Training Camp Thread

[thebestever6]

7 hours ago, broncofan48 said:

So Paxton is pretty much gone imo and I think goofy will be too if not mid season definitely by the end.  

 

Who are the options to watch this season who could replace him at HC?

 

DeFillipo?

Maybe one of the harbaughs?

Jim Bob cooter?

chris Petersen is a personal fave of mine not sure how he would handle the transition from college 

Matt lefleur is my hands down favorite.  I mean hes from that shanahan and mcvay coaching tree. I think Elway  could right some wrongs with  that hire.

Defilippo is interesting I mean 8 have to see how he does in Minnesota calling plays but he might emerge as my favorite candidate.  

[lomaxgrUK]

No team is going to give up anything for Paxton. Obviously because he isn't worthy of a draft pick, but it's more that he's not even close to worth that salary.

Someone will probably kick the tyres at some point, but he doesn't have the mental speed to process the game as fast as what a pro needs to.

I find it crazy that in this day and age pro scouts haven't found a way to identify this trait prior to a Collegiate player turning pro. I guess the spread and run/pass options in the College game help hide any deficiencies, given that your reads are given to you within the playcall itself.

Arguably Elway's worst pick to date.

[jsthomp2007]

Is this the LeFleur plan? I know the spelling is off, but hey..it brought 1995 back to me.  

 

[jolly red giant]

MHR is saying that Kelly is getting first teams reps.

[3Amigos_FOREVER]

1 hour ago, jolly red giant said:

MHR is saying that Kelly is getting first teams reps.

Not anything to do with Keenum.  Simply means they are entertaining the idea of Kelly as the #2 and not bringing in a vet.  Keenum is always a play away from the #2 needing to step in, so it's important to have some sort of reps with the 1st team offense in the event he's needed.

[Broncofan]

10 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

MHR is saying that Kelly is getting first teams reps.

 

8 hours ago, 3Amigos_FOREVER said:

Not anything to do with Keenum.  Simply means they are entertaining the idea of Kelly as the #2 and not bringing in a vet.  Keenum is always a play away from the #2 needing to step in, so it's important to have some sort of reps with the 1st team offense in the event he's needed.

Back from a 1+ month hiatus, so glad we have stuff to talk about beyond projections lol.

Re: Kelly & 1st-team, yeah, the real Q is whether Elway can resist bringing in a vet to be the #2.  Which would be a MASSIVE mistake IMO.  They're trying to figure out if Kelly can step in and be serviceable if needed - to me, that's not the important Q.   Realistically, if Keenum isn't good, or he's hurt, we're not a contender.  We're likely not one with him playing well, either.   I know it's heresy for Elway to think that way, but it has to be staring him in the face after last year.   

It's very clear Lynch hasn't progressed - so the right play is to let Kelly show us if he can be a long-term solution, given Keenum is only signed for 2 years.   Kelly can't really do that playing as the #3 guy.   Lynch is done, and mercifully so - Kelly's success should be tempered by the fact it's been against #2/#3 D's - but it's still miles better than what Lynch has done, and with 1 less year of seasoning.   So we should just let Kelly be our backup - and accept that 2018 is a lost year if he has to learn on the job.   Because honestly, we're likely a 8-8 team if Keenum is decent to good.   No vet backup is going to save our season.  Better to let Kelly show us if he can develop as our future guy, and he gets way more work and snaps as the #2.   As for Lynch - the kicker was when he had to ask why he got demoted - that was the final nail.   Anyone who needs to ask after 3 offseasons of zero growth - doneso.   

Now, before ppl point out Elway never thinks that way about not going all-in for present-year - I couldn't argue that point.  But given our cap situation for 2019, and our talent issues, realizing no vet is going to save our season, I do hope Elway looks at this year more like 2011-12, where it's build with youth - and no better way than by letting Kelly be our #2.   He may not work out - but we're not going to find out by having him as our #3 either.

Other random thoughts after 2 games and TC so far:

1.  Holland & Lindsay have done a good job of securing a spot as UDFA's.   Which given Ray / Barrett's UDFA status after this year, is crucial in Holland's case.   Having 3 good pass-rushers is key to letting Von succeed.

2.  I suspect D-Henderson is the odd man out of the RB carousel, barring injury.  And David Williams most likely to go to PS at this stage (wouldn't likely get claimed either so safe stash IMO).  Lindsay should be our #3 RB so long as he isn't a pass protection disaster (jury out, not enough snaps to determine).   He just brings pass-receiving chops that only Booker brings, but even more juice in the open field.  It's too bad he's not built to be more than a 3rd-down COP guy.

3.  Isiaih McKenzie just needs to be cut if he can't keep the ball in his hands.   He's so limited as a gadget guy, fumbling on gadget plays / returns is just a no-go.   

4.  D-wise, Yiadom's been put in an unfair spot.  He should be learning on the job, and contributing on ST's.  This early, I don't give up hope at all on him, the results are just part of the learning curve - so long as his confidence doesn't get destroyed.   But we are thin at CB right now.  I hope Tramaine Brock is healthy and can play.  We are not even close to the no-fly zone with our current DB's (and man, Parks had better be OK, we're suddenly really thin at S, and the hybrid S/LB we were counting on to cover RB/TE's).  I wish we had explored going after Rodgers-Cromartie if we don't think Brock is healthy enough, DRC would have been a great slot guy (but not if he was holding out for big $ given our cap issues, I get that if the $ was high).

5.  I hope Jewell gets #47 back - going to be some angry jersey owners who bought #47 after the draft if Shamarko Thomas stays on the team lol.   Jewell's missed some plays, but that's to be expected as he learns - those same fantastic instincts we saw at Iowa are on display many plays so far.   Very hopeful there.

6.  Our T play has been pretty average so far.   But as average as they've been, our backups offer no hope of being even serviceable so far.   I'm REALLY scared if Veldheer goes down, to have Billy Turner as our backup.  He was a JAG G - but T?  Man, I dunno.  I would hope we keep guys like Wilkinson around and develop them, because one of those guys needs to be at least a top 3 T next year for us given our $ issues.    On the interior front, Leary not being able to practice regularly, that's scary.   The reports that Garcia is better this year better be true - it seems so unlikely that both Paradis and Leary will hold up for 14+ games.   I would NOT extend Paradis; the risk of injury robbing him of the elite level of play he had back in 2015 is just too high, given our cap situation, we can't get another dead contract.

7.  Sutton & Freeman have been the big bright spots on O - Booker's role as the 3rd down / 2-minute guy seems like the best fit (and like I said before, while I hoped for more when he was drafted, pretty clear we just use him up for his cheap years in that role, and bid goodbye when his rookie deal is done).  Sutton's flashed, but we should temper our expectations - it's been vanilla D's, and mostly 2nd-teamers he's beat.  Freeman's work has been with 1st teamers, and let's face it, RB is easier to get up to speed than WR.   Freeman's inside running is as advertised - my prior stated main concerns were mileage (which isn't really a 2018 issue, more over the 4-year rookie contract span), and if his vision (untested with ORE's O and huge lanes) would translate - so far, that seems fine.  But unlike our past drafts, hey, they're actually playing well, so I'll take that, given our recent track record.  

8.  Last but not least, nothing VJ has done reassures me - but I will say Musgrave's scheming has impressed me - the lack of O production has been entirely because of Keenum's high throws (which I agree footwork will help, but also highlights having a lead, and better OL play than what we're providing, well, they make average QB's play up, which I think is what we saw in MIN 2017), and Lynch's god-awful play.  The play-calling and scheming has created openings for our QB's to capitalize on - that's all Musgrave can do as an OC.  Musgrave is one OC I hope we retain when we inevitably move on from VJ.  I think the chances we can max out Keenum's play and develop Kelly are far better with Musgrave as OC than without.   

Overall, I think the biggest pluses we can take heart from is that our draft rookies are not struggling early like we've seen in prior years - but we can't translate that to early success, given the preseason has been 2nd-teamers in many cases facing them, and most importantly, vanilla schemes.   Regular season will test all of them a lot more.  But our rookies usually struggle in year 1 even in PS, so hey, progress!   And I think Jewell is going to be the value pick of this draft, barring injury.   Hindsight is 20-20, but if we knew we were getting Jewell, Todd Davis would have never been re-upped.  Oh well, I won't complain about having Jewell, it's nice to look forward to seeing rookies on the field, and actually having real hope they can play well (instead of the sinking feeling it's going to be the disaster we've seen with year 1 rookies the past few drafts).

Good to be back, looking forward to seeing the Skins-DEN game and a full half of 1st-teamers vs. 1st-teamers (figures that I'll be in cottage country, but there's always DVR).

[AnAngryAmerican]

Too early to talk about the potential of a new head coach for next year - though the idea does excite me - but if that's what transpires I suspect we will go the safe, veteran choice like we did after McDisaster. I think the two potentials right now, and two I would not at all mind, are John Harbaugh and Jason Garrett. Both are well-established, the former has a ring, and both are used to working with "my way or the highway-" type GMs. 

[AKRNA]

1 hour ago, Broncofan said:

 

 

it seems so unlikely that both Paradis and Leary will hold up for 14+ games.   I would NOT extend Paradis; the risk of injury robbing him of the elite level of play he had back in 2015 is just too high, given our cap situation, we can't get another dead contract.

 

 

I don't really understand your concern about Paradis. He's a season removed from hip surgery so thats a big plus. Also, he hasn't missed a start in three years, 48 games, 48 starts. He's kind of an iron man.

What injury risk are you referring to?

[AnAngryAmerican]

9 hours ago, 3Amigos_FOREVER said:

Not anything to do with Keenum.  Simply means they are entertaining the idea of Kelly as the #2 and not bringing in a vet.  Keenum is always a play away from the #2 needing to step in, so it's important to have some sort of reps with the 1st team offense in the event he's needed.

Given that Keenum has been, so far, umm ... unimpressive ... the last thing they want is another media-fueled QB controversy. And Machine Gun Kelly has begun to create that. Listened to The Fan in the last week? Even for an entity that toes the Dove Valley (sorry, UC Health Training Center, thanks, Joe Ellis) party line to the nth degree, they have been talking up Kelly. 

With that in mind, we are almost assured of signing a milquetoast veteran, a Matt Moore, a Mike Glennon, someone of that ilk, and firmly and unequivocally announcing he is second on the depth chart. That will prevent fans from chanting "Kelly, Kelly, Kelly" when Keenum inevitably has a disappointing game. 

[Broncofan]

41 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

I don't really understand your concern about Paradis. He's a season removed from hip surgery so thats a big plus. Also, he hasn't missed a start in three years, 48 games, 48 starts. He's kind of an iron man.

What injury risk are you referring to?

As I noted in the first post, it's not missed games - it's the risk that his hip problems, while operated on, do not return him to the same level of play he had pre-injury.   He played last year at a mediocre level of play because he didn't have the power or flexibility he possessed before.   There's risk with 1 hip surgery - but 2?   And to boot - this was after having failed arthoscopies in 2017 in both hips, before the season.   And known that the hip's been an issue since college, and simply got worse over time despite treatment and arthroscopic cleanups pre-season.  This is literally unchartered territory in terms of recovery, no matter how rosy Paradis' statements are.   To extend him would be banking on a return to 2015 levels of play - 2017, he was very much mediocre to poor as the season wore on - specifically, power-rushes killed him.   Remember, his ability to handle power rushes was his only weakness when he was at peak performance, but his other pluses helped him overcome it, with just enough functional strength and his excellent mobility and technique.  Any loss in power or mobility, though, and that weakness becomes debilitating to achieving his 2015 levels of success.   

Until he shows that he can return to 2015 form, an extension is simply an unwise investment.  In our case, with little to no margin for error in cap management, that's just a no-go.   I have nothing but respect for the guy's heart, but long-term commitments with this level of risk, knowing he's had consecutive surgeries in 2017 & 2018 on both hips, it's unwise to say the least.

[Broncofan]

44 minutes ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Too early to talk about the potential of a new head coach for next year - though the idea does excite me - but if that's what transpires I suspect we will go the safe, veteran choice like we did after McDisaster. I think the two potentials right now, and two I would not at all mind, are John Harbaugh and Jason Garrett. Both are well-established, the former has a ring, and both are used to working with "my way or the highway-" type GMs. 

Harbaugh is a really solid choice.  Garrett, though, man, IMO he's extremely overrated.   He makes few in-game adjustments (# games DAL loses after 1H lead or tie is pretty bad under his tenure IIRC), and he squandered Romo's best years with very vanilla game management (for my well-documented adamant stance that Romo wasn't a fit at all with us in 2017, it was entirely based on his ability to play healthy behind our OL, and the fact we weren't 1 QB away).    Most hardcore DAL fans would go on for hours about the missed opps under Garrett.

It's all hypothetical anyways, but I think if we go name-searching, Harbaugh's #1 with a bullet.

EDIT:  Found the link - https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article185675483.html.  Pretty stark - he loses 1/3 of games with halftime leads, and only wins 1/3 of time when behind.  Not VJ or Hue-Jackson level awful, but not the sign of a difference-maker coach, if anything, pretty uninspired.

[AKRNA]

44 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

As I noted in the first post, it's not missed games - it's the risk that his hip problems, while operated on, do not return him to the same level of play he had pre-injury.   He played last year at a mediocre level of play because he didn't have the power or flexibility he possessed before.   There's risk with 1 hip surgery - but 2?   And to boot - this was after having failed arthoscopies in 2017 in both hips, before the season.   And known that the hip's been an issue since college, and simply got worse over time despite treatment and arthroscopic cleanups pre-season.  This is literally unchartered territory in terms of recovery, no matter how rosy Paradis' statements are.   To extend him would be banking on a return to 2015 levels of play - 2017, he was very much mediocre to poor as the season wore on - specifically, power-rushes killed him.   Remember, his ability to handle power rushes was his only weakness when he was at peak performance, but his other pluses helped him overcome it, with just enough functional strength and his excellent mobility and technique.  Any loss in power or mobility, though, and that weakness becomes debilitating to achieving his 2015 levels of success.   

Until he shows that he can return to 2015 form, an extension is simply an unwise investment.  In our case, with little to no margin for error in cap management, that's just a no-go.   I have nothing but respect for the guy's heart, but long-term commitments with this level of risk, knowing he's had consecutive surgeries in 2017 & 2018 on both hips, it's unwise to say the least.

We'll agree to disagree. Given our lack of OL depth as a whole I can't imagine a scenario where we're a better team without him.

[Broncofan]

28 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

We'll agree to disagree. Given our lack of OL depth as a whole I can't imagine a scenario where we're a better team without him.

One more contract with a vet with declining production is definitely worse off for our team.   It's one thing if they're declining and cheap, another if it's a big chunk of $$.   I say that as someone who supported Marshall's extension, but that's a prime example.  Bad 2nd contracts are a big reason for our current problems, so much it's pretty much unpalatable for us to take on additional risk of his magnitude without actual proof his latest surgeries have restored his 2015 levels of play.

If he holds up after 2018, no problem with exploring an extension (and if it's in late 2018 season as he's proven the 2018 surgeries have taken, no problem there either).  But Paradis isn't a game-changer Von-type talent we must extend now, before we see what post-3rd & 4th surgery Paradis is like.   And yes, that comes with risk we lose him, or it costs a fair bit more in the unlikely event we've suddenly got 2015 Paradis back - but the odds he is the same or worse than 2017, then an extension then is going to be more team-friendly in that event, too.   There's 1 scenario in which it pays off to extend now - and 2-3 where it's a loss.  The probabilities of those aren't equal just with natural mileage and age alone - add in the 4 operations in 2 straight offseasons, it's just not smart risk management.

The history behind extending trench guys with 4 operations on the same area in 2 straight years (or let's be generous and say operations needed in 2 consecutive years) and working out is incredibly small.  It's worth waiting on.

[AKRNA]

34 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

One more contract with a vet with declining production is definitely worse off for our team.   It's one thing if they're declining and cheap, another if it's a big chunk of $$.   I say that as someone who supported Marshall's extension, but that's a prime example.  Bad 2nd contracts are a big reason for our current problems, so much it's pretty much unpalatable for us to take on additional risk of his magnitude without actual proof his latest surgeries have restored his 2015 levels of play.

If he holds up after 2018, no problem with exploring an extension (and if it's in late 2018 season as he's proven the 2018 surgeries have taken, no problem there either).  But Paradis isn't a game-changer Von-type talent we must extend now, before we see what post-3rd & 4th surgery Paradis is like.   And yes, that comes with risk we lose him, or it costs a fair bit more in the unlikely event we've suddenly got 2015 Paradis back - but the odds he is the same or worse than 2017, then an extension then is going to be more team-friendly in that event, too.   There's 1 scenario in which it pays off to extend now - and 2-3 where it's a loss.  The probabilities of those aren't equal just with natural mileage and age alone - add in the 4 operations in 2 straight offseasons, it's just not smart risk management.

The history behind extending trench guys with 4 operations on the same area in 2 straight years (or let's be generous and say operations needed in 2 consecutive years) and working out is incredibly small.  It's worth waiting on.

Like I said, we'll just agree to disagree.

[jolly red giant]

4 hours ago, AnAngryAmerican said:

Given that Keenum has been, so far, umm ... unimpressive ... the last thing they want is another media-fueled QB controversy. And Machine Gun Kelly has begun to create that. Listened to The Fan in the last week? Even for an entity that toes the Dove Valley (sorry, UC Health Training Center, thanks, Joe Ellis) party line to the nth degree, they have been talking up Kelly. 

With that in mind, we are almost assured of signing a milquetoast veteran, a Matt Moore, a Mike Glennon, someone of that ilk, and firmly and unequivocally announcing he is second on the depth chart. That will prevent fans from chanting "Kelly, Kelly, Kelly" when Keenum inevitably has a disappointing game. 

Don't think this happens - and I don't think it happens because of cap space - to bring in a vet would require eating Paxton's dead money and paying the vet - there is little wiggle-room and we have bigger needs.

I think if Keenum gets injured then we sign a vet (unless Lynch is still on the books and Joseph has already tanked the season).