absolute straight line once he gets past the first level.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on Nov 28, 2008 2:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Or would they look worse?
There is a reason why FO requires a certain amount of carries, were you to rank the Bronco running backs by DVOA Pittman would be 5th and Young would be the ranked first (7% better than Portis at #2). More carries would lead to regression to the mean and a huge drop in their metrics.
I’m also somewhat leery of the o-line stats, they’re ranked 4th but their variance is 26th. With a VAR that high running more wouldn’t necessarily lead to sustained success but more likely the opposite.
by RaiderPete on Nov 26, 2008 8:55 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Abaolutely right!
For once a raider-fan with some sence :D
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 27, 2008 6:41 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post Pete....
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
by boydy2669 on Nov 27, 2008 6:57 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe...
The Broncos should buck up and go for a high pick rb.
But they have a need at so many more positions!
Sometimes I feel like the Broncos bring in good players, let them work through the early years, and let them go. Only for them to become quality pros elsewhere. They give up on players too early or bring them in too late. That bothers me the most.
Bring on the Jets! (Damn they look good.) All Ready!
Please don’t get blown out. I’ll still be full from turkey.
by precisiontint on Nov 26, 2008 8:35 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
I don't even think we need a high pick RB.
If we would run the ball more, the guys carrying the ball would be running against a worn down defense. A run here and there won’t make any RB look good. We need a consistent pounding of the ball.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Nov 26, 2008 9:08 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
But in this league
only a handfull of back has the toughness to run the ball 25+ times pr. game. Even if Hillis is that kind of back, we really can’t afford the risk of placing more backs on IR.
And when were playing catchup all the time, we can’t afford running the ball 25+ times. I’m sorry but we can’t. especially when our passing attack is this good.
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 11:31 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we should use a single back to get this effect.
I think we should continue the modern trend of using backs in rotation.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Nov 26, 2008 2:50 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but my point was:
Do you really wan’t to run 25+ times with a Fullback and a Lions-reject? Because that’s okay, i just don’t, sorry.
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 4:53 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I think
that in the game against oakland, Hillis should have had his touches around 25, by himself. As early as the first quarter it was painfully obvious what Denver was up to: they wanted to crush and demoralize the raiders with quick strikes and a 51 point scoring deluge. As early as the end of the first quarter they should have recognized that they missed their opportunities to do that, and started to feed Hillis with the idea that a close fourth quarter with a worn down raider dline and a secondary that had to respect run calls (not necessarily the running game itself) would be to the advantage of Cutler.
But like they have done all year they kept pressing. They pressed until their was no advantage, perceived or real, upon which they could base their decision to air it out. They were reduced to desperation throws into the maw of a capable pass defense.
This was one fourth quarter where, sadly, a bronco fan could only watch and mutter, “It is too late.”
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 26, 2008 7:26 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
the “lets air it out a pray”-gameplan was odd. But solution isn’t pounding, but short passes. This way we get the ball to our talent, and the gametempo down a notch.
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 27, 2008 6:44 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Great post Styg....
This has been a probelem all year. Our game planning has been unsound, and we just dont seem to have the ability to adjust to what going on.
Our running game is like novacaine. Give it some time and it will work. We should have been pounding the ball with Hillis from the outset, which would have opened up passing lanes later in the game.
The whole game plan was relying on the opposite, which did not make much sense when realizing how poor the Raiders had been against the run.
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
by boydy2669 on Nov 27, 2008 7:04 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
when was the last time the Lions ran the ball effectively?
I don’t know that being a Lions reject is such a terrible thing.
I still don’t see why everyone hates Taco Bell so much. Fumbles they claim. Well, with 538 rushes and 62 catches, he has exactly 600 career touches, and with 10 fumbles thats 60 touches per fumble. Not great, but really not that bad. Everyone love Adrian Peterson? 64 touches per fumble. Brandon Jacobs? 49 touches per fumble. Frank Gore? 70 touches per fumble. Someone who DOES have a great ratio would be LT: about 120 touches per fumble. Now those are some iron hands.
And how about Fumbles McGee (Andre Hall)? His short-lived career has seen 28 touches per fumble.
What’s his upside? Can you say 4.8 yards per carry? And this includes his current stint with the Broncos (13 carries is nearly meaningless) and also his time with the utterly inept Lions (see Steven Jackson if you want to see what a bad line does to a good back).
Fumbling the ball can be helped. Look at Marshall- for a couple weeks it looked like he might have banana hands all year. It was something he consciously worked on for quite some time, and either improved his ball security, or was the victim of a statistical anomaly. Either way, fine. I’m sure Taco knows he’s on about the thinnest ice you can walk, as even with the depth problems Shanny will can Taco if he can’t hold on.
So for me, it just remains to be seen if he’ll get it done, which I think he does. He’s an excellent scat to changeup the piledrive of Hillis with.
Jason
The Hanging Curve
by poorboywilly on Nov 27, 2008 10:35 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Hillis seemed to do very well when given the ball.
As with all RBs, his performance would have increased if he had continued to be used through the game. The title “FB” didn’t seem to hold him back.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
by Steve Nichols on Nov 27, 2008 1:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
And he is easily
the best to leave in to receive out of the backfield. Passes don’t get any shorter than that.
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 27, 2008 1:55 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I think teams are kind of ganging up on the pass against Denver
and making it more difficult for the receivers to get open and for Cutler to find time to throw.
If we pounded with Hillis it would help make sure that our passing attack is good.
"In the empty spaces - lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes - new things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands, the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
by spock on Nov 26, 2008 3:28 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes,
but an injury to Hillis would be close-to terminal for our running game. And more carries = higher risk of injury.
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 4:55 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with HT
We have to commit to running the ball. This is the only way to wear down the opposing defense and break the long runs at the end of the game. And, I believe that we have the RBs that we need to be successful (when they are healthy) in Hillis, Pittman, Torain and Alridge.
This is one of the reasons that TD was so successful late in the games. It wasn’t that he had that much more stamina, it’s because the defense was getting tired of getting pushed around by the o-line and getting hit by TD!
Sure, the pass gives us a quick-strike capability, but when that fails (incompletions, interceptions, etc.) the defense has to go back out on the field and get worn down (as evidenced by most of our loses this year). If we run from the beginning, we setup the play action passes as well as the long ball because the DBs will be cheating up to stop the run (sound like our defense?).
"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game
"I love your analysis of our team. Its kinda like watching a spider monkey trying to figure out a jar of peanuts.. you know whats going on.. you know whats in there, but to actually figure it out, is just a bit beyond your mental skills..."
- Bronco Dano
by DesertBroncoFan on Nov 26, 2008 2:29 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, yes and yes!
But we cannot start pounding the rock before we get people healthy – and that wont happen until next year. Let’s look at it then – right now we have to give the ball to the players on offense that has got talent – QB, WRs and TEs…
I suspect a Mike Holmgren-ish west coast system would be ideal – get the game tempo down a notch and give the defense 3-4 more minutes worth of oxygen.
We are starting a fullback at HB, for crying out loud!
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 2:46 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't see the game last week
but I think I read that Hillis was averaging over 5 yards per carry! Even if he’s a fullback playing half-back, that’s pretty impressive. And, given the fact that he is a fullback, I’m assuming that he’ll be able to take more of a pounding without getting injured.
If the fumble hadn’t happened (yeah, I know, wish in one hand, sh** in the other and see which one fills up first) and we finish off the drive with a score, we have the momentum and who’s to say that the faders don’t go three and out on the next series. This would be the perfect time to keep pounding Hillis and wearing them down!
"It's all over Fat Man" - Tom Jackson to John Madden 1977 AFC Championship Game
"I love your analysis of our team. Its kinda like watching a spider monkey trying to figure out a jar of peanuts.. you know whats going on.. you know whats in there, but to actually figure it out, is just a bit beyond your mental skills..."
- Bronco Dano
by DesertBroncoFan on Nov 26, 2008 3:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
He was just barely under 5 ypc, so you're right.
He had actually had 17 carries – pretty impressive. And if you think he can take the bigger workload, then i can’t argue with that. I have no evidence to prove you wrong, i still think, though, it would be playing highstakes-low-reward with the last tiny bit of rungame we still have.
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 26, 2008 5:00 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Consider that
Hillis is not very likely to be our starting tailback in the coming years, and i think you might come to agree that feeding him the ball 20+ times a game for the rest of 2008 may be the best thing for this offense, and indeed, would be a low-risk, high reward opportunity, on the grounds that even though he is our last back, we long ago went into the deadzone of RBs, and have essentially hit bottom.
That our FB was a capable tailback is great for depth considerations going forward, it certainly doesn’t indicate that losing Hillis to injury (how crazy would that be?) would be any more devestating at this point than all our previously injured tailbacks.
Fact is, if we aren’t using him enough, than it is no different than if we didn’t even have him.
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 26, 2008 7:32 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
no long-term risk.
The way this season has been so far, I’m afraid that Hillis will go down also. He probably haasn’t taken this amount of carries since highschool?
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 27, 2008 6:49 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll get back to you on the number of carries
he was a workhorse for Arkansas, but not sure how many actual caries he got. He was a record holder for receptions I think, and may have led the team in receptions his last year. I’ll have to look it up.
All this data is slowly getting replaced with 2009 draftclass data. The gray matter can only hold so much…
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 27, 2008 1:57 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Hillis at Arkansas
Rec No Yds Avg TD Rush Att Yds Avg TD
2007 49 537 11.0 5 62 347 5.6 2
2006 19 159 8.4 0 13 57 4.4 1
2005 38 402 10.6 4 65 315 4.8 3
2004 12 97 8.1 2 63 240 3.8 6
Career 118 1,195 10.1 11 203 959 4.7 12
Without heroes, we are all plain people and don’t know how far we can go. Bernard Malamud
by bradley on Nov 28, 2008 12:43 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
GIVE HILLIS THE BALL
Mix it up. We will not win down the streach without a running game, period.
by metalman5050 on Nov 26, 2008 5:12 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Holmgren preaches a fast tempo
The hawks are at their best when they’re moving quickly. It’s not Peyton Manning no huddle fast, but it’s a notch below that. Or at least it’s supposed to be…..
by RaiderPete on Nov 26, 2008 8:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
You are probably right
but short passes at least gives the team an opportunity to lower the tempo, no? This isn’t ideal times, we have got to use what we have. Not pound the ball with what we don’t have.
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 27, 2008 6:47 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I knew that was coming eventually... :) DT right?
Am I the only one that wants a high pick running back? Second round, Clinton Portis style, MLB in the first round.
Win or lose, it's always it a great day to be a Bronco fan!
by Steve O' on Nov 26, 2008 5:27 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
unless Larson keeps getting better, than maybe RB, DT, S, LB, Corner
Win or lose, it's always it a great day to be a Bronco fan!
by Steve O' on Nov 26, 2008 5:53 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Because Larsen
really only needs to get to a point of solid, fundamentally consistent play, and because he was sought after by the Broncos, I am going out on a limb and putting my future MLB hopes on him. We aren’t asking for the sun and moon, and at MLB, you don’t need to.
And I am with you on RB in the first, though I would qualify the statement a little differently. Context is everything, and I simply believe that, in terms of need, we should be prioritizing SAF, DT, DE, RB, and SLB, in no particular order. Based on past history I think that SAF and RB are the strongest candidates for a first round pick, in terms of immediate production and star caliber, but IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE PLAYERS AVAILABLE. DT and DE need time to develop, and would make great free agents or mid rounders, and SLB is an underrated position in the draft where I think looking for a top 15 LB in the 2nd or 3rd round would give you the most bang for your buck.
But again, in free agency and the draft, the priority should always be to scout players, and THEN address how they could help you. Getting stuck in a pure “scout the position” cycle can devestate a draftboard, and can waste a lot of free agent dollars. I am convinced that Denver’s front office understands both principles at this point in time.
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 26, 2008 7:49 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
you're not alone, Steve O
I thought I’d jump in here. I spent my Thanksgiving playing around with DrafTek’s simulator, and after running countless simulations I came to the conclusion that we’re going to get a pretty good RB, and that’s because — apparently — there just aren’t that many teams in need this year.
I’m not saying that we should spend our 1st pick on a RB however, just that we don’t have to. We don’t have to use a really high pick in order to find someone who is pretty highly rated. The 3rd or 4th looks golden for us. One name that keeps popping up is James Davis.
You may also want to try the simulator, it’s fun to play with the Broncos’ draft priorities and create your own mock drafts.
by Colinski on Nov 28, 2008 1:36 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know what a ridiculous value Davis in the 3rd would be?
I would die inside if you guys picked him up.
by RaiderPete on Nov 28, 2008 5:59 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the input Colinski,
I youtube’d Davis and he does look talented. Nice size, speed ratio and he hits the hole hard. Thanks for the links!!
"His incredible impact during the late '60s and early-to-mid-'70s saved the franchise from relocation and helped the Broncos become the marquee organization it is today." Floyd Little's Tales From The Broncos Sideline
by Steve O' on Nov 28, 2008 9:40 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you HT,
however if we have a chance at a good RB early then we should take it. On the other hand, ever since TD we have been able to run the ball without having a featured back that gets 25+ carries a game. To be successful running the ball, you need to stick with it and eventually we will be able to break one open for a long gain.
I understand the Broncos wanting to pass alot with Cutler and all the options he has to throw to, however as it has been stated several time here and it know by anybody who watches football, the passing game works well with a running game
"It doesn't dissipate" ~ Mike Shanahan
Cutler's 4th qtr/OT game winning drives: 6
by weazel on Nov 26, 2008 5:35 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
No question about it!
We have the personnell to run the ball. Regaurdless of who it is, and if they go down we will get more. We cannot abanden the run simply because of the potential for injury! Come on! With the mix of backs that we use, pounding the ball is a must. 1 goes down, 6 go down? So what. Get more and keep on carriing the rock.
by metalman5050 on Nov 26, 2008 5:42 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I was high on Mendenhall...
But where is he now? On IR.
The risk/ reward on high choices at running back are far too high, and the difference between a RB in the 3rd and 5th rounds for example, are not discernible enough with reagrds to output and performance.
I think we need to let Bobby Turner keep dopinghis thing.
I think Alridge and Torain will both be good, and we just had a cursed year with inuuries this year. I also like Hillis as a bruiser.
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
by boydy2669 on Nov 27, 2008 7:00 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
We do have Selvin but....
I guess what I’m disappointed with is Selvin getting hurt. Either HST or TSG did a long write-up last summer on how effective he could be IF he were used like Westerbrook. Unfortunately Selvin seems to get hurt pretty easily and I don’t think he’ll be afforded another opportunity with the Broncos.
I’m also of the opinion we have completely abandoned the run this season. Even in games which we have won, we have done it with mid to long passes. San Diego, the Colts, New England are all running shot routes which let the receivers do the work after the catch. Since we have such stellar receivers and no confidence in our runners, we should opt for a true west-coast style offense and let Jay dink and dunk until the D is sucked up and then throw over the top.
Basically our offense is killing our defense and until they step up our D is going to be gutted. I didn’t think the D played too badly this past weekend but I thought our O gave up after Peyton’s fumble and Prater’s first miss. What a bummer. Ah youth, either they step up together this year or we get even better for next year. I hold out hope for this year, but I’m really excited about next year already. But god, what a long wait.
If people aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat??
by BigDave on Nov 26, 2008 11:32 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Abandoning the run
certainly seems to be a deeper issue than being short on running backs, as you indicate.
The NEW BRONCOS, the great team we are on the verge of becoming once the offense grows up and the defense gets back to average seems to be philosophically based in the spread offense. I have seen them forced into conservative (and very successful) play, but they seem to chafe at the thought.
This is Cutler’s team going forward, and they plan on winning on his arm. My deep, dark wish is that they are just firetesting him this year, on the grounds that only a lot of points can guarantee a shot at the win, with this defense, and that the long term plan going forward is to play more of a TEAM game than they have exhibited this year.
Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.
by Jeremy Bolander on Nov 26, 2008 7:38 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I dearly hope so too!!
Remember: New England won 18 last year; Oakland's won 19 in a half-decade
/The great Dane - formerly known as Claaaaas!
by Claus Vestergaard on Nov 27, 2008 6:50 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Love the highlight film!
Man, I miss TD – The perfect blend of speed and power, poetry in motion and the perfect running back for Denver.
I remember when I bought my first copy of Madden football (Madden ’97, I think it was?) It had John Madden breaking down all the teams, this is what he had to say (and I can remember it word for word) – “To me, Terrell Davis is the best running back in football”
</end reminisce> :-)
by NZBroncoFan on Nov 27, 2008 5:06 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
I think
Denver has the good back on our team. Its Torain. If ha can come back healthy I believe he will be a force to be rekoned with. I am not one that believes the Broncos need to take a back in the first round. The highest back Shanny has ever drafted was Portis and Bell both in the 2nd round. If Denver could have kept Portis he would be considered one on the best ever. But trading him for Champ was a good move IMO. Denve has a history of getting good backs later in the draft. This year the injuries at that postion have killed them and it doesnt lend to continuity at the position. I am not one that likes plugging in our FB as a rb, but Hillis has shown he can handle it. But this will work out in the long run for Denver when Torain is back and with Hillis as the Fb, Denver will have a serious 1-2 punch when they are in a 2 back set.
somethings wrong, Trying to conquer these fears i thought were gone. And it's been so long, I'm dying to live in a world i don't belong
by broncfanstuckinsd on Nov 29, 2008 11:57 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Next Game
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
