Jump to content

When VJ gets fired

jsthomp2007

By jsthomp2007
in Denver Broncos

Recommended Posts

lomaxgrUK

lomaxgrUK

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, germ-x said:

Hell.  If we’re going to go the offensive minded HC route, let’s just bring McDaniels back.  

Personality and character matter, no matter how good your scheme is. He's done absolutely nothing to repair his image since leaving Denver; by some miracle, he's actually managed to find himself more hated around the league thanks to his stunt with the Colts (and his punk, coward reaction to it).

Whoever McDaniels does takeover I will actively root against; that is how much I hate the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
germ-x

germ-x

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, lomaxgrUK said:

Personality and character matter, no matter how good your scheme is. He's done absolutely nothing to repair his image since leaving Denver; by some miracle, he's actually managed to find himself more hated around the league thanks to his stunt with the Colts (and his punk, coward reaction to it).

Whoever McDaniels does takeover I will actively root against; that is how much I hate the guy.

Haha, I was kidding.

After watching the game last night this team does need to get into the shotgun/zone read stuff.  The NFL is turning into a space game, maybe it’s because of Keenum, but Musgraves 1990s/2000s offense just doesn’t consistently work in today’s league.

Luckily, Denver’s built quite well roster wise to do this, outside of maybe QB.  Lindsay is made for that type of system.  Freeman came from it, but fits as the hammer.  Denver also has talent at WR.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broncofan

Broncofan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, germ-x said:

Haha, I was kidding.

After watching the game last night this team does need to get into the shotgun/zone read stuff.  The NFL is turning into a space game, maybe it’s because of Keenum, but Musgraves 1990s/2000s offense just doesn’t consistently work in today’s league.

Luckily, Denver’s built quite well roster wise to do this, outside of maybe QB.  Lindsay is made for that type of system.  Freeman came from it, but fits as the hammer.  Denver also has talent at WR.  

One thing a more progressive scheme would also help is in our pass protection.   Using play-action under center is great in theory, unless the D isn't buying it - in which case, Keenum has his back turned to the LOS and needs even more time to make his reads - which is a huge weakness in his game.   

Now, I don't think being in the gun / spread will help him that much from Keenum's inherent weakness, but having him with no ability to start his reads for 3 steps before he looks up, well, that's a formula that's setting us up for failure, and only accentuating his weaknesses.   I did like what Musgrave started out with - but the problem is that his scheme calls for a QB who can make quick reads and anticipate with above-average ball placement - which the old Derek Carr version did magnificently (the current one, not anywhere close).     Keenum doesn't do any of that well.  Add in very poor pocket awareness, and it's a huge reason why our scheme is stagnant except against weak pass D's.  

Lindsay/Freeman, and Sutton/Hamilton/Sanders would all fit a more modern scheme quite well.  We could draft another late round RB to make sure Lindsay doesn't get overused.    But it does start with committing to a more progressive scheme.  Today's rules actually creates the advantage in using more spread concepts - the key being still being able to run in that scheme, as balance is the X-factor that makes the best O's hum.   KC, NO (who are going a little crazy with Taysom Hill packages lol) & LAR are all-seen as high-octane modern O's, but they have a run game they can lean on at any time.  Even PHI last year won with a solid run game, albeit by a top 5 OL and a RBBC in that spread RPO,  rather than using 1 alpha RB.  Lots of different ways to get it done, but balance is key.   Still, there's no doubt a progressive scheme works way better in today's NFL - and ironically, helps the run game more than it does the pass game IMO (since it penalizes D's with big plays if they try stacking the box).

It's easier if the HC is the guy who wants this change, but either way, power I formation with a 5-7 step drop is a totally wrong fit with Keenum's limited abilities, and long-term, probably doesn't get us anywhere.  Even the WCO portion Musgrave has in place (with his power elements) doesn't work well, given Keenum isn't the quick-read, throw-with-anticipation trigger man to make the WCO work.   

Whether it's the HC, or the OC the HC brings in, change in the O philosophy is really necessary.  And that's where Elway/Kubiak being willing to cede more control to the next HC/OC, is going to be crucial.  Just like the old zone-block / cut-block heavy scheme that Shanahan & then Kubiak used magnificently became outdated as the rules and athletic profiles of the trenches changed...so is the standard dink and dunk WCO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jolly red giant

jolly red giant

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bMiller031 said:

The ironic thing is that we'd all be banging the table for a guy like McDaniels if not for his first stint here. He fits the profile of what we're looking for perfectly. 

McDaniels has Brady in NE - anyone who thinks that McDaniels doesn't benefit significantly from having Brady needs a scope inserted in their posterior

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebestever6

thebestever6

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

McDaniels has Brady in NE - anyone who thinks that McDaniels doesn't benefit significantly from having Brady needs a scope inserted in their posterior

I like Brady but I do think he's a bit over valued. The personnel Bellicheck has always gotten Brady on offense is amazing. I mean that system and culture I don't think will ever be matched again.  I mean they're using Patterson as an rb now. And his weapons definitely look solid this year. 

But Brady has had his best success under Mac. There's a reason they wouldn't let Mac walk out the door. So between Bill B coach/gm , brady, McDaniels I credit them all for their offensive success.

 

Since 2001 New England plays chess why every other team plays checkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bMiller031

bMiller031

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

McDaniels has Brady in NE - anyone who thinks that McDaniels doesn't benefit significantly from having Brady needs a scope inserted in their posterior

Settle down. My point was that he's a "young progressive offensive mind" and it's not like we haven't heard that phrase uttered dozens of times in this forum over the past 18 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
germ-x

germ-x

Posted
Posted

I am with most that we need to go with an offensive minded HC.  The game has just evolved to the point that you can’t have an offense operating almost exclusively outside of the zone/space game.  The NFL and it’s rules are built for that type of offense.

However, I’m not of the opinion that it means you completely exclude defensive minds.  Like anything else, the NFL moves in waves.  At some point in the near future NFL defenses will catch up and figure it out, even with the rules favoring offenses. There will be a defensive trend that hits it big and all of a sudden that will be the fad.

I want the best coach, pure and simple, don’t care if it’s offensive, defensive, special teams, a former HC, or a brand new one.  

Regardless of what side of the ball is hired, though, there is no doubt a more modern offensive mind needs to be in the building.  I’ve liked what Musgraves has done with the running game, but his ability to get players in space to make plays is atrocious and most teams in the league are able to do this with relative ease a handful or more times a game. I keep going back to the simple crossing route, Denver literally can’t make this work when it’s a staple play for a big gain or 2 for even bad teams in this league.  With the ability to basically pick players clean without getting caught a few times a game it’s ridiculous Denver hasn’t figured this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...