Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Looking for someone to blame in DEN?


Bronco Billy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

so according to you, the problem with the broncos offense is that they've done what you basically swore up and down all offseason they wouldn't, in elevating tatum over mike and using both in committee. gee, who saw that coming. :D

 

 

Not to get into a pissing contest, but what evidence was there before this season that Shanahan would ever do something as stupid as alternating RBs every series? And what evidence or precedence was there for Shanahan starting T Bell over M Bell after M Bell being named the #1 RB all preseason & Shanahan and others on the coaching staff & management saying that T Bell was a CoP RB and wasn't capable of being a featured RB - with his career stats plainly backing those opinions up?

 

So, if you are saying you saw that coming before the season started, I'd say you were basing your opinion on nothing more than wild guessing with no facts to back it up - in which case the blind squirrel/acorn theory applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get into a pissing contest, but what evidence was there before this season that Shanahan would ever do something as stupid as alternating RBs every series?

 

well, perhaps the fact that he basically did it ALL YEAR LONG last year :D

 

edit: and, i believe, was second in the league in rushing yardage in doing so.

 

edit2: no, i didn't see tatum as 1a and mike as 1b coming before the season started. but unlike you, i didn't PRETEND to know exactly what WAS coming. one thing i know with shanahan is to expect the unexpected when it comes to the running back position. so you won't catch me out on any of those limbs you like to hang out on.

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, perhaps the fact that he basically did it ALL YEAR LONG last year :D

 

edit: and, i believe, was second in the league in rushing yardage in doing so.

 

edit2: no, i didn't see tatum as 1a and mike as 1b coming before the season started. but unlike you, i didn't PRETEND to know exactly what WAS coming. one thing i know with shanahan is to expect the unexpected when it comes to the running back position. so you won't catch me out on any of those limbs you like to hang out on.

 

 

He didn't do the "rotate RB's every other series" last year, but has suddenly decided it's a good idea.

 

Edit #2 is probably right. :lol: I made the mistake of thinking that M. Bell was going to run away with the opportunity. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't do the "rotate RB's every other series" last year, but has suddenly decided it's a good idea.

 

last year, when tatum came in it would usually be for a series, and not a play here or there. maybe it was every 3rd or 4th series and not every other series (it wasn't strictly every other series yesterday either), but it was essentially the same sort of pattern.

 

the rotation shanny has decided to go with makes sense, i think (even though i hate it as a mike bell FF owner in a couple leagues). they think tatum is their biggest threat at RB, but they don't think he can stand to more than 10-15 carries on a regular basis. so this is their answer, and honestly i don't think it is the problem with their offense AT ALL. the problem is that their passing game SUCKS right now. it's a combination of jake sucking balls, lame play calling, receivers dropping passes and screwing up routes. the chiefs let their corners man-up on the WRs all day yesterday, and we didnt even come CLOSE to taking advantage until the 4th Q/OT when they put together a couple halfway decent drives.

 

like i said, a lot of it is poor play by plummer, but i also think a major factor is the coaching change, going from kubiak to hiemerdinger. dinger's a very good offensive coach, but i think it's taking a while for the offensive "team" (shanny, dinger, and dennison) to get completely on the same page. it is obviously NOT a well-oiled machine at this point. i'm optimistic it will get there, but cripes....i hope it happens sooner rather than later. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last year, when tatum came in it would usually be for a series, and not a play here or there. maybe it was every 3rd or 4th series and not every other series (it wasn't strictly every other series yesterday either), but it was essentially the same sort of pattern.

 

the rotation shanny has decided to go with makes sense, i think (even though i hate it as a mike bell FF owner in a couple leagues). they think tatum is their biggest threat at RB, but they don't think he can stand to more than 10-15 carries on a regular basis. so this is their answer, and honestly i don't think it is the problem with their offense AT ALL. the problem is that their passing game SUCKS right now. it's a combination of jake sucking balls, lame play calling, receivers dropping passes and screwing up routes. the chiefs let their corners man-up on the WRs all day yesterday, and we didnt even come CLOSE to taking advantage until the 4th Q/OT when they put together a couple halfway decent drives.

 

like i said, a lot of it is poor play by plummer, but i also think a major factor is the coaching change, going from kubiak to hiemerdinger. dinger's a very good offensive coach, but i think it's taking a while for the offensive "team" (shanny, dinger, and dennison) to get completely on the same page. it is obviously NOT a well-oiled machine at this point. i'm optimistic it will get there, but cripes....i hope it happens sooner rather than later. :D

 

 

That's what I started wondering about yesterday. Could Kubiak have had more to do with the offense than I originally thought? Perhaps the offense of the last couple of years was better because of Kubiak. All I know is that if Shanny is trying to protect or hide Plummer, then that needs to be fixed real quick. Even if it means Denver has to go through it's lumps in the short term. If it's an entire offense issue, then again, Shanny had better fix that real quick because if he thinks for a second that the Pats will be kept out of the endzone next week, he's kidding himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good analysis BB! I think that the blame falls on Shanny, Mike Heimerdinger and Rick Dennison. I saw the same thing while at the game yesterday and while watching the Rams game last week. Whenever T. Bell was in the game the Defensive ends would crash the outside and caught us each time Jake came around on his naked bootleg. The same thing happened in the first quarter Sunday. We didn't run it again the entire game and it was there while M. Bell was in the game...some of our biggest gains came on the back to back end arounds and on the back to back outside tosses to M. Bell ( thought it was funny that they ran the exact same plays back to back twice :D ) It's always easy to be an armchair QB on Monday but I hope that they see the tendencies on game film! Otherwise it will be a long day in New England! Maybe the Patriots can get Sharpe to do a guest appearance on the Patriots sideline... "Mr. President we are going to need the National Guard!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, perhaps the fact that he basically did it ALL YEAR LONG last year :D

 

 

 

Well, considering that Anderson had 38% more carries last season than T Bell, and that T Bell & Anderson did not alternate series, I'd say that what you are calling "facts" are false. If you'd like to argue this point you are making based upon your false assumption, I'll be glad to accomodate you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I mention that the Chiefs D was the first team in 45 years to hold the donks scoreless in the first half at home :D:lol:

 

 

You might be the only person I've ever seen brag after his team just lost to move to 0-2....... :lol:

 

...and they call me a blind homer !!!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, considering that Anderson had 38% more carries last season than T Bell

 

and tatum is getting almost EXACTLY the same ratio more carries this year.

 

and that T Bell & Anderson did not alternate series

 

yes, they did. when tatum came in last year, it would usually be for a whole series and not for a play here and there. as i said before, it wasn't stricly every OTHER series, but the bell rotation this year hasn't been either.

 

again, the coaches decided tatum bell is their best back, but he's not durable beyond 10-15 carries. given that determination, the rotation they decided on makes perfect sense...and based on similar rotations they've employed effectively in the past, like last year with tatum and anderson, it should not be terribly surprising. in two games so far this year, they've put up 161 and 145 yards rushing, respectively, against defenses stacked to stop the run. not earth shattering, but not horrible either. i agree with you that their play calling with each back in the game has been pretty predictable and pretty bad. but the RB rotation itself has not been the problem...the problem has been turnovers, a pathetic passing game, and poor play calling in general. you're only blaming the RB rotation because you have egg on your face after trumpeting mike bell all preseason long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

yes, they did. when tatum came in last year, it would usually be for a whole series and not for a play here and there. as i said before, it wasn't stricly every OTHER series, but the bell rotation this year hasn't been either.

 

you're only blaming the RB rotation because you have egg on your face after trumpeting mike bell all preseason long.

 

 

Speaking of having egg on one's face, here's the way Tatum Bell was used last year (in other words, here are the facts):

 

He carried the football in 81 series. Of those 81 series, there is definitive proof that there was another RB that carried the ball in that same series that Bell had at least 1 carry in 53 series (46 when he shared carries in the same series as Anderson, 5 series when he carried the ball in the same series as Dayne, and 2 series where he carried in the same series as Anderson and Dayne) and 28 series where there is no evidence of another RB touching the football. Of those 28 where there is only documentation of Bell carrying exclusively, 9 were series either at the end of a half, late in the game after it was long decided, or a 1 or 2 play drive after a turnover that ended in a quick score. Of the 19 that remain where Bell carried the ball exclusively, some came in week 1 vs MIA, where Anderson got hurt in the second series where Bell didn't play in either of the first 2 series, and then Bell was the only active RB on the roster (Dayne was inactive week 1).

 

You can go through the 2005 Bronco gamebooks at nfl.com just like I did if you care to verify these numbers. In short, you don't know what you are talking about - but you ought to be used to that by now, shouldn't you?

 

And this season is only 2 games old, and if I'm not mistaken, M Bell has been more successful as far as FF numbers are concerned than T Bell has been, so I wouldn't be making some triumphant statement about how wrong I was quite yet, my badly mistaken & misguided friend.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, full disclosure, I'm a Mike Bell owner in one of five leagues, and Tatum in none. No the biggest deal to me one way or the other.

 

But the facts are that under Shanahan, the Denver RB spot has historically been one of the most consistant. I believe (BB help me out) that TD set some records back when in terms of getting highest percentage of his teams carries. I did own TD in my local dynasty league his entire career, and I remember distinctly the other owners getting upset that he was still getting carries in the fourth quarter of games when the Broncs were up by 20 points. Lots of garbage time tds for TD. Thenalong came Portis. He has set records for most carries in first four or five years to start a career, I beleive. Mike Shananhan wants nothing more than there to be one guy. Give the rock to one guy, let him carry it 27 times, and walk out with 125 yads and a couple of tds. The only time he strays from that is due to injuries or if he doesn't have a guy that is capabale, for whatever reason, of being a 300 carry RB.

 

I'm holding on to Mike Bell still. I think by the end of the year, and starting sooner rather than later, he will be getting 80% or more of the carries. All it may take is a little tweak of an ankle by Tatum, but Mike is the better back for this system, and the cream will rise to the top eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of having egg on one's face, here's the way Tatum Bell was used last year (in other words, here are the facts):

 

He carried the football in 81 series. Of those 81 series, there is definitive proof that there was another RB that carried the ball in that same series that Bell had at least 1 carry in 53 series (46 when he shared carries in the same series as Anderson, 5 series when he carried the ball in the same series as Dayne, and 2 series where he carried in the same series as Anderson and Dayne) and 28 series where there is no evidence of another RB touching the football. Of those 28 where there is only documentation of Bell carrying exclusively, 9 were series either at the end of a half, late in the game after it was long decided, or a 1 or 2 play drive after a turnover that ended in a quick score. Of the 19 that remain where Bell carried the ball exclusively, some came in week 1 vs MIA, where Anderson got hurt in the second series where Bell didn't play in either of the first 2 series, and then Bell was the only active RB on the roster (Dayne was inactive week 1).

 

:D wow that is desperate. i love how you take any instance where anderson came in for short yardage, or where anderson or bell came in to spell each other for a play on a long drive or after a long run as proof of your harebrained theory that shanahan has suddenly started utilizing bell and bell markedly differently than he utilized anderson and bell. anyone who watched the broncos last year knows that when one back was in, he tended to stay in for the series. that's something shanahan has done going back to when he used olandis gary to spell TD! it's something MOST NFL coaches to with their backup RBs from time to time. believe it or not, it's not something shanny invented to make you look like an ass.

 

regardless, what exactly is the difference? are you saying the 60/40 tatum-to-mike ratio would be fine if they only brought mike in for a few plays here and there instead of a whole series? i don't think it is. again, i think your gripe is that it's tatum getting the 60 and mike getting the 40...which just brings it back to you being pissed about jumping head first on the mike bell bandwagon and being dead ass wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D wow that is desperate. i love how you take any instance where anderson came in for short yardage, or where anderson or bell came in to spell each other for a play on a long drive or after a long run as proof of your harebrained theory that shanahan has suddenly started utilizing bell and bell markedly differently than he utilized anderson and bell. anyone who watched the broncos last year knows that when one back was in, he tended to stay in for the series. that's something shanahan has done going back to when he used olandis gary to spell TD! it's something MOST NFL coaches to with their backup RBs from time to time. believe it or not, it's not something shanny invented to make you look like an ass.

 

regardless, what exactly is the difference? are you saying the 60/40 tatum-to-mike ratio would be fine if they only brought mike in for a few plays here and there instead of a whole series? i don't think it is. again, i think your gripe is that it's tatum getting the 60 and mike getting the 40...which just brings it back to you being pissed about jumping head first on the mike bell bandwagon and being dead ass wrong.

 

 

How is provided factual data desperate? I would suggest, and so would the numbers that I posted, that you are wrong. I say again, look at the data set and you'll find that Bell was in during the same series as another RB a predominance of the time when Bell got his playing time. You think by simply coming here & blustering, using phrases like "anyone who watched the Broncos knows", that you can fool people into thinking you know what you are talking about. I say to you that you are wrong, that the data easily available to anyone with access to the internet can clearly see that you are wrong, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, rather than simply calling me an ass.

 

Personally, I don't care who Shanahan uses - and I made that quite clear in my opening post in this thread if you could possibly take the time to read my posts rather than look for any reason to try to stick a barb in me with false information, as is your wont - as long as he decides on a featured RB, because this alternating series crap ain't working and the offense is suffering tremendously in part because of it. If it's Tatum Bell, so be it, though I don't think he can carry being a featured RB, especially with what DEN demands of its featured RBs. If it's Mike Bell, so be it. If it's Cobbs for Pete's sake, so be that - though I still thinking keeping Cobbs & cutting Dayne was a huge mistake.

 

It's got nothing to do with my ego - it's an assessment of what I think is wrong with the DEN O. If I'm wrong about M Bell, who frickin' cares, as long as the O gets untracked. And I'll stand here, sack up, and admit that I'm wrong.

 

But I'll give you some advice, my friend. If you want to prove me wrong, you had better do more than make crap up, pound your chest about how "anyone who watched last year" knows something, and start the sophomoric namecalling when in fact you don't have a clue what you are talking about. This was a pattern for you when I was here before, and now you're starting the same nonsense again. You have some kind of issue with me, and I'm not sure what it is, but if you can't deal with it I would suggest that you don't read my posts. But posting false crap and then thinking by intimidation that you can make it true? Well, you see what happens....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh i'm sorry BB, i didn't realize it was that time of month :D:D

 

look, last year, mike anderson had 239 carries to tatum bell's 173. that means between the two, anderson had 58% of the carries and tatum had 42%. seemed to work alright, as they finished up the year second in the NFL in rushing. this year so far, tatum has 31 carries to mike bell's 23. that is 57% of the carries for tatum, 43% for mike. right now they're sitting 4th in the NFL in rushing. sounds to me like we've been here before. they have major problems right now, but their imagined "new" RB approach is not high on that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there will be a big difference in consistency on offense if the RBs are switched every other series (Bells this year) vs. 2 or 3 series on and 1 off with the RB getting the lesser share taking a few random carries from the RB getting the 2 or 3 series (Anderson/Bell). even if both result in 60/40 the current situation is very predictable and won't result in either RB or the offense getting on track.

 

it's apparent for any D-coordinator with a pulse at this point.

 

I'll give Kubiak his due but Shanahan is no slouch himself. I'm pretty sure he knows that D-coordinators now have a whole 120 minutes of tape with the current situation. He'll have no choice but to make a decision on one of the Bells soon.

Edited by kingfish247
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shows what having Herm Edwards as a coach will do to your fans. They are esctatic just to be in the game.

:lol:

 

CrazedBronco

 

 

Hey splash splash_bag maybe you should be considering yourself lucky you won, your sorry @$$ team should have been blown out, if not for the clock mgmnt (which Jets fans warned us about) your team was terrible yesterday, the better team did not win, keep telling yourself whatever and I will do the same. I know my team is in trouble........but the Chiefs played that well BECAUSE of Herm, he game planned well. The Donks D couldn't stop LJ even when they knew what was coming, Larry might as well have pointed to the direction he was going to go :D

 

 

All I have heard the last what 5-6 years is how terrible the Chiefs D is, well they just played better than anyone has in mile high/invesco, whatever you want to call that dump, in a long time. I never came in here other than for my team to get a little respect, the defense is better, we are down our franchise QB who started for 81 straight games. Did anyone give the Chiefs a chance, nope.....did anyone give them props for the way they played.....nope...just shows the class of you Oprah_tards...and Menudo, don't get involved in something that's none of your business, I never do that to you......and I have for the most part always backed you up, maybe I should re-think that :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information