Tales of Mythology Part 1 - The Mystery of the Running Game

by Emmett Smith on Jun 19, 2009 6:30 AM MDT Comment 71 comments

From left to right, Denver Broncos rookie running back Knowshon Moreno talks with fullback Peyton Hills and running back LaMont Jordan during the team's football minicamp at Broncos' headquarters in the southeast Denver suburb of Englewood, Colo., on Sunday, May 3, 2009. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

6 months ago: From left to right, Denver Broncos rookie running back Knowshon Moreno talks with fullback Peyton Hills and running back LaMont Jordan during the team's football minicamp at Broncos' headquarters in the southeast Denver suburb of Englewood, Colo., on Sunday, May 3, 2009. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Browse more photos »

With 3rd-and-5 the offense is in the shotgun. The quarterback takes the snap and steps up into the forming pocket. The defenders come screaming in off of both sides and the MLB comes up the middle on a delayed blitz but the quarterback coolly performs his checkdowns and threads the ball between two defensive backs towards his receiver. The ball falls just out of reach and the play is over. What just happened? The truth is, we'll never know.

We live in an age where the information stream is constant. Instantly experts abide and abound and analysis becomes reality as quickly as theories are touted. The game of professional football is constantly challenging and exciting. What goes on down on the field is difficult, even impossible to deeply understand just by watching television. It requires study, practice and effort. Even then, you can't tell, in many cases, if an interception is caused by a badly run route or errant throw. You would have to be privy to what goes on in the film room (where a bird's eye view of the game is replayed), the team meetings and then the huddle.

Have you ever watched the instant replay that showed something utterly foreign to what the announcers described? If, like me, you've watched a lot of football, you have. What is sometimes most interesting in the modern football world is the issue of information - and misinformation.

There are three reasons that announcers misstate what is happening on the football field. The first finds its roots in human nature - some broadcasters prepare extensively, while some barely go over the production notes. Some are glib and charming, others far less so, but those things aren't of issue here. The important thing is whether or not the information is accurate.

If the broadcaster happens to be one who prepares well, what are the other common reasons for misstatement? You cannot, by looking at the television perspective(s) of a play, which emphasize the quarterback, running backs, wide receiver and the ball, tell accurately what is going on. That really requires coaching film, taken from overhead, from the end zones and the sidelines. If the announcer is counting on televised feeds, he may make the same mistakes that you might make at home. Coaching film can tell a vastly different story.

The third reason that broadcasters make mistakes is that they may simply not understand that subject very well. They fall victim to the same myths and half-truths as many of the fans do - often because they, too, believed things simply because they were often said. It's important to avoid the common myths and misconceptions of the game. I chose three of the most egregious, in my experience, and I'm going to address them.

Myth #1 - The mystery of the running game

Let me start by defining terms: This next section is in no way intended to minimize the importance of the running game. I'm a huge fan of the running game. I grew up on Gayle Sayers and matured watching Walter Payton, so my love of the run game is fully intact. The raw power and fierce grace of that position brings us to our feet and brings cries to our lips. The ability to run the ball has several advantages beyond the yardage gained. The first, and probably the most important, is that if a team can run on you, it begins to sap your willpower.

Players on both sides of the ball have talked about this extensively over the years. If you are running the ball well, it means, first and foremost, that the offensive line is imposing their will on the defense. They are opening holes. They are moving men out of the way of the running back, clearing the way for the fullback (if any) to get to the linebackers in the second level. They are winning the battle for territory. The running backs are getting stronger by the play and as they see the defenders start to waver.

And the defenders? From the defense's perspective, it's an awful feeling when you can't stop the run. You can't get off the field. Drives begin to wear on you. The offensive line, running backs, the coaches on the sidelines, even the wide receivers begin to know in their hearts that you can't stop them. As their confidence soars, yours begins to falter. You get a sinking feeling in your guts and you start looking at the scoreboard, watching the clock, wondering when they're going to score on you again. It's one of the worst feelings in the world.

So, what's the myth? The myth is this - There is a constantly touted idea that a lot of running attempts means that you're going to win the game. People claim that if such and such a team would just run the ball X number of times, they'd be in the playoffs. Proponents of this claim that the rushing attack is the holy grail of football, that if you just rush the football, the game will be yours. Important as I agree the rushing attack is, they're still wrong.

If that were true, all of the teams out there would be running the ball 25, 30, 40 times a game. We know from experience that doing so doesn't win games. In fact, just running the ball a lot whether you are scoring or not is a fool's game. Look back at Oakland last year to see just how true that is. But failing to mount an effective rushing attack is also a fast track to losing. We all know that the rushing game is essential, and it is. What's the right way to look at it?

Here's the middle road - the truth - about the rushing game: The running game is just a tool. How you wield that tool says a lot about your club. You can choose to make it the dominant weapon in your arsenal, to emphasize the passing game or to balance the two. Which way you choose will be dependent on your philosophy and your players. No matter which way you go, you will still need a great offensive line to get you started.

Winning teams do run the ball a lot, but that's not why they are winning. In fact, it's exactly the other way around. Good teams, whether a rushing club or not, know that you run the ball when the game is close or when you're holding and protecting a lead. If you can run effectively at that point, you're going to win a lot of games. That's the real story. It's not just that you run the ball a lot. You can win a lot or lose a lot with that approach - it doesn't help or hurt you, in and of itself. But if you get the lead, whether by running or passing, most teams will then try to run out the clock.

That's why the number of rushing attempts ends to be higher for winning clubs. They don't win because they run - they are rushing a lot because they're winning. That's why winning teams have higher numbers of rushing attempts. The number of times that you rush the ball is going to depend on your players, your offensive philosophy and your situation in each game. When you're ahead, you should slow down the clock, and that means running the ball. I personally believe that you need a top rushing attack in the same way that you need a top passing attack, defense and special teams - they all contribute to a winning season. But that can also depend on the players that you have healthy, the defense you face and other factors. Regardless of how you're winning - if you're winning the game, the number of rushes will go up.

There is a grand story about Bill Parcells that illustrates this. He was coaching the Giants, long ago, and the Miami Dolphins and Dan Marino were going to be in town for game 3 of the 1990 season. Parcells is very upfront about his preference for the defensive game over the offensive, so this was touted as a classic battle. And it was...

After the kickoff, which Miami received, the Giants were able to hold Miami and force a punt. They took the ball and went slowly down the field, a chip at a time, taking a total of 17 plays to go 57 yards, taking 10 minutes and 25 seconds off the game clock. The drive only ended in a field goal, but Parcells immediately said to his quarterback, "Work the clock!"

At the beginning of the second quarter he was already planning how he would take 1-3 drives off the clock by slowing the game. The final score was 20-3 in favor of New York, and the quarterback got to spend most of the afternoon handing off and letting his offensive line, defense and his running backs do the rest. Would he have done that if he didn't have the lead, or at least a shot at it? Of course not. He knew when to run, and that made all the difference.

Understanding how to minimize the advantages of the opposing team, and how to manage the game to create a victory is a heck of a skill to develop. As fans, the more of it we understand, the more we can enjoy it. Next time, I'm going to take on a myth that has taken on stature among football fans. I hope that you'll join me.

14 recs | Comment 71 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Love it, Bear!

It’s great to read something that’s not about Brandon Marshall.

Especially in sports, the “correlation is causation” mindset is endlessly aggrivating. In numerous sports, you hear the statisitc that the team who scores first is likely to win the game. What they don’t mention is that the team who scores second, third, and fourth carries equal probability of victory. So the less-exciting reality is that teams who score tend to win more frequently than teams who do not.

But then again, John Madden made a career out of stating the obvious.

by Velveeta on Jun 19, 2009 7:31 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

that's a huge pet peeve for me, too.

It’s also commonly repeated during week one of the season and (in other sports) regarding the first game of a playoff series. We’re all familiar with the statistics that show how winning the first game of the season series correlates with success down the road. But correlation is not that winning the first game makes the rest easier, but rather that the sucessful team in the long run was probably the better team to begin with, which in turn is why they won that first game. It just doesn;t seem that way becuase we don’t always realize that the team in question is actually a good team right away, especially in the NFL when teams can go from worst to first so quickly. If announcers would just change their pre-game hype from “the first game of the season is soooo important for getting into the playoffs” to “This is our first opportunity to see which teams are for real this year”, it’d be more accurate and less annoying

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Jun 19, 2009 10:36 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maddening

But then again, John Madden made a career out of stating the obvious.

Or mis-stating it…;-)

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Emmett Smith on Jun 19, 2009 11:05 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember watching a game a few years ago… It was 3rd and 10, and Madden says: “The coach is going to call a play designed to get 10 yards or more.”

by Velveeta on Jun 19, 2009 11:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

To be honest – I won’t miss him. But I still think of his best with affection. In certain ways, Mike Ditka seems to be ambling down that same bizarre path when he’s announcing.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Emmett Smith on Jun 19, 2009 11:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post bear,

and a good offensive coach will see how good a job the OL is doing to the defense, and make the neccessary adjustments whether it’s the pass or the run. If the defense is a hard time with the OL then run it down their throats, and vice-versa. Take what they give you to win, don’t just try and push a point that is senseless.

by bfree2bronc on Jun 19, 2009 8:09 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

The Shannahan Philosophy

Proponents of this claim that the rushing attack is the holy grail of football, that if you just rush the football, the game will be yours. Important as I agree the rushing attack is, they’re still wrong.

Once misperception I see from a lot of Bronco fans is that Shannahan was all about ‘establishing’ the run to drive the offense. The reality is that Shannahan scripted 15 plays and went through massive preperations so that the Broncos could use whatever means necessary— often a heavy passing attack— to build a big enough lead to bleed away with the running game. It worked beautifully when they had an offense that could work well in the redzone. I didn’t hurt that the Denver ball control running game was so dang good that you had to fear it early also.

This is also, IMO, why the defense slowly disolved away. If you’ve got guys like Davis, Sharpe, Eddie Mac, and Rod Smith on the roster, you can reasonably expect to overwhelm a team offensively. Then you just need simple defense that plays soundly and carefully and makes the other offense play perfectly. If its a little soft against the run, fine. Let them try to chip away at your three score lead 5 impressive rushing yards at a time. In otherwords, the defense was ‘neglected’ because Shannahan had already proved that ‘dominant D’s win championships’ is also a MSM/Announcer fallacy. The fact is, an average defense can be offset by an effective balanced attack.

Its really the same philosophy— albiet through completely different schemes— that the Patriots employ. Be so overwhelming on offense early that you make even the greatest power running attack futile. Then, once you feel comfortable…try to hold on. When you can pull it off, it makes average defenses like the Broncos ‘97 and ’98 editions all the sudden seem fully adequet and capable. When you have crappy safeties and poor tackling by LB’s, you give up huge plays that offset your own ability to jump to a lead.

That’s why, IMO, Knowshon Moreno was the most vital option to help this D. With the weapons at hand, assuming that Orton doesn’t completely tank, this O can jump out and ride the running game in the second half…provided they don’t make big play mistakes and continue with the poor tackling on defense.

I am an idiot walking a tightrope of fortune and fame
I am an acrobat swinging trapezes through circles of flame
If you've never stared off in the distance, then your life is a shame
and though I'll never forget your face,
sometimes i can't remember my name.
--Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby"

by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 8:25 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Defense

To be fair our championship defense was good at taking away the ball. With a powerful offense and a defense that puts the ball back into the offense’s hands once or twice a game you can win a lot of games.

I find it very interesting too, if anyone has noticed, that Houston’s problems exist in the red zone and with turnovers. The same problems Denver had. I wonder if the scheme was prone to this failure.

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 9:22 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

They were solid.

That was a nice defense, but hardly great. And you’re right, they were more agressive with the blitzing, and then forced turnovers that way. But they could be more agressive on defense because their running game decreased the margin of error and allowed them to ‘run out’ big leads. If they did give out a big play on defense, they could then ride the ball for another 8 minutes…leveling out possible momentum shifts and, like Bear pointed out, demoralizing the opponent who always knew they were running out of time.

by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 9:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well That is My Point Exactly

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 9:37 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

I was just trying to clarify that I’m not saying you can win with bad D, but being able to protect a lead helps your defense protect a lead too. They can then blitz and be more agressive and come up with turnovers. If you’re terrified of momentum shifts, you play cautiously, and even bad teams can pick apart a D constantly on its heals…

by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you man. Here is a question for you though? What would you rather have, a Defense designed to work off the performance of the offense or a defense designed to allow the offense to perform?

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 2:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

a good point and a bit of trivia to go along with it

Anyone know the all-time best Broncos running D (at least statistically speaking)?

It’s not the 2005 broncos, not the 80’s teams with Meck, Rulon, Fletcher, etc, not even the Orange crush – it was the ‘98 D. I think they allowed something like 30 yards rushing in the playofss to the Dolphins and Jets combined. Once Elway & Co got them a confortable lead, the opposing rushing game went out the window and the Bronc’s D could T off on the passing game.

Belief is accepting something because you’ve been convinced to do so, whether you like it or not. Faith is accepting something because you want to accept it.

by Hercules Rockefeller on Jun 19, 2009 10:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice!! Forgot about that

stats can be misleading eh?

by Whidbey Bronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

They can be misleading: "Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there’s only a 10 percent chance of that. "

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 2:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or...

…90% of the game is half mental.

People can use statistics to prove anything, 87% of all people know that.

"If you don’t read the newspaper you are uniformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." – Mark Twain

by c_style on Jun 19, 2009 3:07 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Predominately Orange – better defensive players are the most vital option to help our D, not a good RB. If Raji or Tyson Jackson were available at 12, Denver would have sprinted to the podium to pick them instead of drafting Moreano. Moreano was (in the opinion of The Coach) the best player available (at a position of need) when #12 was on the clock.

I bet The Coach was hoping for Tyson Jackson at 12 (Raji was a pipe dream) and Moreano at 18, but KC over-drafted Jackson and F*ed up the draft for us well.

If I was calling the shots, I’d have taken Orakpo or Jenkins at 12, but that’s just this fan’s opinion. I also believe the Moreano pick makes good sense and it was decent value at 12.

Hope Moreano works out for the best for my Broncos, but if Denver is losing a lot of games in 2009, Moreano better be good at catching the ball because we’ll be passing often. A good RB helps the defense when he is RUNNING the ball successfully.

by McGeorge on Jun 19, 2009 8:44 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Available

IMO, Moreno was the best available at 12. I have no doubt that Raji or Jackson probably would have been the pick…but they weren’t available.

My point is, in the modern NFL, being able to run the ball is as much a defensive tool as an offensive tool. Its not so much as about dictating the terms of the game on offense, but rather a tool to protect leads. Notice, for example, the defensive ‘resurgence’ mid-season that directly coincided with the emergence of Peyton Hillis. When the Broncos had a chance to control the ball a little, they won. When they had to try to shoot it out, they inevitably failed.

by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 9:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's nice that we, as fans, have our opinions of how the draft went

but it would be nice to back up our opinions with reasoning and facts. you may have wanted orakpo or jenkins at 12, but do we really need a 260lb DE when we’re making the transition to a 3-4 defense? i think not. we need bigger bodies who are capable of clogging up the running lanes, allowing the linebackers to do their job. do we need to draft a CB who will more than likely play safety in the NFL? i don’t think so, especially after we drafted two capable safeties in later rounds, and brought in two seasoned veterans to start and teach the rookies the ropes.

MORENO was the best player available at 12, and arguably the best running back in the draft. after seeing 7 RBs fall to injured reserve last season, it was obviously, even to a casual fan, that the broncos needed major help in that department. unless you believe the media, which chastised McD for bringing in veterans (not all of who made the final cut) and drafting a RB.

for the record, Moreno can catch the ball quite well, so he will be a great fit in our new offense. he is also a terrific blocker and fits into the Broncos one-cut zone blocking running scheme.

Moreno rushing 2008 — 1400 yards, 16 TDs
Moreno receiving 2008 — 392 yards, 2 TDs

by lolcopter on Jun 19, 2009 9:46 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

(not meant to be a personal jab, it’s just that I’ve seen Orakpo’s name thrown about constantly with no real reasoning to back up the pick. other than “we haven’t addressed the front 7, blah blah blah”)

by lolcopter on Jun 19, 2009 9:54 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

so u throw out moreno's stats and it makes it ok to have an opinion?

I would have picked Orakpo before Moreno based on their respective college performances, I’ll not list them as they’re not comparable. My obvious lack of comparable knowledge lies in my lack of knowledge as to how well Nolan likes our pre-draft front seven.

My other reasons would be the current successful trend (league wide) of not drafting RBs early, our rapidly improving O-line and our long history of turning low rounders into competitive RBs.

I like Moreno but he seems like such a risk when in my opinion our position of need was glaringly our front seven!

Back to the original post though… Won’t it be great when we can choose the our field view and replays at home (or in the booth for that matter)!! So many times I need to see the other side of the field to figure out what’s really going on out there.

by Whidbey Bronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:32 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

i’m of the opinion that orakpo and jenkins don’t provide our team with as much value as moreno, for the reasons i previously stated. i threw out moreno stat’s to validate his receiving prowess, not to reinforce my opinion on the issue.

orakpo did have a tremendous college career (11 sacks in one season is INSANE). and i also agree that our front seven needed help, but as mcgeorge mentioned, once jackson and raji were off the board, all bets were off.

we drastically needed help at the RB position. sure, it would be nice if dennison and turner could turn a scrub into a respectable NFL RB, but what can they do with a first round talent? i’m excited at the possibilities. i think moreno had more value at 12, than any DE, even ayers. luckily we were still able to pick up robert at 18. if we only had one 1st round pick instead of two, i see us going defense at 12, but that wasn’t the case this year.

by lolcopter on Jun 19, 2009 10:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm so barely leaning the other way that I can hardly offer the other side... good points

I’d have taken D at both (don’t see RB as ‘drastically needed’) but if the Moreno risk pays off? !!! Sure would (takes careful sip of koolaid) no scratch that – WILL make the Cutler trade hurt less …and Orton too!

by Whidbey Bronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:51 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Orakpo

I got the impression that Denver liked both Ayers and Orakpo for the same role, but they liked Ayers better. I would have been plenty happy with Jenkins-Ayers…but what do you do with Ayers and Orakpo? Or Orakpo-Jerry? I have this feeling that if they went Orakpo first, then the first two picks would have been Orakpo- A. Smith, which would be ironic to say the least.

I think the strategy worked out nicely.

by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 10:46 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Orakpo vs. Ayers vs. Smith vs. Jenkins

PO… I think you’re likely right on. Orakpo/Ayers are similar players, and given how McD went for “playmakers” in the secondary, its highly reasonable to think Smith could’ve been the pick at 18.

Orakpo’s value was predominantly as a 4-3 DE, so its not terribly surprising that he wasn’t valued as highly by the new DEF staff (Shanny would’ve snatched him in an instant).

Jerry is another guy that had more value in a 4-3… but thats an intriguing possibility if they’d started with Orakpo.

by cjfarls on Jun 19, 2009 11:16 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree that Ayres and Orakpo are similar players. Orakpo is a MUCH better pass rusher and Ayres has better size/growth potential for a D-linemen. What I do see are some similarities between Orakpo and Elvis.

Jenkins is a great great football player. Excellent college production, played well in big games, smart, great pedigree. He was widely regarded as the best DB in the draft for good reason.

I’m not PO’ed that The Coach took Moreano over Orakpo or Jenkins, but we passed on two very good defensive players to make that pick. I would have gone Orakpo at 12 and Moreano at 18 (I didn’t see any team taking Moreano between 13-17) .

by McGeorge on Jun 19, 2009 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't have happened

It was reported that at least one team wanted to trade up into Denver’s 12 spot to pick Moreno. He wasn’t going to last until 18.

"Don't feed the trolls. Remember to be polite. And please show self-restraint in comment length!" -Me, to myself, because I need constant reminding.

by Disco_Stu on Jun 19, 2009 11:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

san diego

would probably have taken moreno (IMHO)

LT is getting older, and sproles likely can’t carry the load by himself. the fact that they drafted gartrell johnson in the 4th round only reaffirms my belief. it is much more likely that the best RB is gone by 18 than one of the many DEs.

taking orakpo at 12 (IMO) makes no sense, as we were able to get ayers at 18. of course, hindsight is alway 20/20

by lolcopter on Jun 19, 2009 1:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Orakpo

from what I read the rap on him was that he seemed to disappear against the better teams. That’s what I think is so difficult in evaluating college talent. Do they look good because they’re beating on on weaker talent or are they really that good?

by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 19, 2009 2:40 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you said in best here(see link)

5-2 Defenses, Hybrids and the Future

Firstly, regarding Orakpo, our choice was between Moreno and everybody else left, but we might have picked Ayers over Orakpo if given the choice.

Orakpo is a fine player from what I can tell, but I don’t think he fits our scheme. And I say that even though many had projected him as a 3-4 OLB. Projections are a dangerous thing, and there’s always a risk when moving a player to a new position.

I think it’s no accident that Orakpo was taken by a 4-3 team. I also realize he’s seen time at LB for the Redskins, but Orakpo’s forte is as a speed rusher and I expect he’ll primarily be used that way whether he plays DE or OLB.

What you, SlowWhiteGuy (and credit to Hoosier Teacher), called a “misfit tweener” is exactly what Ayers is. And the reason Ayers isn’t as appreciated by some is — IMO — because the ‘tweener’ category isn’t a real category. It’s a mishmash of (usually) undersized pass rushing specialists and a few players who don’t fit into traditional, prototypical categories. We weren’t looking for one-dimensional players though, and Ayers’ versatility marked him as very different from the others.

I’m not knocking Orakpo but comments like the following one by Wes Bunting made our picks of Moreno and Ayers look even better in retrospect.

The best film on Orakpo in the 2008 season is the footage of him in the Texas weight room. He plays nowhere near the strength his weight-room numbers would indicate, and if you want more proof, pop in the tape of him vs. OT Phil Loadholt, or worse yet, the tape of him vs. TE Brandon Pettigrew. He struggled holding the point of attack against both these guys and was consistently bullied by them in the run game. Plus, I still don’t think Orakpo has the first step to reach the corner in the NFL and feel his elite physical attributes simply don’t show up on the field.

Bunting goes farther than I would but I don’t think there’s much question as to whether we found players who fit our scheme. And I think fitting the scheme is extremely important. It’s become cliche to say that you should take the BPA, but a characteristic of team building for teams led by Belichick, et al, is to look for very specific traits, which means that many players will not fit. Bypassing highly rated players during the draft is controversial, but the truth is that they simply don’t fit, no matter what people say about their ability.

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". W. I. Thomas

by Colinski on Jun 19, 2009 11:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think Vernon Gholston!

Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
"Peyton Hillis didn’t rip the sleeves off his jersey, they flew off out of fear."
Calijoefornia.

by boydy2669 on Jun 20, 2009 8:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I covered that

Here

With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg

by KaptainKirk on Jun 19, 2009 7:17 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.milehighreport.com/2009/6/11/906866/what-if-orakpo-at-12

With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg

by KaptainKirk on Jun 19, 2009 7:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

good link

LINK

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". W. I. Thomas

by Colinski on Jun 19, 2009 9:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

I guess I haven’t figured that out yet

With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg

by KaptainKirk on Jun 19, 2009 9:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

instructions

Paste the URL from what you want to link in the sideways 8 informational box (see B, I, S, double-apostrophe , sideways 8, and picture(image) immediately above, right below your headline box and above your text when you post). If you run your cursor over it then it will say ‘link.’ You need to be posting to see these icons.

All you have to do is hit the sideways 8 and the informational box will open, then paste your link in it. Highlight the text you want to have serve as the linked language first, or type something like LINK and make that the hyperlinked language (it will become orange when it’s successfully linked).

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". W. I. Thomas

by Colinski on Jun 19, 2009 11:38 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

here's a limecat

You can enter cool pictures, too, like Limecat, my favorite football cat.

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". W. I. Thomas

by Colinski on Jun 19, 2009 11:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

looks strangely like firstfan...

There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 20, 2009 1:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I tried some of that

but I will keep your instructions at hand for next time, Thank You Colinski

With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg

by KaptainKirk on Jun 19, 2009 11:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Moreno cant be a risk when we know he is going to be great for Denver. Wheres the risk???

This is what PISSES me off about the panning of our draft, and I did a posted a saga on our draft

I dont know how ANYONE can look at our draft and not say we improved our team. We imporved in MARKEDLY in the places we needed the most help: Special Teams, Secondary and then brought in guys in CFA for front 7.
I am not having a go at you whidbey, but everyone needs to look at our drafting strategy, and it was not a PLAYER OF NEED draft.

Anyhow, thats my opinion!

by boydy2669 on Jun 20, 2009 8:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is the link:

http://www.milehighreport.com/2009/6/12/907205/josh-mcdaniels-whats-the-plan-oh

by boydy2669 on Jun 20, 2009 8:10 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMPACT

This was an exceptional post, BTW, boydy2669.

Some of the comments pundits made about our draft were inane. And I’ve been contemplating a review of draft strategy — just to try to clarify some points. Let me make a few of those points here, and I may go long.

Firstly, it’s best to look at absolute rating when considering picks because the BPA at an area of need may still fall below the threshold that justifies a pick. It’s a poor strategy to reach just because someone is the best at that position.

Moreover, we actually had a number of front seven players who were better than those reaches so we’d only be wasting money. The MSM was NOT aware of our talent level at DL/LB and they merely assumed that we were devoid of talent.

A final, and quite important consideration, is experience. The best way to address shortcomings at the front 7 is through FAs, and we brought in Fields, Reid and Davis. At best, draftees from the first two rounds can contribute immediately, and the number of DL34/LB34 types was extremely limited.

SUPERMARKET MENTALITY

The attitude that we should have taken ANY defensive player who fit — however superficially — into our areas of need is odd. I’ve equated it to shopping in a supermarket, and the assumption is (of course) that everything you need is on the shelf and all you have to do take one. This was not a good year for DLs, and the situation was compounded by the number of teams switching to the 3-4. LB was another, and curious, problem. Our needs were not as great as people expected (I credit it to a carryover effect from our needs in the 4-3 and memories of Webster). There also appeared to be a general downgrading of the position, which is why so many touted ILBs remained undrafted.

THE TEAM BUILDING PROJECT

Fixing our deficiencies on defense requires greater care than is generally recognized, and it’s also remarkable that the so-called experts are as oblivious as the layperson in this regard. There’s also a longshot myth that adds to the confusion. Some longshots do make succeed, and some UDFAs do, too, but there’s a limited amount of room for these players on the roster because of the 80 man roster limit. I certainly wouldn’t have regarded it as a victory if we brought in a large number of late round DL draftees if all they did was supplant current players such as Crowder. Despite the often repeated ‘bust’ tag that’s associated with some team members, our chances are better if we them continue to develop them rather than mindlessly replace them with other, less talented, low round picks in the hope that one will develop eventually. I realize that many people believe that players such as Crowder and Moss aren’t worth the expenditure required for further development, but the truth is that they’re still far better prospects than late round draftees.

UNDERSTANDING ‘DRAFT’ LOGISTICS

A guide: early round picks are expected to contribute immediately as starters or future starters. Later picks are expected to fill backup roles, situational roles and/or STs duties. The principle behind draft logistics is to understand how ‘when’ translates into ‘where.’ What people should notice about this Bronco draft is how EVERY pick had a position waiting for him. There’s no waste – NONE! Another of the oft repeated myths is that you acquire an overabundance of talent and let competition eliminate the excess. It’s true, as far as UDFAs go, but it’s a real money waster when you have to eat the draftees’ signing bonuses. Last year’s draft may have distorted our expectations regarding the likelihood of draftees’ success but it’s truly amazing to have an entire draft class in which even the late picks have a better than even chance of sticking.

DRAFT LOGISTIC PRINCIPLE 2. — “count, count, count”

Fans often don’t have a concrete understanding of roster numbers, and this in turn leads to unrealistic expectations regarding how many players can be added. There’s also a lack of appreciation for the experience factor. Populating your roster with a large amount of rookies creates problems, and only cellar dwelling teams that are willing to pay a sacrifice in immediate success can regard this as justifiable. Much as with the ‘when’ and ‘where’ draft relationship, teams must carefully consider the effect of having a large number of rookies at a position or area. There’s a limit to the ‘greening’ factor, and there’s a limit to how many rookies you can hope to add, which is the result of ‘hard’ roster math. Another way to look at this — even if we were successful at adding at every position on the DL, we’d be fielding a very young and inexperienced DL. A ‘sucessful’ draft of this type would forgo (for the most part) our chances of success this year. Teams have to minimize this effect of ‘growing too young too quickly.’

IMPACT

I’ve wedded the concepts of ‘need’ and ‘BPA’ into ‘impact.’ I’d previously used the term ‘utility’ to describe this idea. Both need and BPA have misused to the point that they’ve lost much of their value as concepts. What’s remarkable is how often so-called draft experts equivocate between the two concepts, and blast teams — alternately — for either not filling a need and not taking the BPA — a Catch-22.

IMPACT & DRAFT RISK

Moreno is a marvelous example of an impact player. He not only filled a team need (which pundits have yet to figure out) but he was the BPA at that point in the draft. More than that, his position and personal abilities mark him as someone who can make big contributions in his first year. He’s both less risky and more likely to make an impact.

I like using impact as a draft criterion because it avoids the difficulties that accompany need and BPA. Impact is a pragmatic decision, you’re only looking at whether a player could contribute in some way to your team. It may be because need & BPA have become so theoretical that people have lost sight of concrete reality.

Final thoughts — since it bears repeating, all of the draft picks have ‘spots’ that they can easily fill on this team. Moreover, many of the late picks are ‘timely’ picks since they can fill backup roles, and they’ll have the chance to develop. The receivers we drafted — Quinn and McKinley — also fit with the impact criterion, since their role will be to fill out multiple receiver sets rather than provide backup. One major point that’s been missed is how well suited our returnees are to switch to a 3-4. Added to this, there’s a truly remarkable UDFA crop of defensive players who are experienced in a 3-4 scheme. It will still take some time to add the necessary pieces to the defense but the cupboard is not nearly as bare as the pundits would have us believe.

"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences". W. I. Thomas

by Colinski on Jun 20, 2009 10:23 PM MDT up reply actions 3 recs

you forgot something, 'Ski

Oh wait, no you didn’t.

There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

by Jeremy Bolander on Jun 20, 2009 11:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks a tonne "Ski that means a lot coming from you!

by boydy2669 on Jun 21, 2009 2:52 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another Parcell story to add

That is how the Giants beat the Bills at Super Bowl XXV in 1991. The Bills were heavily favored to win. To counteract the Bills’ no-huddle offense, the Giants’ strategy was to use a power running game utilizing O.J. Anderson, aided by QB rollouts, bootlegs, and play-action fakes. They came out with 3 TE’s, and let the Bill’s try to tackle O.J., if they could. This enabled the Giants to take time off the clock and limit Buffalo’s possessions. The Giants set a Super Bowl record for time of possession with 40 minutes, 33 seconds, including 22 minutes in the second half. Parcell’s knew he had a disadvantage with Jeff Hostetler, but shrewedly outhought his opponents for the win.

With the 12th pick, the Broncos select Knowshon Moreno - Roger Goodell
That'll move the chains - Andy Samberg

by KaptainKirk on Jun 19, 2009 9:31 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Great illustration of the value of the run game - clock control.

Your comment got me thinking about the broader value of the run game. Bear’s great post above includes this very true gem:

“They don’t win because they run – they are rushing a lot because they’re winning”

The Bills/Giants example above shows that the correlation between rush attempts and success actually goes two ways. The run game when used to keep the other offense off the field while sitting on a lead clearly raises the chances of a win. However the run game can also be used, regardless of score, to defuse a potent offense and control the clock – keeping a team in a game in which they otherwise run the risk of being blown out.

And what does this mean? Basically I am seeing that the deeper correlation is between (timely) clock and ball control and winning. And the run game is absolutely critical for that to happen.(Open for debate is the nature of the ToP/Win correlation. Mgrex over at Stampede Blue has put together a great series on winning factors and addressed ToP. His conclusions suggest ToP per drive is a more correlative stat to winning that ToP alone…)

In short I would say:

“Winning teams win because they control the clock and the ball – and the rushing attack is a key tactic in doing so”

Thanks to Kirk and Bear for making me think on my day off!

by jonahsilas on Jun 19, 2009 1:11 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Makes you Think of the

Giants and Patriots too. I am not sure what the time of possession was then as well but the Giants had a good multi-pronged running game there.

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 2:20 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just time of possession...

what I think often gets lost in the post game analysis of that SB, is that when the Patriots got the ball toward the end of the game they were able to drive down the field and score the go ahead touchdown. The NYG defense did not stop the Patriots. However, because the Giants had taken away NE’s running game the Patriots were unable to control the clock. How much different would that game had been if the Patriots had been able to run more and take another minute off the clock?

Most games in the NFL are decided by a touchdown or less. Controlling who gets the ball last and how much time they have is a key part of winning. Don’t you think Ariz wishes they had left Pitt with less time at the end of this last SB?

by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 19, 2009 2:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

That Was a Great Game

That was so much fun to watch. I have never seen Brady just get plastered the way he did that game. Makes you appreciate defense when done right.

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 4:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice job Broncobear

The key ingredient for winning is balance. Passing, rushing, defense, special teams, and coaching.

by rocko1 on Jun 19, 2009 9:31 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

I believe the Broncos defensive resurgence (I use that term generously) had more to do with excellent and disciplined play from their LBs (i.e. Woodyard and Larsen) than from our running game. Hillis and Co. were just average in wins vs Cleveland (shoot out win that was ALL CUTLER), ATL (Woodyard & Larsen) and KC (a bad win if such a thing exists).

I won’t disagree that a great running game is beneficial to the defense, but better defensive players are the key. A great running game won’t turn our historically awful defense into a Top 15 unit. Four+ much better defensive players would.

by McGeorge on Jun 19, 2009 9:42 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting point about announcing...

I’m a huge Kornheiser fan /duck. I wasn’t a huge fan of him on MNF— it wasn’t his type of thing— but I’ve listened to every incarnation of his radio show since the mid 1990’s and can’t wait for the next one. Anyway, he had some interesting things to say about the reality of broadcasting football games. He said, if the coaches have no idea what happened on the field until after games when they watched film, how can you expect an announcer to give some sort of substantive analysis immediately after the play. This expectation is ridiculous. No matter how much film a former player/coach like Jaws or Gruden watch can help him provide substantive analysis of plays as they happen. That’s the precise reason you get cliché after cliché.

"Talking tough is easy when it's other people's evil and you're judging what they do or don't believe. It seems to me you'd have to have a hole you're own to point a finger at somebody else's sheet" -- Mike Cooley

by ButteBronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:30 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

yep yep

by Whidbey Bronco on Jun 19, 2009 10:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said

That’s a big reason that I started on this series. We all (mea culpa) get a little worked up by what we perceive and what we think that we see. Styg’s works on how to evaluate are WELL WORTH going over 5 or 10 times, but even then, there’s more out there that we can’t see than what we can.

The tendencis to cover that lack of knowledge with aphorisms has to be tempting as heck to the guys in the booth, and it carries over into the language we as fans use. I thought that a few discussions (mostly from you folks) on some of the, shall we say, somewhat debatable common statements might be kind of fun and perhaps enlightening. Thanks for stepping in, guys.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Emmett Smith on Jun 19, 2009 11:12 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kornhieser Couldn't Adjust

The guy went into games with opinions that didn’t change even if they were being refuted on the field…right in front of him. He always commented on the game he expected rather than the game that was actually playing out. It drove me nuts.

by PredominantlyOrange on Jun 19, 2009 12:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never comfuse the issue with facts.....;-)

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Emmett Smith on Jun 19, 2009 12:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

Part of the problem was ESPN’s defined role for Tony, which was to provide the broadcast with an overreaching storyline. He’d set the storyline up in his monologue, and stay on the storyline throughout the broadcast. That’s a tall order when you think about it, as you risk repeating yourself throughout the broadcast, or worse, keep plugging ESPN’s dumb storyline that doesn’t exist anymore because its been disproved as you said. That’s not what Tony’s best at.

Tony’s best at his insecure rants. I would have loved to hear him call out his detractors on air during the broadcast like he would do during his radio shows, or personally attacking the coaches, players and refs that deserve it incessantly. Tony’s also a great social commentator. He should have been allowed to riff on pop culture and current events. That would have pissed-off the real fans watching the game, but the real fans are watching anyway. The reason you bring a non-football guy in is to bring in viewers that would not normally watch a game. You bring in that third guy and you say, “you must have at least three water cooler comments per broadcast”. If you want to appease the base, you get the non-football guy out of the booth and replace him with a jock, which is the road that ESPN obviously.

Since I would argue (and did above) that the Jock can really add nothing of value to the booth because of the complexity of the game, I think we should eradicate the jock from the booth. My ideal booth would be a three hour profane and irreverent exchange between Drew Magary, Larry David, and Charles Barkley. Just let these guys do one game a week, preferably Monday night. The serious fans could turn on the radio or something or not even watch. Ratings would be off the charts. You know how they have the ESPN 360 thing where they simulcast the games on all the networks? Throw an alternate booth out there with Drew, Larry and Chuck. That way the “fans” could get pummeled with clichés from Terico, Jaws and Gruden, while the rest of us who don’t take ourselves too seriously could actually have fun watching the game.

by ButteBronco on Jun 19, 2009 1:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Move it Back to ABC too.

Tis better not to throw it to the deep receiver but the open receiver.

by Kfustud on Jun 19, 2009 2:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

About the TV thing...

TV coverage has been a pet peeve of mine for some time. It seems I can’t get a good idea of what is really happening because of the framing of the action by the cameramen and the endless one-on-one replays. Occasionally they will show the overhead camera shot and I get to a snippet of a football play.

I think it would be a great series to have an expert write an article on how to best watch a TV game. Sure, we can all watch the guards, but there is certainly more to it. I don’t know how to mitigate the limited camera angles that TV insists on giving us. Is there a way to intelligently watch a game on TV? Other than making sure the sound is off and the radio is on?

Wherever you go, there you are.

by YosemiteSam on Jun 19, 2009 11:11 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

great article

I agree whole-heartedly BBear.

Its tough to win with no running game… but no tougher than having no passing game, or no defense, etc. Causation/Correlation are great things, though I still can’t figure out why the increase in piracy off Somalia hasn’t stopped global warming yet…

Back to the subject at hand… To be a solid playoff team, you have to excel in at least one area, and than should be at least average everywhere else. So you can be a great running team, a great passing team, or a great defense… if you get 2 out of 3, you have a good shot at a Championship.

Can’t wait to see the next “myth” you tackle.

by cjfarls on Jun 19, 2009 11:23 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks Bear great stuff and rec'd,

What we are provided for viewing is definitly too narrow to get what really happened for most of the game. I think what really irks me about broadcast TV coverage is the number of times the guys in the booth are talking about something that didn’t even occur leaving me wondering if they are even watching the same game I am.

by bchiper on Jun 19, 2009 12:06 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Great stuff Bear.

Not only are announcers to blame, but even former coaches and players that aren’t clear in what they say (and even I may be guilty).

For example, there are elements of the running game that give it an advantage over the passing game (and vice versa). As a defensive coordinator, I much prefered to face a tough passing team than a team with a tough running game. Great passing is easier to scheme against and make adjustments for than a great running game. A passing game can feature adjustments in zone, player placements, double coverages, etc. And those changes won’t affect the run defense too much.

But a team that can run through a defense is typicaly out-muscling the defense, and therefore a much more difficult prospect (at least at the HS level). a coordinator can make adjustents, but at some point the guys are going to have to be “tough enough” to stop run.

I think most coaches (both offensive and defensive) share this belief, which by itself isn’t a myth. But then the belief gets blown out of proportion and turns into “knowledgeable football folks prefer the run”, and that’s just not true. The passing game has a role, as does the running game. Balance doesn’t really need to be required (as the Patriots showed in the ’07 season with a massive air attack and a nearly undefeated season).

The running game (as Bear points out) is useful for teams that are ahead; the running game eats up clock and can also keep the ball from a good offense. It also leads to less turnovers than the passing game. But if I were a head coach, and my team is falling behind, the ball is going to go in the air at some point. The running game, for all of its merits, is not a quick strike option when a team needs points now.

Good teams can come out running or passing, or mix it up. My biggest beef with the ‘08 Denver offense was how predictable they were, and how they allowed opposing offenses the time on the clock to beat us (as well as putting our defense in atrocious positions. For their part, the defense didn’t perform well anywhere on the field). We threw the ball well, but not in the redzone (where defenses became more compressed and dangerous).

Excellent article, and very rec’d!

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Jun 19, 2009 1:27 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the comment, HT!

We threw the ball well, but not in the redzone (where defenses became more compressed and dangerous).

Of a certainty! My question would be this – Orton’s red zone numbers destroyed Cutlers. I’ve never heard anyone claim that Ron Turner is an offensive guru of note with unstoppable powers to score. I would agree, however, that Forte was a real force in the zone, but that doesn’t really explain why Orton’s completions, QB rating, TDs, etc were so much better than Cutler’s (despite a massively higher number of sacks, both in raw numbers and in percentage). Any thoughts on this?

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Emmett Smith on Jun 20, 2009 9:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't actually run the numbers...

but at first glance I think the difference is entirely attributable to the interceptions. Orton did a much better job of taking care of the ball in the redzone.

Of course that begs the question of why Orton took care of the ball so much better. Before addressing that, let me dispel one myth. There seems to be this notion that Marshall was constantly drawing double teams all year. Not that I saw. What I did see, was that after game three cutler face a steady stream of cover-2 and cover-3. When the QB locks onto one receiver and doesn’t look off the safety then even average safeties will have plenty of time to move over and any zone is going to look like double coverage.

In the middle of the field the safeties had to stay back and respect cutler’s deep ball. But as the field shortened they didn’t need to stay as far back and the coverage tightened. Cutler seems to struggle against good zone coverage. Dissecting a zone takes patience and discipline. When you see that the safety has moved over top of your primary you have to know that someone else has been left isolated and have the discipline to work your progression and the patience to find the open receiver.

When in doubt, cutler seems to trust his arm more than the system and probably has since HS. Orton learned in Joe Tiller’s offense where the emphasis was one stretching the coverage out, working the progressions, and finding the open man. Redzone play is right up his alley. I would never say that Orton is the better QB, but he may be the better fit in McD’s offense.

by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 20, 2009 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

There you go again, SWG

Confusing the issues with facts…

Of course that begs the question of why Orton took care of the ball so much better. Before addressing that, let me dispel one myth. There seems to be this notion that Marshall was constantly drawing double teams all year. Not that I saw. What I did see, was that after game three cutler face a steady stream of cover-2 and cover-3. When the QB locks onto one receiver and doesn’t look off the safety then even average safeties will have plenty of time to move over and any zone is going to look like double coverage.

I haven’t mentioned the issue with Marshall and coverage just because I’m trying to stay out of what is currently an emotional discussion, but I haven’t seen much of that either. It’s often an unpleasant fact that ruins a lot of good theories.

When in doubt, cutler seems to trust his arm more than the system and probably has since HS. Orton learned in Joe Tiller’s offense where the emphasis was one stretching the coverage out, working the progressions, and finding the open man. Redzone play is right up his alley. I would never say that Orton is the better QB, but he may be the better fit in McD’s offense.

You’re right. I thought that it was interesting that Orton’s decision-making was very good by the end of his tenure in Purdue. He was very raw, as his draft reports showed, and getting tossed into the games his rookie season didn’t help his career much, but last year when the Bears had occasion to run a no-huddle or when Orton visibly went to an audible he seemed very crisp, very confident. I’d forgotten about Joe Tiller and his influence on Orton and many accomplishments – thanks for the reminder.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Emmett Smith on Jun 20, 2009 10:42 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry that's a habit of mine

interjecting facts into the debate – I’ll try to do better next time.

by SlowWhiteGuy on Jun 20, 2009 11:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

My thinking...

..(and I haven’t got down to SWG to see his take yet), is a couple of things.

One, I would guess that we didn’t have a balanced attack in the redzone. We continued to pass the ball, and passing lanes are more dangerous in the redzone (again, compression of space).

Two, Cutler is a passer who forces passes and doesn’t check down very well. It’s not a bad thing per se, but it is a style that doesn’t work well in an unbalenced offense that now finds itself in the redzone. Orton is a more careful QB. He doesn’t have the flash that fans like to see, but he is also much lower risk. He’s going to play smarter in the redzone.

Those are very simplistic answers, but those are my guesses without the film to watch.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Jun 20, 2009 5:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs