Some Pessimism to Bum You Out Before Camp

Pessimism?

Now not many people are going to agree with you, but then again, not many people here will admit that Tebow might be only average, or that Marshall leaving might actually hurt our passing game. Now I’m not agreeing with everything you are saying, I do think our O-line will be improved, and I think with proper rotation, our defensive line will improve, especially if our ILB can add even more punch against the run. But my biggest concern is our receivers. I completely agree that the future of our receivers is looking good, but as of right now, we are relying on rookies to carry our passing game, especially if Royal or Gaffney struggle or get injured.

For those who disagree with this, he is using a lot of logic, now like I said, with proper use, our lines should either be at the same level as last season, or improved, especially with good rotation and proper scheming to maximize either our rookies or aged players strengths. Same could be said about our passing game, but I, and most coaches, probably don’t want to rely on rookies to win games.

 At this point Ryan Harris seems to be a full participant although not necessarily 100% in terms of his prior performance. Center, LG and LT are open competition positions in TC. Don’t expect Clady to be starting on opening day.
The DL will be better for sure with the talent added.
Receiving core will be interesting to follow and it remains to be seen if BM’s production can be replaced.

Why is it so easy to dismiss that last yr’s 1st rd rookie WRs did well?
Harvin, Maclin, Crabtree, Nicks and Britt in 2009 all played well (DHB sucked because he was “weak” mentally – Demayrius is not – see character and wunderlick score)

The worst performer was Britt with 42 catches and 3 TDs in a run-heavy offense. If anything the Broncos offense will run similarly to the Eagles or Vikings offense.

I choose to see the opportunity for the rooks to get PT and put up #’s.

McNabb 2009 – 60.3% 22TDs 10 ints 3,553 yds
Orton 2009 – 62.1% 21 TDs 12 ints 3,802 yds

Are the results all that different?

Very refreshing to hear.

I share your concerns, but I have hope as well. I recall a rookie named Ryan Clady playing pretty well in 2008. I also remember some other rookies failing miserably. It’s a crap shoot, and the odds are not great that any of our rookies will immediately contribute, much less that multiple rookies will have an impact. But to that, I say, “Never tell me the odds.”

1. I very largely agree with you here. This IS the biggest concern going into TC (although the WRs might be more fun to watch;). Harris has said he feels 100% already. We’ll soon see if he plays like it. Clady should only miss a couple game (if that), as far as I understand. I expect it to be Tyler Polumbus at LT in his place, rather than Hochstein. I believe McDaniels said the same in his last press conference.

2.
bq. This convention holds that these additions will magically transform our defense into a top-10 monster.

It already was a top-ten monster, 7th to be exact.

Bannan was a longtime backup in Baltimore. Green was a situational player for New England. These are not the kinds of players you want leading a defense.

Bannan played along side Trevor Pryce, Ngata and Kelly Gregg. It’s easy to go unnoticed over there with that all-pro line. Also, I’m not sure I would call him “situational”. He played in about as many snaps last year as Gregg did, and Ngata had less than 100 more snaps than Bannan. As for Green, he won’t be leading the line. He’s not expected to be a starter. That’s why we kept guys like FIelds and McBean.

All-in-all, I think you greatly underestimate these three men. They are all terrific editions and much better than what we had last year. The larger point, though, is that with their addition, and because we kept last year’s starters as this year’s backups, our DL is now high quality and deep. Even if they “just” do as well as the DL did in the first six games last year, we’ll have an elite DL and an elite defense.

3. You forgot to add Josh McDaniels. His resume as an offensive coach producing a prolific pass attack and out-scheming his opponents even when he didn’t have Randy Moss, and even when he didn’t have Tom Brady… his resume is such that all benefit of doubt should be given. The loss of BM will be felt, especially early. But if anyone can help negate that effect, it’s Josh.

The points you bring up are valid. Thomas is raw. Decker has only practiced twice. And we’ll need each of their help if our pass attack is going to be feared. But, do we really need it feared? We only need it respected, IMO. And even if he’s raw, D. Thomas should give us the field stretching ability we need… right out of the gate. He doesn’t have to be overly productive right out of the gate for him to be accounted for right out of the gate. That’s his mission here, in week-one: Stretch the defense out of the box. From what I’ve heard from his short days in mini-camp, that shouldn’t be a problem, IMO.

So again, your points are valid and I enjoyed the piece. Well written and rec’d. My glass is fuller than yours, and I can’t wait to find out!

I agree with many of the questions you pose in this post. But, there is a greater specificity available than simply better or worse. Meaning, by inserting rookies into our OL and WR corps, we will be better in certain areas and worse in others. As concerns the OL, simply because of the mass of our new players, we will likely be better in short yardage situations. However, our execution and refinement will likely overall be worse (i.e. penalties, pass protection in certain situations, etc.). Does this make our OL better or worse than last year? That is a difficult question to answer, but it seems that McD has decided it is worth the payoff to make this exchange- certainly in the long-term and hopefully in the short-term as well. Similar trade-offs are likely with the WRs. So the question isn’t whether we will be “better” or “worse” in an abstract sense, it is whether the trade-offs are overall beneficial to the team, in both the short and long-term. But I do think you raise excellent points, and it is not fair to say we will be immediately better in the areas you listed. Nevertheless, I am excited to see how this particular concoction will work, and I think the trade-offs being made will result in a better long-term outcome. As for the short term, we will thankfully get to see it play out beginning in only a months time. And I can hardly wait.

REC’D

Well-written sober discussion of the current situation. Kudos. I hope to see more from you.

The O line is just one of them. I don’t see the Dline as a problem, we now have the depth we need for an effective rotation and the ability to consistently pressure the QB. So what if Bannan was a backup to Ngata. Does that mean he can’t play? I don’t think it means anything except Bannan now has the chance to prove himself. I don’t know whether he plays like a backup or pro bowler, only TC will give us a clue, and I do believe that starts this morning. I don’t agree with the glass half empty crowd, after all, at the start of last season we were getting the gloom and doom about Cutler, our 29th ranked Defense was still garbage, etc. The D made big strides, Cutler stunk it up in Chicago, we had our share of growing pains and still finished at 8-8. If we show the same level of improvement this year as we did last year, we should contend for the AFC west, and make a wildcard appearance. Rome wasn’t built in a day and the gloom and doom crowd seem to think we are on the edge of a cliff about to fall off. Sorry, that ain’t happening.

After reading all three a couple of times, it seemed obvious that this is a collection of three ‘conventions’ that are essentially your development. I already discussed the OL thing – we may have 1 rookie, might have none. McD has gone to veterans most of the time when possible.

Convention #2 has a little realism, but more fantasy. We are substantially deeper with these three players. It isn’t a magic wand, but it’s a major improvement. I’ve mentioned before that Williams will probably miss some snaps, but Denver has Bannan (and it’s true that calling him a backup misses a lot of the point – Baltimore runs a rotation. He’s played well at all three slots in that rotation, started some games and adds another DE/NT. Chris Baker has been called out by McD as being one of the most improved players, Ron Fields has played DE and DT/NT, as has M. Thomas. And, just to keep this clear, the basis of the defense is McDaniels. It wasn’t Nolan’s and it isn’t Martindale’s. They are executing, each with their own twists, McD’s defense.

Convention 3 is a common statement, but again, it misses much of the point. Some rookie WRs do well – others don’t. I’m pretty comfortable starting the season with Royal, Gaffney, Lloyd, McKinley and Stokes and/or Branson at TE/FB if there are any issues with the rookies. One of the more common fallacies that was used was the idea that since X player didn’t play much last season, they won’t after another offseason and training camp in the system. Actually, that’s when more people do become more productive, not less. And, many rookie WRs last year did have good first years, so that can’t be ruled out either.

It’s common to look at what you consider ‘conventions’ and view them as negatives without looking at the other side as it is for people to view only positives. It’s also just about as inaccurate. Moreno’s situation today should point to something of import – any player might get injured. And any player might step up. The coaches have seen a lot of these guys that we fans haven’t. Let’s let it unfold.

Keep in mind, when possible, we’ll be running a rotation on the line, so much of this will be showing different combinations of players for different looks, and for keeping all of them fresh. It’s that last part that may end up making the difference.

Rec’d
I might have convention 3 as convention 1, and vice versa for the reason I mentioned above. But I like the post, and agree with the far majority of it

it’s no wonder you don’t come around much anymore. Man. This site has changed so much in 2 years. All this flaming is driving me insane. Good opinions, good support, good post, and some good discussion. I long for the civility of the past. But, change is what it is.

Go Broncos.

Although I could probably be cleanly pigeonholed into the optimistic koolaid drinking group, there’s no denying your concerns here. As rosy my outlook may be, and as hopefully optimistic my opinion is of this year’s draft class… I’d be lying if I didn’t say I spent all of Training Camp yesterday watching each and every snap of Thomas and Decker intently, as well as watching for miscommunication amoung our young and unfamiliar group of linemen. I wasn’t a member of the group that cheered everytime Tebow ran the ball in TC yesterday. I wanted to see the ball get passed downfield. I wanted to see our young receiving corps make good moves and good decisions against our experienced and talented secondary. And I definitely wanted to see the protection hold up around the pocket.

Did I see it?

A little bit. It was the first day, so I tried not to be overly critical of the teams’ play, but I couldn’t be happier with the level of effort and enthusiasm I saw – even if the execution was severly lacking much of the time. However, after watching even just the first day of practice I already feel much better about our WR situation. Sure, the rookies probably won’t contribute much… but McKinley and Willis looked fast, focused, and much more matured than last year. Eddie had solid hands and was running very crisp routes. Stokely (sadly) looks a bit slower than last year, though his routes are still impeccable. Lloyd didn’t turn out the best practices, but he worked hard and pushed his younger teamates. Gaffney was the consumate professional and looked very confident out there – even for a veteran. I have the same concerns as yourself about the rookies, but after watching practice yesterday I have confidence that we shouldn’t need to rely too heavily on them (which is very good, they need a little time to heal up and get this playbook down).

I didn’t get to see too much of the offensive line, but its really just a lot of bodies switching out as they all develop as a group. We probably won’t have any answers there until the end of TC. The WRs however are looking fine. By the end of camp i’m hoping they will be operating like a fine-tuned machine.

Anyways. Great post. Very well written and well organized. It came off as unbiased and fair negetivity with solid support – and i’ll take a spoonful of that anyday. Thanks for the healthy contributions, looking forward to future articles as TC wears on. :D

Way to stir the old pot!

Lol

This is how you throw out negative points in a positive way. No name calling, solid facts, and balanced writing. Very well done. I wish folks that only focused on the negatives could learn from this story.

Here’s my take.

The first point (the OL woes) is the most accurate. While I think that the OL may do well, they are the biggest concern. I can’t add to what you’ve put down; you covered all the bases.

The second point (the DL) is where I feel a little better about our situation. The addition of three more guys that can either win a starting position or be strong in the rotation isn’t to be taken lightly. None of these guys has to be a beast – simply by being in a position to increase our rotations and to create intersquad competition, they increase the DL by leaps and bounds. Let’s say that my current DL is just average, and I bring in three guys that are are average or only slightly above average. My rotations keep up a level of play that the opposition is hard pressed to match. Not only that, but competion within the ranks brings up the play of every one. I’m guessing that our DL will look better because of the sum of the parts, and not because of the addition of the individuals.

The third point is debatable both ways. We have lost a very, very talented receiver; no doubt about it. On the other hand, we’ve lost a player who is not reliable and is a drag on morale (we’ve had several morale issues to sap our “second half of the season” records for a few years, including Javon Walker). While we lose one very talented player (and I was in favor of seeing him go), we pick up several solid players – each of whome has potential to be very good. I am hoping for a program where we spread the ball amongst many talented players instead of focusing on one “great”. In my opinion, a team with no weaknesses is better than a team with a few stars.