Denver's Offense - Headed for an Update
by super7 on Jan 29, 2009 12:13 PM MST
Email
PrintThis article in today's Denver Post talks about McD tossing the West Coast offense aside, in fact it is supposed in the article that his erasing of the West Coast offense was the main reason he did not bring Bates back. That makes sense to me.
However, if the "West Coast Offense" will no longer be in the playbook, the Broncos "Running Game Style" is done and gone.
REJOICE! Why?
You have to ask yourself: How successful has Denver been with their running game?
Well, that's an interesting question. Is it the backs that really make it go? Is it the offensive line? Is it Bobby Turner? Was it Alex Gibbs? Is it Rick Dennison?
All are legitimate questions. In the Super Bowl years, Denver had an unreal combination of a great RB and a great O-Line. Denver had the best running game in the NFL.
Denver's O-Line scheme was anywhere from good to great throughout most of the 2000's, but the backs that ran behind it were inconsistent. Portis was a good (not great) back. But he's the only Broncos back I'd take in his prime other than Davis over many other RBs at the time.
In the end, I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just saying that something is OBVIOUSLY not working if Denver had the best O-Line in the NFL last year (according to football outsiders.com and a top 2 O-Line according to Espn the Magazine) but can't run the ball, it would seem to me that its the combination of back AND O-Line that makes a running game exceptional, not one or the other.
If a good back plays with a great line (like in the Portis years), the running game will be very good, but an average to below average back with a great line doesn't scare anyone (see 2008).
And that's the "Denver Style Running Game". The bad thing about Denver's "Style of Running Game" is that it was not adaptable to its players. The players had to fit the scheme.
Onto greener pastures...
The Patriots offense (McD's offense) over the last two years (nicknamed the "amoeba offense" because of its ability to adjust to its personnel and defensive schemes of its opponents) is quite the opposite of Denver's style.
In this day of the new-school free agency era, your team (in my opinion) must be able to adjust to new personnel. It's impossible to have any continuity of personnel in today's NFL (because of FA and the Cap), and Denver's simply been behind the times on both sides of the ball.
I am thrilled that McD has a plan and he's aggressively pursuing it. I have been wholeheartedly impressed with the level of volition that McD possesses while stepping into a completely new position. I LOVE that he isn't tip-toeing around anyone or anything.
He's making this his team. As well he should. And in the process, he's updating Denver's personnel strategy.
As much as most folks think Denver's offense was great last year, it wasn't. Cutler was great last year, not the offense. Really, how good can your offense be when it's mostly one dimensional and it has a hard time with short yardage and red-zone situations?
Thoughts??
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
149 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Obviously I think that having 7 backs go on the IR will not let you have a good consistent running game
That being said, when Hillis was running the ball, we were able to score and get short yardage pick-ups, I can remember him carrying guys for three yards and bull dozing chumps. But I think after he went down, the offense had to go to a pass first attack, I mean when Tatum Bell is the feature back, you know it’s not a great year. I really expect that Hillis or someone else will emerge as a feature back (maybe Torain or a draft pick) and you will see the running game return to form.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
I agree
Hillis is a better than average RB, and when he was our primary back, low and behold, we scored Red Zone TDs and picked up first downs.
I like him as a running back, but we’re going to need other “above average” guys too.
RBs get hurt and if you don’t plan for it, then sheme on you.
The Pats game when Denver had Pittman and Hall as the only active tailbacks, I was ready to drive to DIA and wait for Shanny to get off the plane so I could swear at him for 10 minutes. Pittman (beaten up and old, nobody wanted him) and Hall (for all intents and purposes, a nobody) should never be your top two backs going into any game!
And don't forget...
…at that time, with Hillis in the backfield, many were saying this Bronco team was one to be feared. After Hillis went down, all that kind of talk silently slipped into the past tense.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jan 29, 2009 1:30 PM MST up reply actions
Pittman
I agree in part with you…Pittman starting and Hall spelling him is a BAD IDEA™. But Pittman is a superb back-up. He isn’t beaten up or worn out. He got injured yes, but he was great for us at the beginning of the year when he was spelling our starters and doing short yardage.
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
Anticipating RB injuries
RBs get hurt and if you don’t plan for it, then sheme on you.
Should we plan on having seven RBs go on IR? If not, can we acknowledge that this is the sort of thing you can’t plan for, that it would have wrecked anyone’s ground game? Except it didn’t completely wreck ours. Our running game was bad only by our own lofty standards. When, with our depth chart completely wiped out, we can bring in a guy literally off the street and get a decent performance, that suggests our ground game survived under the circumstances better than anybody else’s would have. Including New England’s. Don’t get me wrong. I’m confident that the running game under McDaniels will flourish. But let’s not jump to the conclusion that the running game was broke and needed to be fixed, or that a new offensive design means the zone-block, one-cut system is about to be or needs to be abandoned.
"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 Jan 29, 2009 5:44 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Seven guys on IR is a bit bizarre. But honestly, I wasn’t that surprised. After 2007, we all knew Young and Hall to be brittle – there are some who may have chosen to ignore that fact last summer, but really them getting hurt was nothing news-breaking. Alridge is small and was a UFA – he got hurt in camp, and there’s one of those almost every year. Torain has been hurt every year – his last couple in college at least, and this year again. No surprise there. We’re talking about guys with histories of injury. Pittman, well…here’s the thing about Pittman. He shouldn’t have been put on IR in the first place. He recovered in time to play at the end of the year, I believe for at least the last couple games. Hillis was, to me, the only real surprise – but he was supposed to be the fullback or an h-back – not the running back. We just got lucky that he filled the HB role effectively. If Shanny knew how well he could run the ball, he would have given him a shot much earlier, believe you me.
For once, and only this time (haha) I’m not second-guessing here. This is what I wrote in August after Guru posted this about Torain’s first injury…
“I’m not really that surprised…and this is exactly why we shouldn’t expect so much from the running backs. What we have here is a collection of backs who are not only unproven in a talent sense, but more importantly unproven in a durability sense. Yes, Torain sounds like a perfect fit for the Broncos…but every scouting report I’ve ever read about him is littered with injury reports. The same goes for Selvin Young, and then you look at Hall and Alridge…they’re tiny! Again, I am hopeful that someone will emerge and lead the running attack, but expect it? Certainly not.”
Later, I wrote this about Selvin and his supposed weight gain…
" yes, i read that too. but i’ll buy it when i see it. would i LOVE to see Young become an every-down back? of course. i just don’t expect it. we haven’t had that since Portis, and that was a long long time ago. as for doom and gloom, i don’t think i’m amongst that crowd. i’m just a realist and what to see before i believe at this point. it is not a foregone conclusion that the Broncos’ running game will return to form…and i think those that claim we had the typical Shanahan-era attack over the last two seasons is delusional…it was a skeleton of what we’ve become accustomed to."
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 6:42 PM MST up reply actions
Actually I remember that....
two very good points – Pittman did not need to go on IR, nor did Aldridge. AA’s injury was not a season long issue it was a gambit to avoid the risk that he would be claimed if we tried to put him on the practice squad.
Your point is very true – if you continually gamble on players with injury issues it will catch up with you sooner or later.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 6:48 PM MST up reply actions
Wow, SWG…that’s some memory you’ve got! What I find ironic is that this conversation is something of a repeat of last year. That is, if my memory serves as well as yours…I remember folks here talking about Denver having a run of bad luck in recent years, and that we just needed a “luckier” year where we didn’t lose as many players. Well, this is the NFL we’re talking about – every team has major injuries. Some overcome them with depth, some overcome them by having other players pick up more slack. That is what the winners do. The losers go home and complain about their misfortunes. John Elway missed 4 games in 1998. Normally, that sort of thing does not coincide with a 14-2 record. However, the Broncos were a great, deep team and did just fine with Bubby at the helm. Look at Cassel and New England last year. Do the injury problems Denver faced at RB compare with Tom Brady, the NFL MVP getting injured in the first game of the season? I’d have to say “no,” and quite resoundingly so. Yes, there was constant turnover at the position and it was not good for the offense, but the Pats lost what we all thought to be The Most Important Player In Football. When he got hurt, we all thought to ourselves “The Pats are toast,” or “YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!” Either way, we were all wrong.
Ok, done with the rant. Point is folks, injuries are a part of the game!
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 8:47 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Agree Broncoman
If Coach McDaniels scraps nearly all of the offense, I think he would be foolish to scrap the zone block / one cut running game. With Hillis/Torrain and this O-Line we can run on any team in the NFL until they move the dreaded eighth man into the box and then we watch Cutler strike. There is certainly room for improvement on this offense, but I think it is fundamentally sound, beginning in the trenches.
It all starts in the trenches HT 11/11/08
I also think I would prefer flexibility over ridgidness.
that was one of my biggest irritations over the past several seasons….lack of flexibility in game planning.
This is my GAP, there are many like it but this one is mine. Without my GAP I am useless, without me, they will run through my GAP. I will protect my GAP and have my brothers back on his. I will not be moved from my GAP, I am a crazed dog that patrols this area and will defeat all who entire it. I own this GAP, it is mine. I bought it with blood and sweat. I will not be pushed. I will not be moved. This Sunday I will make a stand and a statement.
In my opinion
Denver’s biggest issue boils down to insufficient personnel.
The only positions with good depth last year were DE, LB, OL, QB, WR.
Yes, the Broncos had a hurricane of injuries at RB, but the personnel evaluators are partly to blame for this problem too. If you add guys to your roster who have an injury past or are at the end of their career, they will break down and get hurt.
I can’t imagine the Broncos will stick with the zone blocking scheme. If the Pats didn’t do it last year, I would guess that Denver won’t do it next year, and I’m fine with that.
The Pats DID use a zone-blocking scheme last year
Maybe you’re confusing the overall design of the offense, including the formations used to disguise what kind of run is coming, or whether a run is coming, with the specific blocking and running scheme used when we run. They’re not the same thing.
"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
First let's dispell the myth...
that Denver COULDN’T run the ball. Only the Giants had a better ypc number than Denver, but I think the Cards were the only team that had fewer runs. Denver COULD run the ball effectively and proved so many times. Denver DIDN’T run the ball due to game plans, play calling, lack of confidence in untested running backs or whatever.
Second, let’s not confuse Denver’s ZB/1-cut system with the WCO. Despite what any talking head migth say, all the evidence is that we will see even more of Denver’s traditional running game. First, Bobby Turner was retained so McD must value the 1-cut style he teaches. Second, Dennison essentially agreed to a demotion to stick around. He could have moved on to other teams as OC but decided to stick around. I can’t see that happening unless McD and PB convinced him that he would have a MAJOR role in the offense. Zone Blocking isn’t going anywhere. Third, McCoy brought a ZB system to Carolina and stressed a VERY run heavy offense while there.
Getting rid of the WCO means, most likely, eliminating the reliance on quick timing routes, especially those designed to stretch the field horizontally. But we could already see that happening last year. What we are likely to see is a return to typical 70’s style offense. A run first offense, that uses the WRs to stretch the field vertically, while TE/Slots attack the middle and TE/RBs work the underneath routes. Think Dallas Cowboys of the 70s.
Denver's YPC # is unusually high, I agree..
But if it was that good, how come they didn’t feature the running game. They would have if they could have.
Selvin Young has one of the best YPC’s over the past 2 years and I don’t think annyone is on the ledge about the possibility of him not returning.
The reason being that Denver would sneak in a run here and there on 2nd and long or 3rd and long. Sans Hillis, I felt like we usually had to have some sort of fancy/tricky play call to get a run over 5 yards.
All I am saying is that Denver’s offense will not be at all like its been. We need to kiss our preconcieved notion about what kind of passing OR running game we’ll sport next year.
I can NOT be convinced that a zone blocking scheme is the best way to run the ball. There are plenty of different approaches and I hope Broncos fans aren’t grasping at ways to be familiar with our old offense or players.
Also, who in the NFL doesn’t want a “One-cut/downhill running back”. IMO, that’s what everyone’s looking for. Again, just my opinion.
I think your point about Dennison is right on though
McD could have gone in a different direction, but I’m not neccessarily sure that it means that we’re going to still run our zone blocking scheme.
I have no idea what we’ll do, I’m just saying that in all likliehood, that it’ll be different.
I think it MIGHT be different
but saying “in all likelihood” we’ll change is in my opinion way overstating that possibility.
I think it more likely will stay substantially the same. Maybe we should consider what McDaniels himself said here when he specifically addressed the issue:
While McDaniels will install his own offensive scheme, he said after his introductory news conference Monday that Denver’s patented zone blocking scheme might remain.
“We use a lot of the same blocking schemes and run-game schemes that they’ve used,” McDaniels said. “I know they get a lot of attention for that and it’s something you don’t look to pull the plug on unless you have something better to do. So we’re going to see.”
Notice that he’s already saying he’ll install his own offensive scheme, and notice also it doesn’t precluse the zone-block/one-cut system. Finally, considering that subsequent to that interview he retained both Dennison and Turner, it could be argued that his “might remain” became, “Okay, that’s what we’re going to do.” In fact, the way I read the above it sounds like one reason McDaniels’ ground game performed so well was it was patterned on Denver’s! Maybe that’s partly why Bowlen hired him. That doesn’t prove the zone-block/one-cut system will be retained, but it’s a long way from saying it probably won’t be.
"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
YPC
It’s tempting to attribute the high number to Denver sneaking in a run here and there in a pass heavy offense. But if you examine the drive logs what you see is a disturbing pattern of Denver coming out and running the ball extremely effectively in the first quarter, then mysteriously abandoning it.
I can only attribute that to Bates’s innane play calling. As far as I’m concerned, good riddance to Mr Bates.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 12:58 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
How about this...
Denver actually tied for the 2nd-best YPC, but were 5th-worst in attempts.
I think there’s an easy way to explain this. The Broncos got their butts kicked in an unusual number of games – 5 games by 14 points or more. In those instances, you are obviously not going to run the ball much, as you’ve got a large deficit to overcome. Secondly, when you do decide to run the ball while getting blown out, you’re going to get nice chunks of yardage – ie. Tatum Bell in San Diego. That night, Denver racked up 90 yards on just 10 carries. Against Carolina, Denver ran the ball just 23 times, yet accumulated 121 yards for a 5.3 average while getting whooped.
By the way, only 4 times this year did the Broncos have the leading rusher in any of their games, and unfortunately Eddie Royal was the guy in their game vs. Buffalo. In the other 3 games, Selvin ran for 78 yards vs. San Diego, Ryan Torain ran for 68 in Cleveland before getting hurt, and Hillis ran for 58 vs. KC when he got hurt. That, my friends, is pathetic! Also, the Broncos only ran for more yards than their opponents 5 times in 16 games. That is not getting it done!
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 2:06 PM MST up reply actions
And just to back up my assertion…
If you take away the rushing results for the Broncos in those 5 games they lost by 14 or more, this is what you get…
1,205 yards on 278 carries, for a rather pedestrian 4.3 YPC and 109.5 yards per game. The NFL average in 2008 was 4.2 YPC for 116 yards per game.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 2:19 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
WOw!
Powerful, awesome stats NYC.
That kind of sh%t gets you promoted around here.
Seroiusly, so when Denver was “in the game”, the running game was average to just below average.
That’s one of the most eye-opening things I’ve read since the Buffalo game.
Nice stats...
but to be fair you have to compare Denver to other teams in the same situation. What I was referring to, and I don’t have my stats handy, was Denver’s ypc in the 1st quarter. I had, at one point, Denver runnind at @4.9ypc in the 1st quarter.
Football Outsiders ranks Denver’s O-line #1 in adjusted line yards, #1 in fewest runs stuffed, #11 in power running situations. Hillis, Pitman and Bell all had DVOAs over 15% (meaning they did 15% better than the league average in similar d&d) and Young was almost at 10%.
All teams run better in some situations than others. It’s easier to gain yardage in obvious passing situation and harder to gain it in obvious running situations. But the FO numbers for Power Runs (3rd and <3yd or G&G ,3yd) indicates that even in obvious running situations the Broncos were able to run despite their depleted backfield.
You would think that they would have run if they could, but the statistics tell a different story. I’m not saying that they had the overpowering running game of years gone by. But you can’t say they couldn’t run either.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 4:33 PM MST up reply actions
Good points all, SWG
Obviously, I need to start reading Football Outsiders.
Here’s the problem when comparing the Broncos to other teams…
-The Giants were first in YPC at 5.0 – but they never lost a game by 14 or more points this year.
-Carolina lost only 2 games in such a manner and removing those games brings Carolina from 5.0 down to 4.9 – still excellent. (2,263 yards on 458 carries)
-KC, like Denver, lost 5 games by 14 or more points. Without those games, they rushed 280 times for 1,319 yards – an average of 4.7 YPC, far better than Denver’s 4.3 YPC
That’s it for teams equal to/higher than Denver in YPC. I’ll also look at the Jets at 4.7 since they’re close behind…
-The Jets only lost 2 games by 14 points, and taking those out leaves them with 390 carries for 1,821 yards – this is also a 4.7 YPC average.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 5:08 PM MST up reply actions
I don't want to get into dueling statistics...
I don’t think anyone thought the broncos had an elite running game this year. At the same time, it’s not accurate to say the they COULDN’T run the ball. They could and did. And in many of those “blowouts” they were running well long before the game became a blowout. For example, the Raiders loss was a close game until just before the half. So was Carolina.
And you should check out Football Outsider if you like statistics
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 6:44 PM MST up reply actions
I hear you...
I understand, there is a context to each game that makes it unique. I would also say though, that I didn’t ever feel very confident during those games you mentioned. Did you? This is what I think it comes down to…Denver could not run the ball when they really needed to. What those stats show is that in games that were close, the Denver rushing attack was just better than average, and the games that brought up their YPC were the games they got their butts kicked. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t at all, and maybe my original theory was just a lucky guess. I was really basing it upon the imagery of Tatum running through the San Diego secondary while we were getting smoked. But here’s the thing – the numbers ended up backing up my guess. Again, could be luck – especially when dealing with such a small sample. But don’t you think it’s strange that the blowout games didn’t affect those other teams’ YPC as much as Denver’s?
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 8:59 PM MST up reply actions
wrong
read the play books and see when and how the broncos ran the ball especially early! they could run effectively then chose not to. Just stats on a sheet of paper dont mean anything to me it’s how the game was run that matters. The Broncos hardley ran the ball on first down and if the play was an incomplete pass they almost always ran on second and 10. If the broncos would get behind by as little as 7 points Bates would panic and abandon the run almost completely. Here’s a stat for ya The Broncos controlled the TIME OF POSSESSION 3 out of 16 games because of the pass pass pass! fast and flashy scores don’t control a game.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
It’s very easy to say that “stats don’t mean anything” when you shoot them down with generalizations. What makes you so certain that they “could run effectively”? The reason the Broncos failed to make the playoffs was they got blown out too many times. Which of those blowouts can you show me were the result of abandoning a supposedly effective running game by choice?
by Douglas A. Lee on Feb 3, 2009 9:02 AM MST up reply actions
read the play books
for the last two games you will see The Broncos ran well in the first qt. afert that they just did’nt call the play’s. A combined 100 pass play’s to 31 run play’s and most the running was in the first qt. Look at the play book’s for the 4th game KC, NE, MI, CL, OAK, you will see the same thing. Look at when and how they chose to run the ball and then look at when and how they chose to pass the ball pay attention to first down in perticular and you will start to see a patern.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
Also, SWG…
You and I are not debating whether the Broncos’ running game was effective – we both know it wasn’t. This conversation is about why the Broncos had such a high YPC yet so few carries, and this is my theory as to why that is. The stats bear it out, at least to this level of my research. That’s all this is about, isn’t it?
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 30, 2009 7:59 AM MST up reply actions
good riddance to Mr Bates.
here, here!
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Zone Blocking
Dennison is at least as much a master as Alex gibbs now
NE uses it for economical reasons (cost less to find and retain ZB lineman)
McCoy instituting it in Carolina for similar reasons
Denver’s O-line is already built for it.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 1:01 PM MST up reply actions
Great Points
I disagree with super about scrapping the zone block. It has proven to be the best system in the league in recent years (see Denver without the great RB, Atlanta and Carolina). I believe that retaining Dennison and Turner lend credence to the fact that we will continue to run the ZB, and I, for one, hope we do.
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.
+2
I see said the Blind man to the Deaf man who was near.
What is it you hear when I speak in your ear.
WHOA!
I’m not advocating throwing it aside.
I’m saying that I would guess that McD may do something different. He might not though too.
The something different...
is probably mostly with the passing game. He also will probably change the terminology in the running game so it fits with his passing game. The fact is that time has passed Shanny’s WCO by.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 1:25 PM MST up reply actions
Thanks SWG
I’ve been confused listening to the talk of abandoning zone blocking when NE consistently uses it and McD kept the two who knew and did it best while adding one who instituted it (I understand that Carolina wants to do a different way now, but that wasn’t McC’s call as I understood it). I know that super7 isn’t saying that they wil abandon it per sel, but this is a hot topic in a lot of blogs. So, McD, McC, Dennison and Turner have been zone blocking proponents. Other than that….:D
In Goodman We Trust
Spot on
In the end, the Broncos run game can be paired up with most offensive passing systems that try to spread out the defence as most of the runs are cutbacks to the middle of the field, with some stretch plays to keep the D spread out. Considering that the spread offence will serve to just do that, there’s no reason why the Broncos running game won’t stay as is.
I like the adaptability of our coaching staff. They’ll review what went right/wrong last year so we should see elements of the old Broncos system being incorporated into the playbook such as the trademark Broncos stretch and we will probably see some bootlegs and suchlike because Jay plays so well outside of the pocket. Whilst the O will be a lot different this year, I’m pretty sure that many of the working bits will be kept on.
Hmm
I’m sorry but the zone blocking system needs to stay…it is something our line already knows and excels at. We will have enough moving parts…no need to change up too.
It is actually simple enough to change the passing game without the running game changing too much. I’m sure that is why they kept Turner and Dennison.
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
Why didn't Denver feature the running game?
That’s a fair question. A lot of people are wondering why, with our slightly better (not worse) than average YPC, we didn’t run more often. It might be that part of the answer is that, without Pittman and especially Hillis, our ground game was too feast or famine. If you get stuffed on first down you almost have to pass on second and third. Maybe every once in awhile we might break off a big run, thus getting an immediate first down and pulling up the average. But say you get five yards on first. Now the defense doesn’t know if you’re going to run or pass. Even if you pass and get an incompletion, the fact that Hillis can fight for extra yardage means the defense can’t assume a pass even on third, yet can’t tee off against the run, either. Being able to consistently get positive yardage means we can keep moving the chains and can keep mixing in runs, because we don’t have to pass. Another factor might be that Bates gave up on the running game too easily. Lots of young, confident quarterbacks want to pass on every down, so if Bates tended to call a lot of pass plays no wonder Jay liked him so much. He needs to learn that sometimes less is more, that passing fewer times leads to more big plays. Jay also liked Bates because he was ingenious in designing plays (meaning pass plays, probably) but that doesn’t necessarily mean he consistently called the best plays. All of which might help explain why our ground game didn’t get more total yardage, and why Bates is no longer with the team.
"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 Jan 29, 2009 7:43 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think you can look at it more generally as well
Good passing teams will pass from more to less. Pass early to get a lead then pass less to preserve it.
Running the football is the opposite…if you run well you will continue to run until it is stopped. Denver used the run to fill in the gaps, it wasn’t sustained. If they ran well they woulnd’t have abandoned it.
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Strangely, you're usually right abou that
But Bates did drop the run when it was working, at least a couple of times. I recall being mystified, and reading some moderately irrate Broncophiles mentioning it.
The concept of passing early to gain a lead and then running to preserve it was a central aphorism of the Bill Walsh approach to what we call the WCO. I recall an interview in which he mentioned it. Nice point
In Goodman We Trust
a logical analogy
Well said Sr. Spock. Another factor might be that Bates gave up on the running game too easily. Lots of young, confident quarterbacks want to pass on every down, so if Bates tended to call a lot of pass plays no wonder Jay liked him so much. He needs to learn that sometimes less is more, that passing fewer times leads to more big plays. Jay also liked Bates because he was ingenious in designing plays (meaning pass plays, probably) but that doesn’t necessarily mean he consistently called the best plays. All of which might help explain why our ground game didn’t get more total yardage, and why Bates is no longer with the team.
I could’nt have said it any better.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
ICK
SWG: I never EVER want to hear you to tell us to think of the Dallas Cowboys in any relation to our beloved Broncos again. (They are my #2 most despised team next to the faders).
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
I Agree SWG
Denver DID’NT run the ball do to game plans, and play calling. They did’nt even have a stating FB in the last four games.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
What makes you so certain that Portis ran behind a great offensive line?
In 2002, the Broncos gave up 46 sacks. Ephraim Salaam was the left tackle, while Steve Herndon started 9 games at left guard. Nothing special there. They certainly improved in 2003, when they allowed only 25 sacks, bust still…
I know I’ve been chirping a bit much about Portis in recent days, but I have to disagree with your characterization of Portis as a “good” running back. CP is 28th on the all-time rushing list and will crack 10,000 yards next season provided he remains healthy. At age 28 next season, he would be one of the youngest backs to hit that milestone – I’m not sure where he’d be on that list (possibly 6th or 7th?), but I believe he’ll be just a year younger than LT was…
I'm not certain, but good point
I always thought he was a good back for Denver. 2 straight 1500 yard seasons is phenomenal!
I never thought CP was great, but again, my opinion.
Can an o-line have a great run blocking scheme and be bad with sacks? Also doesn’t the Qb contribute to sacks as well? In the end, maybe Portis is a good back with a crap line? Is that what you’re saying?
I’m not saying this like I’m some guru from stats inc, that’s why I opinion-blog here, not a paid job with a company.
I agree with you about Portis
He did not have enough power or receiving ability to be a great back. He was very quick through the hole, which allowed him to pile up the yards. In short yardage and goal line situations however, he was not as big of a factor.
I do disagree about the effectiveness of the ZB system, and I also disagree with your contention that Denver will abandon it.
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.
53, I said this above, but
I’m not saying its ineffective, I’m just saying McD might abandon it and that it MAY not be the very best way to run. It might, but we have to admit that it might not,too.
My bad
I guess I get defensive when the talk of possibly scrapping the ZB comes up. IMO it has been the best running system in the league for the last 10 years. In the last 3 or 4, other teams have realized this and tried to emulate Denver. I just really believe that, if Denver scraps it or even tweaks it to a significant degree, they will regret it. Stay with what works until it doesn’t work anymore. Then it will be time to change.
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.
I think there's some revisionist history here...
CP scored 29 rushing touchdowns in 2 seasons for Denver. He has a nose for the goal line. No, he’s not a bruiser – but he is a tough back who will take the rock over and over again – hence his 667 carries over the past two years. His first two seasons in Washington, he carried it 695 times. Those are not the numbers of a soft running back.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 1:27 PM MST up reply actions
By the way, Denver had only 15 rushing TD’s in 2008, 10 in 2007 and 12 in 2006.
And 19 of CP’s 29 rushing touchdowns as a Bronco came from inside the 10-yard line. I would say that qualified him as a goal line threat.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 1:38 PM MST up reply actions
Of the 15 TDs for 08,
How many for Hillis, & how many for Pitman……
just curious
I see said the Blind man to the Deaf man who was near.
What is it you hear when I speak in your ear.
Thanx
I see said the Blind man to the Deaf man who was near.
What is it you hear when I speak in your ear.
I was impressed with Pittman's ability to punch it into the endzone.
But I was truely amazed by Hillis’ combination of power and quickness.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jan 29, 2009 1:49 PM MST up reply actions
+1
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
+2
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.
Just to be exact here...
I was answering how many rushing TD’s Pittman and Hillis had, not how many inside the 5 or 10.
Pittman had 4 TD’s in 2008, all on rushes from the 3-yd line and in.
Hillis scored 6 TD’s, 5 rushing and 1 receiving. The rushes were from the 7, 2, 6, 1 and 18-yard lines, while the catch was from the 1-yard line.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 4:32 PM MST up reply actions
I hear you nyc.
If I recall correctly, that 18 yarder by Hillis was a great power run as well. I think the guy has what it takes in spades. I think what I was trying to say is that Pittman is a great choice inside the five but Hillis may be an even better choice.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jan 30, 2009 11:23 AM MST up reply actions
and 15 of those were from inside the 5…
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 1:40 PM MST up reply actions
I din't say he was soft
He scored a lot of those touchdowns from outside the red zone. Granted, he scored a fair share inside the red zone too. What I remember, and it may be revisionist. is that when we really needed to convert a 3rd and 2 or 3, he couldn’t get it done, and that was the main reason he was even traded, IMO.
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.
That's the way I remember it, 53guys.
I seem to recall seeing him plow into the interior line and just stop. Again, I could be remembering it wrong.
Nevertheless, it shows you just how good a runner TD was in his prime.
TD to the h.o.f.(de-emphasis added) !
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jan 29, 2009 1:45 PM MST up reply actions
And BTW,
While we’re at it, Floyd was that kind of guy too. Maybe even better.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jan 29, 2009 1:46 PM MST up reply actions
Again, 15 of CP’s 29 Denver TD’s came from inside the 5-yard line. That is not a small number…
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 1:46 PM MST up reply actions
That's 7.5 per year
Hillis had 5 in 1/4 of a season.
Thanks to Mike Shanahan, a great coach who will be dearly missed. But...
Let's all get on the Mac Daddy Express!
Hillis for starter next year. He wears special thigh pads so his solid brass balls don't give him repeated thigh contusions.
Well, no.
Hillis had 4 rushing touchdowns from inside the 10, not 5…and he had a significant number of touches in 6 games.
Look, I’m not saying Hillis is not a better goal-to-go runner than Portis was. He may yet prove himself to be just that. But, and this is a very very big but…Hillis has not yet done it over the course of a full season. Just like we couldn’t project Selvin Young’s YPC from ‘07 to a big year in ’08, it is quite presumptuous to project Hillis’ ’08 numbers and imagine what he might do in a full season. What I take issue with here, is saying that Portis was not good near the goal line. He was excellent, and I do hope Hillis is even better.
The 2002 Broncos were 7th in points scored, 5th in rushing yardage and 5th in rushing TD’s. The 2003 Broncos were 10th in scoring, 2nd in rushing yardage, and 3rd in rushing TD’s. Trust me, running the rock was not the problem in 2002/2003, and Clinton Portis deserves a better reputation amongst us Broncos fans.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 4:26 PM MST up reply actions
+1
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Portis was/is a great runner.
What hurt him here was his flashy personality. It didn’t sit well with Shanahan or the fans. Rushing the ball in Denver is a team effort. It takes a good plan meshed with great blocking at the first and second levels by the O-line and full back and at all three levels by the recievers and tight ends. Then it takes a smart, decisive RB. No one guy is bigger than all the others. SOmetimes Portis himself made it seem that way.
If this be Hell, let us make the most of it!
by Trinidad Jack on Jan 30, 2009 11:33 AM MST up reply actions
bingo.
To be honest, he didn’t mesh that well with me either… I just don’t dig the wig thing or any of the stuff he has pulled off in washington, and I’m glad I dont have the dillemma of rooting for him anymore. I could root for him, but sometimes he made it tough….
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 30, 2009 6:40 PM MST up reply actions
That not the way I remembered it
The reasons Portis was traded is the he ran his mouth and that the Broncos could get Champ.
Victor Frankl:
What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.
Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.
Absolutely!
Sacks have almost zero correlation to a line’s run blocking ability. Also, too many times the O-line is blamed for sacks when in reality the QB just help the ball way too long. The biggest knock against Greise was always that he just held the ball too long. The reason teh O-line magically improved between 2002 and 2003 is that we went from Greise to Plummer. For all his faults, Jake was good a getting rid of the ball or running out of trouble.
The O-line that CP ran behind was a very good running line evidence their results before and after CP. At the same time, CP has proven in DC that his success was not just a product of Denver’s scheme.
by SlowWhiteGuy on Jan 29, 2009 1:22 PM MST up reply actions
No, I certainly did not call it a “crap” line. I just questioned whether it was “great” in 2002.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 1:31 PM MST up reply actions
I figured...
I thought our running game in 02 was good, line included. I haven’t looked at it as closely as you have though.
Sacks != running game performance
You can’t say an offensive line in general was bad because it gave up sacks. That just means they were poor at pass protection. I guarantee CP doesn’t get all those yards if he didn’t have some decent holes to run through.
That always gets on my nerves…linemen don’t get enough credit for making the RBs look good. That line was great in the running game.
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
Perhaps I'm going a little too far in the other direction...
My point isn’t to knock the O-Line of 2002/2003. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.
My problem is with folks here saying that CP was just a good back who was gifted all of those yards by a great O-Line and that he couldn’t punch it in around the goal line. CP was, and is, a stud running back.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 2:29 PM MST up reply actions
seconded
Portis wasn’t “perfect” for our system, and still churned out 3000 yds in two years. An adaptable system that could have taken better advantage of him could have yielded greater returns. Maybe. We’ll never really know.
But I am glad that McDaniel’s system is known for taking advantage of the best talent it can find. Big step up from scraping the bottom of the barrell at some positions, which we were coming to be known for….
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 29, 2009 2:32 PM MST up reply actions
IMO...
1. Give Torain a chance to prove he can stay healthy.
2. Make Hillis THE man! Either H-Back, RB, whatever…just do it
3. Draft a RB like Shonn Greene (Iowa)
4. Score effeciently in the Patriots scheme. Thats means less time on field for defense. That alone brings more wins even if you changed nothing else….but we MUST change the defense too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chase Coffman is a tremendous receiving TE? I am a huge Scheffler fan, but he needs stay on the field. Im concerned because the Patriots offensive uses TE to support the O-line…i.e. Daniel Graham. So this might all be a mute point. Maybe Josh McKid wants to add big WR and rethink the TE strategy? He loves the strong side triple WR set….?
Does anyone find it interesting that neither Daniel Graham or Chad Jackson have publicly commented on the new coach, and they were both part of Josh McDaniels offense? Josh allowed Daniel and Chad to leave, and actually CUT Jackson???
"Attitude reflects Leadership" Hogblog...aka KSM
both Grahmn and Jackson have been on the Fan and given their thoughts on McD
If I recall correctly both were excited to have him as coach
well...
What would you say?
You’re working at a job. Your manager fires you. You get another job doing the same work with a different company. You’re new boss gets fired and your boss from the first job gets hired. Are you gonna go on national radio and say “This sucks! I can’t stand this guy! He thinks I suck! We didn’t work together well before, I see no reason why we will work well together now. This sucks…” ?
Of course not. Your going to say how excited you are, what a great boss this guy is and your going to make sure you have a freshly updated resume in your back pocket. :)
Check out the website listed below...
by EastCoastBronco on Jan 30, 2009 12:23 PM MST up reply actions
Great article, super7
and spot on the nose. We have severe personnel deficiencies all over this team, including runningback. We also need to keep bringing in more depth on the oline. It is a great oline, but it is one lost player away from being seriously compromised.
One myth that Denver perpetuated over the years was that the zoneblock meant you could use cheaper players. I really don’t believe that. I think DENVER used cheaper RBs (you get what you pay for: injuries, compromise and steadily declining production in the running game), and I think that it gives you an opportunity to find Oline depth where other teams can’t look, but it certainly isn’t less expensive. One-cut, downhill runners with vision and talent are pricey. Guys like Deangelo Williams and Jonathon Stewart aren’t cheap players. Guys like Ryan Clady and Ben Hamilton aren’t cheap players.
It should be noted that WCO was layered scheme on top of the zoneblock system Denver ran. Denver will still run zoneblocking plays where applicable, and will most likely integrate the best elements of the unique multiple cut-options that Bobby Turner teaches so well. But overall the scheme will do a better job of taking advantage of talent that we pick up on the oline and at RB. Carolina is a good example of a team that ran a variation of the system McDaniels is going to incorporate here, and their running game improved vastly from its previous stagnation in pure zoneblock. I say stagnation, but it comes with some caveats. They were talented at the RB position in the previous zoneblock system, and were averaging in the neighborhood of 100-105 yds per game. Not bad. They switched systems and added some more talent and it jumped to 152 yds per game. Compared to that, yeah, they were stagnating. They also weren’t seeing success in the W column either.
Now denver, who was DEFINITELY stagnating, is switching systems. We have Hillis as our “proven” commodity, and a whole lot of personnel questions. But the system will take better advantage of the talent at WR and QB, and possibly even Oline. Hillis should shine in it. The TEs can be expected to be less prolific than TE’s should be under Shanny, judging by past NE and CAR stats, but our TE’s haven’t been as good as advertised anyways, when we went through that long period of rebuilding the oline. Last year was the first year when they seemed to be getting the reps the offense was designed to give them. Again, like super7 said, not adaptable, and it was leading to stagnation.
With all the upside of the system switch, I don’t see anything in the old system that will make it hard to part with it. I could maybe understand if we were talking about a Herm Edwards type of philosophy shift, but not with McDaniels and his system.
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 29, 2009 2:27 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
To be fair to Hillis...his injury was a tremendous play to get a first down.
He sacrificed his body to make sure the drive stayed alive. I want him to become a mainstay on this team in the future. I want HEART on this team. Any of the other running backs are expendable in my opinion.
This is my GAP, there are many like it but this one is mine. Without my GAP I am useless, without me, they will run through my GAP. I will protect my GAP and have my brothers back on his. I will not be moved from my GAP, I am a crazed dog that patrols this area and will defeat all who entire it. I own this GAP, it is mine. I bought it with blood and sweat. I will not be pushed. I will not be moved. This Sunday I will make a stand and a statement.
No need to be fair to Hillis
I don’t think their is a person in Bronco’s Country that doesn’t want to see more Hillis. As I mentioned elsewhere: Hillis=Cowbell. You can’t have too much.
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 29, 2009 3:36 PM MST up reply actions
+1
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
+2 Hillis should do truck commercials
I see said the Blind man to the Deaf man who was near.
What is it you hear when I speak in your ear.
Hillis
I really feel that he will be able to stay healthy this year because injury was a freak one and i’m really excited to see him on the field.
CP
CP was a great back for us, bordering on elite when he played with us. He has been above average in Washington in a revolving door of coaches. Imagine…Cutler at QB, Hillis at h back, marshall, royal, stokley…and giving the rock to CP out of the backfield. Now that would be an unstoppable offense. He’s been plagued by injuries lately but is better than just “good”.
Running Backs
I see the value to the entire Broncos team in a great Running Back. We all do, but for years Shanahan has trained us that it is HIM and HIS system and NOT the players who run in it. When Portis wanted to get paid better than his second round contract, Shanny said nope, it’s me not you. In the end it got the best of him. In my post – It’s All Down Hillis Since Peyton’s Departure, I was trying to use a catchy title but also show the point that without Hillis (read as a sustained rushing attack) we can’t win or if we do win, Cutler will have to be fabulous.
This “terrible” Bronco defense was pretty good with a sustained rushing attack, look at the Jets game and look at the Falcons game…The Falcons were great on offense, but we held them in check with a solid rushing attack that controlled the clock.
The reason I have been clamoring for Knowshon is he has what Portis had in Denver. The ability to make the first level of defenders miss, which in a Zone Blocking scheme may just be the safety if the center gets to the second level. Make one man miss and your gone…Portis did it and Moreno could easily do it.
Hillis will be used and can find the holes and pound the defense, no doubt, but pair him with another different style dynamic back and Denver is the team that played the Falcons and Jets. Couple 8 draft picks, a new d coordinator and all of FA and Denver is nasty, sorry, but Cutler and this offense with a dynamic RB will mask the defensive difficiencies until they build it for real…DYNASTY.
One more tidbit to think about….MHR member Zappa said this in my very first post, describing the very first game he attended….“My first game was in 98 at the Chargers. Elway threw 5 picks, but TD ran rough shot in a 31-16 win”
Think about that…if Cutler throws 5 picks, do we still WIN?
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
But didn't we have a D' when we ran the ball?
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Right on, Steve O'
I don’t follow the college game enough, so I’ve no opinion on Moreno. But as I’ve been tooting the CP Horn these last few days, I couldn’t agree more. Let’s get another quality back in here to pair with Hillis. That would absolutely give the offense balance and the ability to eat clock. When, during the last couple seasons have the Broncos been able to milk away the clock with a lead? I think once this year with Pittman, against Tampa Bay. That may be it.
You’re right, a good running game masks a poor defense. And at this point, that’s fine because the D will take more than an offseason to fix.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 9:07 PM MST up reply actions
Moreno is everything you want in a RB and more
No flaws, maybe his long speed but they said the same thing about CP…he will work with a trainer and get faster. His work ethic is spectacular, coaches rave about him, one cut runner, never been hurt, always produced since his freshman year, excellent hands out of the back field, is so effortlessly ellusive, great blocker and non stop hustle…teammates have said he tries to get up before the defender that tackled him as if to say “you can’t beat us”… think Eddie Royal character but as a RB. The more you dig into him as a player and watch him the more you like him.
If Denver’s running scheme is a .45 than Moreno is a hollow point.
Before everyone starts coming at me…DOC :)…I know that we have other needs and if we draft a LB or DT first I will understand and see the logic in doing that. I know there is other players out there that will help us…
But this could be the best match Denver has seen for their Running game in a long long time… another Georgia gem!
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Thanks for the scouting report
Ugh so he’s a first-rounder, eh? Well, I’d say we should pass then…We need defenders! As I’ve said a few times, I’d like to see us pick up a running back in the second round, but not before.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 29, 2009 9:29 PM MST up reply actions
I have only seen one mock that has him falling past NYJets
Most of the Mocks have him replacing LT in San Diego… gulp
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Alridge is most likely that change of pace back
The only reason he went on IR was so that we could keep him away from waivers, I believe we all will see a tough little player with a HUGE chip on his shoulder!
Wasn't your remark regarding Cutler throwing picks, Steve?
And if so, we haven’t had a D.
By the way, Cutler tends to lose focus when he throws picks, except for the Cleveland game. Elway had a marvelous ability to seem to not care. TD tore them up, but Elway was also remarkable. And, yes, at that time we had a D, but there really isn’t a clear connection to a running game that I see; just a great single game long ago.
In Goodman We Trust
My overall point is
when Cutler has a bad game the Broncos have a bad game. When Elway had a bad game the Broncos could beat you in other ways, he had a RB to bail him out, and defense that could stay fresh and play aggressive because the offense could sustain the ball and control the clock.
Your point that Cutler gets rattled is valid, but I think he gets rattled because he felt like it was all on him. He saw every no name RB on the team falter to injury and felt the pressure of Colorado on his shoulders.
Hillis’ injury was fluke. I have great expectations for him in this new offense. He is versatile and I think it would be a misuse of his versatility if used strictly as a feature back. By adding a feature back Hillis can create more match up problems at different positions than he can as just the RB. The other RB’s haven’t proved durable.
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
I agree with all of that
I’m very interested to see McD’s (hopefully) new twist on the offensive theories that were in place in NE. One way to take pressure off a Jay is to get him comfortable disecting the opposing D instead of trying to crush in in single, if valiant, plays. NE has been masterful at the RB pass to that same end. Hillis has sweet hands and is heck to bring down. This might even keep Young more productive, at least when he’s healthy – he’s not my choice as a back, but he can catch fairly well. With Hillis, though, this may bridge the perceived gap between ‘featured’ back and simply a very effective primary back that plays out multiple roles. I think that you’re right – that was a very, very strange injury, and he hasn’t had problems of that nature in the past. I’ve already heard that he practically lives at Dove Valley as he rehabs.
One thing that HIllis said that caught my eye was that at every level from Pop Warner on, he has learned, worked very hard and gotten better and he didn’t believe that the Broncos situation would be any different. His work ethic and that of Eddie Royal may well prove contagious to those around them, but McD will notice it quickly regardless.
By the way, did you notice that Eddie Royal is in charge of the voluntary program for Jay and his receivers in the offseason? I love it.
In Goodman We Trust
Hillis
One thing that HIllis said that caught my eye was that at every level from Pop Warner on, he has learned, worked very hard and gotten better and he didn’t believe that the Broncos situation would be any different.
Exactly. Hillis can be even better this year than last, if he’s given the chance to practice and play as a running back.
One more reason to NOT use the first pick on a running back.
Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. When the fear has gone past, I will turn to see fear’s path. Where the fear has gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Bene Gesserit saying. (From Dune, by Frank Herbert)
Eddie's in charge?
In what sense? No, I hadn’t heard that, but it’s one more indication of what a winner he is.
"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
Brandon mentioned it in an interview
Once he took a breath from telling everyone about the wonderful, marvelous amazing Super Bowl stunt that he’s going to do and how often he practiced it. I love Brandon and I know he’s going to be a bit of a free spirit, so don’t get me wrong.
But I’m torn between being glad that they chose Eddie to handle it for his leadership potential and wishing that they gave it to Brandon to help keep him out of trouble. Oh, well – maybe he did it last year and it’s a receivers thing…
In Goodman We Trust
Speaking of surprising players in charge
Goodman mentioned a week or so ago that one of the most impressive things about woodyard was how much respect that WW got from the veterans on the team, including DJ and Champ. Goodman (the elder) said it was terriffic to see WW actually out there LEADING the defense…. and we wonder why the defense declined when he came out.
My god this defense needs leadership sooooo bad…. Nothing against WW, but thinking about this just makes me realize how poorly constructed our defense is. I’m all for getting great young players int he draft, but we need to pick up some key leadership voices, somewhere, draft or free agency.
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Jan 30, 2009 6:44 PM MST up reply actions
One of the possible plusses of the 3-4 for me is making room for Woodyard
I might be mistaken in my understanding of how the 3-4 works and where Woodyard would best fit in it, but I’m pumped at the idea of DJ and Woodyard playing side by side at the two ILB positions. Don’t know if it will or should turn out that way, but I’m intrigued by the idea.
"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
I'm not at all worried about getting rid of any particular system (such as WCO)
As long as we keep our signature zone block concept, I think we’ll be just fine in any offensive system. Keeping Turner and Dennsion would seem to indicate that the zone block is safe.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe
Agreed, HT
In my mind, the retention of Turner and Dennison is just behind Shanny’s firing and McD’s hiring as far as Important Things that have Happened to the Broncos this Winter.
by Douglas A. Lee on Jan 30, 2009 5:54 AM MST up reply actions
That's one reason I think people who slot him in at FB
with somebody else at RB, are mistaken. He’s not even the best lead blocker on the team. He’s a running back, and played fullback in college only because of the reasons you cited. The fact that he’s effective as a ball carrier or receiver, and can pass block, makes him hard to defend and too valuable to put in a position where he can’t utlilize all those skills. I suspect he played FB at Arkansas not because the other two were better runners but because he was a better blocker. The team was better with him at FB, but that doesn’t mean it was his best position or that he was the third-best tailback.
"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
Agree Spock
Hillis is a good back. I don’t know that he’ll end up on the elite side of things but he’s big and fast. I’d rather a guy that breaks tackles than a guy that can break away.
He reminds me a little of young Jam Lewis or even Bettis a little. He runs with both arms on the ball and plays with his head on a swivel.
The issue isn’t with the scheme, the issue is with the personnel. Ideally, McD can put a few spins on the ol’ zone blocking scheme and find ways to get our best guys the ball in space as he did with what talent he had in NE. I’d say that Hillis has more potential than anyone on NE’s roster, including Moroney who either doesn’t fit in with the guys there or is a bust.
Anyway, I think we’ll see some familiar plays in the run game and some new ones, and in the end, I’m looking forward to seeing a new offense take shape.
I feel like the “platform” of Denver’s offense was a bit antiquated and just needs a refurb.
I think McDaniels is just the guy to make the most of Hillis
I’d rather have a guy who almost never gets less than three yards and often a lot more than one who gets stuffed a lot but once in while breaks a big one. We can do that with a change of pace back after Hillis wears the defense down. While Hillis is on the field he’s a threat to run on almost every down and thus a credible fake on play-action. When Cutler does drop back Hillis is there for blitz pickup and then, if necessary, can swing out of the backfield as a safety valve. On other plays he might have an assigned route. Pittman is valuable not as a short-yardage sub – why sub for the best short-yardage back on the team? – but as insurance. He has the same skill set – good power runner, good pass blocker, good hands. That way if Hillis gets hurt or needs a blow we can continue to run the same offense.
"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
I'd agree
Apparently, it went even further. They had three guys who might have been great RB. They put the two fastest at RB and asked Hillis to move to FB. Hillis is someone who will do anything you ask of him. He moved. Obviously, he’s a talented, bruising back with a punishing style that we’ve too often lacked and the nicest hands I’ve seen out of the backfield in a while. Runs decent routes, too. He isn’t the best blocker in the world, but he’s adequate.
If you waste him at FB you’re making a mistake. If you move him to H back, don’t you lose a lot of his skill as a rusher? He’s very near ideal for the NE system – I look forward to seeing how he can do next year.
In Goodman We Trust
This is a general comment to the Spock, Super 7, Doc and whoever else thinks that Hillis changes the need at the RB position
Hillis will not be misused at FB…You guys may be thinking of a FB in the traditional Broncos, Howard Griffith sense and perhapssee the game plan for him to be blocking between the tackles. I am not advocating that…
Out of the spread formation, a NE favorite, with Cutler in Shotgun, Hillis will be on one side and Moreno on the other….Then run the ball with either player, Hillis then Moreno, Moreno than Hillis, then have both players run patterns and both be consistant check downs. Was Ricky Williams a FB? No, he played plenty with Ronnie Brown and those two first rounders, with a solid QB (which we have in spades) went from 1-15 to 11-5.
There will be times when Hillis will be in the game to block, but then again every offensive player, save the QB, is expected to block.
What I am trying to create is matchup problems for the LB’s and Safeties so that Marshall and Royal get more one on one coverages. Hillis will come in at RB often, but he will spell the guy who has the potential for the Home Run and gets most of the carries. Long runs from scrimmage put the safeties in a quandry…Do I play closer to the line to stuff the run or back up to avoid giving up a 75 yard jaunt, couple that with the Recievers and QB that Denver has and now we are more dangerous. In the NFL you can never be too good at running the football.
Hillis also can be used at a second tight end that often goes in motion, running play fakes and pitches, slant routes and fly patterns..he creates more match up problems for the Defense at H Back than he does at RB. He will be a vital part of the offense but I honestly believe that his lack of ellusiveness is going to mean a lot of collisions and Bear you know better than all of us the problems with excessive contact.
Do you guys remember in the Jets game, the first gashing run that Hillis had, he covered up the ball with both hands as the safety and corner came up to make the tackle. I loved that play for it’s headiness and knowledge to protect the ball. But if that was a true halfback faster than the 4.58 speed of Hillis, that may be a home run.
The NFL is all about matchups and you create bigger matchup problems if you move Hillis around and add an HomeRun hitting QB…the offense is complete.
Why would Carolina draft another first round RB when they had just drafted one a few years back? Why did Mike Ditka give away his entire draft for Ricky Williams? Why has every team in recent memory had a first round pick but Denver? Are we not allowed to root for it or something? Lets see since …. Otis Anderson in 1973! Come on, lets change this philisophy, we have the best Zone Blocking pass catching tough noses gamebreaker in the world sitting in our crosshairs and everyone wants a DT or LB…which is fine…I haven’t had a first round back my whole life so what you can’t miss what you never had.
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
I think you have some very good ideas
I hope McDaniels is listening. I object only to your assumption that “Hillis . . . will spell the guy who . . . gets most of the carries.” My argument is the guy who gets most of the carries should be Hillis, because with him we’ll be less likely to find ourselves in second and long and third and long situations. I’m not even sure he’s that much less of a home run threat. First, you can’t break a big run unless you get past the line of scrimmage, which Hillis does by being decisive at the point of attack. He anticipates the hole and hits it hard before it closes. That more than his power accounts for his per carry average. Second, I think he’s more elusive than people give him credit for, maybe not as much as Young or Alridge but certainly moreso than Pittman. He’s not just a power runner.
"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
Great points Spock...
He has broken some long runs for Arkansas.
Remember, he was faster at the combine than TD, and TD seemd plenty fast enough!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
That's a good point too
People underestimate his speed. For his size he’s pretty damned fast.
"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
He timed out very close to TD
A lot of home runs are great blocking at the point of attack, decisive cuts, a lead blocker in the secondary and one or three broken tackles. These are things our O line can do, the scheme can create and Hillis is effective for. I don’t think he’s the next incarnation of TD, but he can be a very good back in our system.
I love Moreno, but using another 1st rounder on offense means 1 less 1st round defender on the field for the next 5 – 10 years.
In Goodman We Trust
Spock and Boydy...you guys bring up good points...
Some times my Bronco passion gets the better of me and I tend to go overboard. Thanks for simmering the stew down.
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
Great points Spock
Provided The Broncos run the ball on first down
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
Nice points Steve...
But you have to remember that NE uses its fullbacks as an outlet option and really has them in there primarily as blockers and iso-blockers.
That is an ABSOLUTE waste of Hillis’ talents.
The more I read of the system, the more it seems to me that Hillis is our answer at RB. I dont want to see us draft a RB until later rounds. I also belive that Alridge and Torain can be fairly special too.
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Heath Evans was their typical FB type...a solid toiler but not a game breaker!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
No way in Hell
Denver will not draft a 1st round back. Not happening.
It would be a waste and Hillis has Tailback talent. Denver doesn’t need a FIRST ROUND TAILBACK. Denver needs a 3rd or later round tailback. If Hillis can stay healthy, I honestly think 1200 yards rushing and 800 yards receiving is completely reasonable. AND, above all, we don’t have to substitute anyone else for him in goal line situations.
Honestly, the guy is capable of being THE GUY.
If McD drafts a 1st round back, Denver will riot like Watts and I’ll lead the charge.
And Steve O
I was in your camp for a while!
It took some sleepless nights for me to come to the conclusion I came to. Denver’s talent as a whole on offense is very above average.
On defense, Denver’s talent level is closer to the talent level at Penn State than it is to the talent level in Baltimore. Denver needs to take guys that make a difference in at least the first 2 rounds.
Come back....my camp is empty!! :) I have punch and pie!!
"I am not trying to start anything I am just saying that i think if you take Knowshon and draft D later you guys will be hella good next year" ...IamtheGreatest - The smartest Chiefs fan I ever had the priviledge of reading!
LOL
From there, I'd like to say that the wheels came off, but that wouldn't feel like an accurate description. The wheels didn't just magically come off, the Raiders all got out of the car, shot the wheels off the own car, busted out the taillights, smashed the windshield and poured Splenda in the gas tank. Then they all piled back inside and started screaming, "CAR WON'T MOVE, ME SAD NOW!" - MJD Yahoo Sports
HOT DAMN
800 yards receiving???
Hillis is not going to get 2000 combined yards.
McDaniels was the best option for this team. You CAN NOT overfocus on the defense and possibley have Jeremy Bates not progress with Cutler. McDaniels will watch over both sides of the ball, especially the O, while letting a defensive guy handle the D along with an intelligent GM.
Mac Daddy mackin' out Denver!!!
by broncodude793 on Jan 31, 2009 3:36 PM MST up reply actions
Come on, Super. 2,000 total yards in a season? Adrian Peterson led the NFL with 1,885 yards in 2008. Brian Westbrook led the league in 2007 with 2,104 yards from scrimmage. It is something beyond reaching to say Hillis can reach that same level, and no, it is not completely reasonable. Do you really think what we saw from Hillis in 6 games tells you enough to put him into the same class as AP, LT, Westbrook and others of that ilk, over the course of a full season? Do his skills really compare to those players? Because that’s what it takes to put up 2,000.
by Douglas A. Lee on Feb 1, 2009 9:12 AM MST up reply actions
Hay maybe not
But if he stays healty, 1200 rush yards is easy, maybe 500 receiving, but you never know!
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit, but here’s whatt I’m saying:
Is there anyone in the draft you’d rather have than Hillis at RB this season, while understanding that you’d be sacrificing our biggest need, which is defensive talent to get him?
Look, Hilli’s aint putting up 2000 yards, I get it, that’s just throwing stats out there, but he’s a very good receiever out of the backfield.
1200 is easy? Now you’re talking 1700 total yards – 4 players reached that this season. AP, Turner, Forte and CP. 1200 isn’t an easy number. It’s a lot of yards.
I haven’t studied the draft much yet, and I won’t know enough even then to know what RB’s would fit in Denver. But if we’ve learned anything in recent years, it’s that teams usually need more than one good RB to win. Injuries happen, etc. I’d like to see Denver use a 2nd-rounder on a RB. I’m tired of the Broncos sorting through the scrap heap for a running back. We need quality and we need depth. I don’t believe Hillis is a feature back. He is talented, but I have not seen enough to say he should be the man. I’d like to be proven wrong before he becomes the man. He hasn’t earned it yet. I heard the same stuff about Selvin last summer…
by Douglas A. Lee on Feb 1, 2009 2:01 PM MST up reply actions
All true
I’m frankly saying that I think he has the capability to do it.
Its my opinion.
I’m wrong about this stuff, just like you are sometimes.
Is it possible he could rack up 1700 total yards? Yes. Is it likely, no. But put in the right situtaions and if he avoids injury, then sure, it’s possible. Hell, if Mike Andreson can put up 1200, then surely Hillis can.
I know you’ve had your head squarely in the statbooks for a week, and have put out some great draft stuff, but here’s what I’m saying now that I took a look at his numbers.
From the time he got the starting gig (the Atlanta game) through when he got hurt (in the KC game), he averaged:
5.35 YPCarry and 9.8 YPCatch
If (yes, I said IF, I know I’m throwing around numbers here, but its for the sake of coversation) he got 15 carries and 2 catches a game with those YPC’s:
5.35 per carry X 15 carries a game = 80.26 ypg X 16 games = 1284 yards
9.8 per catch X 2 catches a game = 19.8 ypr X 16 games = 316.8 yards
That equates to 1598 yards.
Now, he’s not gonna average 5.35 ypc, but he’s also not going to only get 2 receptions a game. His ypr should drop then too, so I’ll say 5.5…
If he got 2 more receptions a game and averaged 4.5 ypc, he’s be looking at
5.5 X 4 = 22 X 16 games = 352 yards
4.5 X 15 = 67.5 X 16 games = 1080 yards
That’s still 1432 yards.
Yeah, I (I as in me, not you) think he can do it if he doesn’t get hurt and plays at the same level he played last season.
If you don’t believe Hillis is a feature back, that’s fine, you don’t have to, but I’m saying that IF (there it is again) he WAS our feature back, the best we could expect is 1400-1550 total yards from scrimmage.
I thought CP was good, but not as good as you thought he was. We can agree to disagree on him and Hillis. No worries.
And Selvin can’t stay healthy, and he never will. I can’t predict the future, unfortunately, so I, just like everyone else on MHR, am allowed and encouraged to thow out thoughts and opinions. If you disagree, then fine, but understand that I don’t mind being wrong.
Hey Super, I’m sorry if my arguments are rubbing you the wrong way. I don’t have a problem with your opinions or that you are stating what’s possible.
I only take issue with your qualification of 2,000 total yards as “entirely reasonable” and that 1200 yards would be “easy” for Hillis. Just a couple little words, but you do yourself a disservice by throwing them around like that. Your writing is excellent and your opinions are valid…but when you attach words like that to numbers like that, you are making yourself sound less credible than you truly are.
I also think it’s very dangerous to take a number like YPC and project it out. It’s just like taking Cutler’s numbers from the first two games last year and saying that he was on pace for 5,200 yards with 48 TD passes and 16 INT’s. Granted, I’m sure the Denver Post and RMN were guilty of this at some point. There are so many factors and variables in a long season, and you could theoretically project any numbers out, I just think it’s a bad idea.
I probably failed to mention it earlier, but this was a fantastic post and it’s a credit to you that it has spurred so much discussion.
by Douglas A. Lee on Feb 2, 2009 10:00 AM MST up reply actions
No rubbing be the wrong way, no worries
Good discussion.
Its really not even an argument. I’m stating what Hillis could do.
Now, that said, its completely understandable to say that Denver’s offense changes with a new coach, HOWEVER, check this out:
Sammy Morris (yes, the 31 year old guy from Texas Tech who was drafted late in the 5th round by the Bills in 2000) was the Pats’ leading rusher in 08. If I take out the bye, the games where he was hurt and the 2 weeks where he played part time because he was trying to get healthy, his stats are:
YPCarry = 4.74
YPReception = 9.8
Eerily similar to Hillis’ stats.
He played (healthy) in 11 games. He got 678 rushing and 147 receieving, but in those 11 games, he ran for 7 TDs.
So, 7 rushing TDs in 11 games. Denver hasn’t had an RB w/ more than 7 TDs in a SEASON since Mike Bell did it in 2006 with 8 and Anderson the year before (2005) w/ 12 (Bell also had 8 in 05) .
Morris isn’t as good as Hillis (IMO). So I would guess that if he had to start Hillis every game in 2009, that McD would sya that Hillis could AT LEAST eclipse Morris’ numbers. Morris caught 1.3 passes per game and got 13 carries ber game in 2008.
Anyhoo, I think that Denver needs depth at RB but the Pats did better with a known quantity thru FA (Cory Dillon) that they did with an unproven quantity through the draft (Maroney). I’d guess that Denver won’t take a leap in McD’s first year as coach when its completely obvious that our D is so below par in the NFL that Brady Quinn, JaMarcus Russell, Matt Cassel, Phil Rivers (twice), Drew Brees, David Garrard, Chad Pennington, Tyler Thigpen, Damon Huard, Jake Delhomme, and Trent Edwards all tore us apart. That leaves 4 games where Denver’s defense wasn’t torched by a QB. Most of those QBs are not star quality guys either.
I’d guess Denver tries to go with a draft of:
DT/LB/S or some combination in the first 3 rounds and then fills in depth at LB, S, CB, WR, RB, OL later in the draft.
I’d like to see Denver go for broke on Raji and try and convince Derrick Ward to sign. I’d love one of the LBs from USC and I think there’s a chance Chung drifts into the 3rd round. Ward and Hillis are two extremely (here comes the adjective that hopefully explains our new offensive scheme) VERSATILE players.
Off topic, but good topic nonetheless: Does McD have a fear of a top round RB because of his experience w/ Maroney or do you think her cares?
also, i appreciate the kind words NYC
that’s what happens when I don’t really think about what I’m typing.
I was throwing words around a bit. Point taken.
This is a great discussion guys
something to consider is to evaluate how Hillis would hold up as the main bruiser all year and into the playoffs (if I may be so bold). He is a punishing runner, he doesn’t shy away from hits, he rarely gets stuffed at the line (meaning he is driving and powering through the trash at the line) and he is a slower runner who gets tackled by LBs and safeties at the second level. Hillis is going to take a pounding with his style of play. Do we want to toy with how he runs? Its an option. But we have to consider the effects that that kind of running will have on a player, especially going into the fourth quarter. I understand the concept of wearing down a defense, but that has more to do with the line putting them on the ground consistently. The RB accounts for a small percentage of the wear on the defense. Hillis will punish his share of LBs toting the rock, but he only has so much of the “batter butter” to spread around… him wearing down as the primary back is a very real possibility, despite changeup runners and alternates.
He hits and gets hit harder than most other primaries in the league, quite possibly ALL the primaries in the league. Consider this Isaac Newton’s opinion on the matter….
Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 2, 2009 10:09 AM MST up reply actions
Great points, all
Styg’s right – his style is very punishing, and we don’t know the yearly effects. Different people have different injury potentials, genetically, as well as the issue of style. I was wondering – if you took super7’s approach and only ran him 12 – 17 times a game and alternated him with a back to be named – Pittman is very good at this as well, but also needs lower carries, and we have several options including the draft for a change of pace back – I think that he could hold up well. All backs are prone to injury by the nature of the position, but the combination seems useful. I also hope that Hillis sees 2-4 receptions per game – he has wonderful hands, and that’s a standard part of the current NE approach to the RB position. If he gets 4-5, he could well pass that 1400+ threshold over the season.
In Goodman We Trust
I would like to see
a tandem of Hillis and Torrain as the more punishing RB’s who share carries and extend their careers. Aldreidge would be the change-of-pace guy to come in in the second and third quarters when the opposing front seven are a little weary.
It all starts in the trenches HT 11/11/08
Hillis=Cowbell. You can’t have too much. styg 01/29/09
Or
Bell can be change-of-pace. I’d like to see Aldridge focus more on Punt / Kick returns as a replacement or back-up for Royal. He’s fast, but I’m just not sold yet on him as being a mainstay in our RB corps (though preseason may change my mind…he did look good that last game of last preseason)
I don’t want breakaway speed. I want break-some-poor-fool-as-I-bowl-you-over power getting 6 yards off a play that should have been stopped for 2 at most.
No you play him at 100% physical all game until he gets hurt
The only reason we’re talking about Hillis is because he plays at a level most Rbs can’t play at.
I’d imagine that with a spread-type offense, that we’d want, in a perfect world, a big, fast, tough runner (or runners) who can pass protect but who can also be a part of the passing game. You want versatility, right?
Anyone have thoughts on Pinnock?
He ne’er made it onto the field, but his history is interesting. We still need a true FB – not one named Larsen, I hope.
In Goodman We Trust
Pinnock
He sound’s great on paper but we havent had a chance to see what He can actually do on the field. Bear your right we need a true FB or two! I don’t care if they are named Larsen just not Spencer Larsen.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise you hear before Defeat!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
