SB Nation User Blog: super7

Not a Pats fan but the 'rebuilding' talk is REDICULOUS!

super7 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:10:06 -0000

Hi guys - I'm a sbnation guy but a milehighreport.com (Broncos) guy first and foremost. I have lot of family and buddies from Mass who are big Pats fans and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills (Zoolander quote) because they're all on the ledge. I figured I'd post something over here because sometimes its nice to have someone take a look at your team who doesn't care as much as you do. Here's my take:

Truth is guys and gals, this is how the NFL works these days. You drop games you should have won and vice versa. The top 16 teams in the league are all really good. The difference between the Saints (maybe 16-0 soon) and the Dolphins (no real playoff shot) is two or three playmakers (or a draft pick and a few lucky/shrewd free agent moves). That's it. My Broncos were becoming one of the 'bad' franchises until our owner slammed on the brakes, took the wheel, and found a guy who knew how to steer a team and stay consistently competitive in today's league. He learned from your favorite franchise. It's a huge compliment that the "Patriot way" is more popular on NFL sidelines thank dreadlocks and backwards hats.

New England's biggest wart right now is a future positive one: the defense is getting younger. That's a good thing. On the flip side, young teams lose pressure games, i.e. away games, and take time to get better.

I know it's tough to swallow seeing as how those are the exact games your team used to win in such a businesslike manner. But guys got older and the fans and the press get spoiled.

I saw an article on ESPN.com this evening sayin the Pats were rebuilding and laughed out loud. That's proposterous. Maybe they aren't dominating but what did you expect? 2007? That was the best single season-regular season team in history. But that'll never happen again. Ever. Well, on second thought, let's see what the Saints do this year.

Now, that said, I have proof the Pats aren't rebuilding. They are actually in a prime spot to make a run through the postseason and they'll only get better seeing as how their young defense has gotten trial by fire this year.

We have a fantastic blogger over at MHR named 'TJ Johnson who puts a weekly article togethr called 'The Stats Don't Lie'. Reading this week's submission, I realized that the Pats are ranked in the top 10 or damn close in every relevant offensive stat when it comes to predicting team wins.

Pats are 4th in giveaways/game

Pats are 5th in turnover margin/game

Pats are 13th in average starting field position

Pats are 2nd in Time of Posession

Pats are 5th in 3rd down coversion percentage

On the defensive side of the ball, the pats have the #8 run D and the #18 pass D. Their secondary will only get better and they've already played the Colts and the Saints (ON THE ROAD no less). Who are they going to play with better pass offenses than either of those teams? Nobody. And the Colts downright STOLE that game. Let's see them do it twice. If things go well for the Pats from here, they'll get a rematch with those two teams as the last 2 games of the year. Both would be winnable games and I'd put money on the Pats facing the Saints for a second time.

Lastly, on the whole road record topic, they've played Miami, Denver, New Orleans, Indianapolis, the Jets (when they were good), and the Bucs on the road this year. New Orleans and Indy are 26-0. Denver's 8-4. Miami's 6-6 and the only two home losses they have this year are...wait for it...Indy and New Orleans! No reason for the Pats to hang their heads with a 1-4 road record in 2009 so far. In fact, the Pats have lost to tough home teams this year by 7, 3, 1, 1, and 21. That 21 is the abberation. Trust me. Every team has a stinker these days (well, except for Indy and the Saints...so far). The Pats had theirs in a really big, prime-time game this year.

That wasn't the most important game of the year for the Pats players. I can promise you that. The most important game of the year to them is later on in February.

Good luck this season & go Broncos! And for $%@#&^s sake, take it easy. the Pats are fine.

So...we're ALL frustrated with the media. I get it...

super7 — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:10:04 -0000

I think we're averaging 3 or 4 fan posts a week on this topic of media. We all need to get over it. Me included.

Most outlets think the Broncos stink and will stink and are stupid. That's their right and somebody (regardless of whether they should or shouldn't) pays that person to write down their opions. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean the analyst's job is incomplete or unfounded.

It's a chicken and the egg type of situation right now. Did our demand for specialized information create this divisive type of media coverage or did the media coverage cause fans to act derisively towards the media?

The answer is: who cares.

To use a cliche postgame interview quote: "it just it what it is."

After the jump is a great article that sums it up for me and generally speaking, is something we should all remember before climbing back up on the soap box to rant about how callow John Clayton's analysis of the Denver Broncos was or is.

The following is from Football Outsiders today, written by Mike Tanier:

You know more about football than the typical "expert" knew 25 years ago.

Back in 1984, it was nearly impossible to watch more than three NFL games in a typical week: the early Sunday game, the late game, and the Monday Night game. Now, you can watch seven or eight without breaking a sweat: three Sunday games, the Monday Night game, and as many as four NFL Network Shortcut games.

In 1984, you watched the home team and a handful of the top national teams, like the Cowboys or Dolphins. A Philadelphia area fan could go two or three seasons with no opportunity at all to see, say, the Falcons: They rarely played the Eagles, were blacked out on CBS whenever the Eagles played, and made few appearances on national television. Now, it’s easy to keep track of a low-profile team on the other side of the country, and Matt Ryan’s family in the Delaware Valley can watch him all year for the price of a satellite dish or a trip to a sports bar.

In 1984, those of us with VCRs could record grainy, clunky game tape. Now, we can conveniently tape games in high-definition with the push of a DVR or Tivo button. With a satellite dish, we can tape two or more Sunday games while watching two others.

In 1984, we read the local paper for our news. We got plenty of information on the home team, a few insights about past or future opponents, and AP reports and capsules about the rest of the league. An ambitious fan might subscribe to The Sporting News, Pro Football Weekly, maybe a gambling service. Now, we search the Internet and get our information straight from the sources. If we need to know about the Bills, we read Buffalo News. If we want a national roundup, we have a hundred choices.

We got our stats from tiny, agate-type midweek lists and from the backs of magazines in 1984. Now, we get them from Football Outsiders and Pro Football Reference and NFL.com. Pregame shows were a half hour long in 1984. Their length has nearly quadrupled, and while their information content hasn't, they provide more knowledge than Phyllis George or Jimmy the Greek did.

You get the idea. You watch more football, read more about football, ingest more data and opinion about football than it was possible to absorb just 25 years ago. High level experts and analysts of that era could easily gain an edge over the common fan: they could get their hands on out-of-town papers or game tape, interview a player or telephone a colleague, go to the basement to search the stacks.

Those advantages barely exist anymore. You can watch a press conference or download the transcript. You can read the out-of-town blogs. The marginal knowledge that separates the extremely passionate fan -- and that’s what you are if you are still reading at this point -- from the professional football analyst has grown very small, and it’s shrinking constantly.

That’s why you find your local columnist frustrating, the television color commentator unlistenable: you know too much, and they probably haven’t changed with the times.

That's one reason why newspapers are scrambling to stay in business. The marginal knowledge gap doesn't just exist in sports, but in current events, entertainment, and other fields as well. Your local paper is still learning how to compete with CNN.com or with pundit-like bloggers of all philosophies when covering national news, with TMZ.com and fanboy sites for entertainment news. It’s a scary fact that some newspapers just won't be able to compete, and many have folded or cut to the quick.

It's a reason Football Outsiders stays in business and people like me get writing opportunities. Our databases are a source of extra knowledge, information you cannot get anywhere else. You may read the Buffalo News before I do, you may research Schonert’s career on your own and acquire more information than I have time to provide. But I know that the Bills went 0-for-15 on third-and-10 situations last year, and while you also have access to that information (page 29 of FOA) I had it before you did, which could have made a big difference if Schonert was fired in July.

The realization that marginal knowledge is always shrinking forces conscientious, dedicated football analysts -- and yes, I consider myself conscientious and dedicated -- to keep learning more about the game. For me, that means studying more game tape, because strategy and play diagrams have become my niche. For Football Outsiders, that means more research and more stat compilation. We can stay relevant, interesting, and in-demand by introducing new stats and methods like the FEI, Speed Scores, Receiving Plus-Minus, and by freeze framing plays and counting empty-backfield plays so no one else has to. If we stop evolving and adapting, someone will pass us by, individually or as an organization.

Anyone can write an article about Turk Schonert. Anyone can compile quotes, cite stats, add a little spin. Heck, anyone can transfer play-by-play onto some spreadsheets, type in a few formulas, and create some DVOA-like stats. We survive by surfing a tiny whitecap of knowledge, by working harder and harder to know a little more and to impart that knowledge in an entertaining way.

It's daunting. It's stressful. And I wouldn't want it any other way. I'm in this business to learn more and to pass along what I’m learning, not to string together second-hand facts.

I just thought this was interesting and a timely read.

GO BRONCOS...

Merriman BUSTED for battery and false imprisonment on Mtv personality

super7 — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:30:02 -0000

Merriman BUSTED for battery and false imprisonment on Mtv personality

uh oh. what a bonehead

WHY?

super7 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:36:31 -0000

I keep asking myself why I even look for news any more on (other) blogs, the national sites, and on the local sites.

I still don't know why I do, but I need to think about stopping because this is all giving me SUCH a headache.

Why is there genuine panic in the streets (trust me if you don't live here, people are FREAKING out) here in Denver, on the radio, and on TV?

NOBODY, not even John Clayton, Vic Lombardi, Peter King, Gary Miller, Woody Paige, Mark Kizla, Matthew Berry, Mike Florio, Mike Klis, Alfred Williams, or Chris Collinsworth has any clue what is going on with the Denver Broncos.

Have you been to week 8 and traveled back from the future?

Do you know exactly what the offense and defense look like in real (read: NOT PRACTICE) games?

Are the Broncos 0-8?

Have they even gotten one interception?

Has Kyle Orton thrown more picks than TDs?

Is Brandstater playing?

WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON AROUND HERE!?!?!

(Breathes into paper sack)

Okay, you're aloud to speculate. You're allowed to let your imagination run free like Terrell Davis in the postseason, but PLEASE don't let it turn you into the emotional equivalent of Rush Limbaugh the day after Obama took office. You're better than that.

So what if the precious "franchise quarterback" (laughable tag, by the way) was traded?

So what if we go 5-11 this year (that's what Denver's record really was last year in my eyes anyway seeing as how the Saints and Chargers beat us on the field but the refs let the Broncos win on the scoreboard)? We'll get through it.

So what if you HATE the new coach? Been there before too. I HATED Wade Phillips. I HATED Dan Reeves at the end. The last few years I was starting to HATE Shanny's ridiculous personnel moves. You're allowed to hate the coach, but he's not the leader of the free world, he's a FOOTBALL COACH. He'll make mistakes. Heck, he already has. The Cutler thing was a mistake. That is...until it's not. Apparently Josh is GUILTY until proven innocent on this one. Why? I thought Broncos fans were good fans, not Philly boo birds.

Get off the ledge Broncos fans, you're making this Broncos fan uncomfortable and embarrassed. I can't read any news because its way to critical and judgemental and has so much conjecture oozing from every other sentence that nobody has any credibility and I can't believe any of it until I see it with my own eyes.

It's just a game. They are in the ENTERTAINMENT business. If its not entertaining, turn it off and stop reading about it.

A few more gripes:

Sandy Clough, get the EFF over it. Josh McDaniels doesn't HAVE to talk to the local guys. Why would he? NOBODY READS THE PAPER and most people hit ESPN and CNNSI before they even think about going back to the local stuff when they want sports news. I get it, you think he's acting like a petulant child. Maybe he is, but who cares? Why are YOU mad about it? Sour grapes.

Bloggers, if the report or rumor doesn't have a legitimate source, it's not a report or a rumor. Don't blog about it, wait and see if its true or not. No need to troll the internet looking for a sentence somebody didn't check twice. Come on, have a little respect for yourself.

The Denver Broncos, you NEED Brandon Marshall. He's your best offensive weapon and the only player that defensive coordinators have to plan for. He makes everyone's job easier (on the field). There is NO PLAYER IN THE NFL other than a top 12 QB or top 10 D-Lineman that I would trade him for. Even if we don't have him in our long term plans, we NEED him to stay a Bronco and play this year because we CAN and WILL get great value for him next year. Personally, I don't think you 'cut bait' with that level of talent unless someone knocks your socks off with a great offer. Pat Bowlen needs to call Brandon back to his office and tell him that he's the star player on his football team and that he needs him (regardless of his true, personal feelings). He needs to beg him to shut the heck up and please go help his team. It's what's best for both parties. Pat can promise to get Brandon paid in the second half of the season if he's on pace (statistically) for a good season. If you trade him, I won't be upset, it was just my opinion that you should have kept him. I won't have a bone to pick with you and I won't hold a grudge because you are my favorite sports team, and you can do whatever you want.

The fans: settle down. Stop booing. The Broncos aren't gonna be awesome this year, but we weren't gonna anyway. We might have to find better players at some of our positions before we can challenge for the AFC title, but we also might not have to. I'm willing to be patient. If you are NOT willing to be patient, go buy Madden and win the Super Bowl. If what the press is writing seems like they're grasping at straws, it's because they are. They don't know what else to write, but YOU DON'T have to read their crap. You have probably played and watched just as much football as they have in their lives. Make your own judgement on what your team is doing and will do this year. You're just as good of a judge as they are. I hope it doesn't matter to you what other people think or write about a football team that you don't own or play for. It shouldn't matter. Your opinion matters. You're a fan. Without you, the Denver Broncos would have moved to Atlanta in 1964. Don't wait for some guy in a booth or a press box or with a deadline tell you what to think about a team that you know WAY more about.

The press: Stop it. Stop throwing stones. You look like children. Wait until you can make a credible assessment of what this team can and will do in 2009 and beyond. This is a brand new coach, organization, offense, offensive scheme, defense, defensive scheme, special teams, special teams scheme. We have new QBs, RBs, WRs, LBs, DEs, NTs, CBs, Safeties, kick returners, and even a new long snapper. WHAT THE HECK DID YOU EXPECT? You have NO IDEA what you're talking about. Save your judgement for week 8. Please don't sacrifice credibility for buzz. It makes you look desperate.

(Breathes into paper bag)

Thanks and Go BRONCOS (no matter what, right? Right)

PRESEASON STOCK WATCH: the 2009 Denver Broncos

super7 — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:17:01 -0000

Buy, sell, or hold?

That's a trading floor question, but applied to the Denver Broncos after 8 quarters of two publically televised practice games, what do you think?

As a basis for current stock price, I asked myself: "is this unit better than, worse than, or as advertised to the public by the press and the team before the preseason".

As for my opinion...

The defensive front 3.....Buy (a cautious buy) but considering the low price, the time is right. Le Kevin Smith was a great get and on the cheap. He allows for more depth on the ends. Chris Baker has a lot of potential and I'm curious to see if he'll get in on running downs and move Fields to end, creating a 'big' group of big guys.

The offensive line.....Hold. This stock is a blue chipper, but I'm not buying more until I see more. I feel like I've only see them pass block. As of now they are "as adverstised". The running plays they are running right now are not game level plays. The running plays I've seen the first team run, for the most part, seem like they are plays to keep the defense honest, not plays to pick up chunks of yardage. I know this group can block for the running game, but I haven't really seen the goods yet. On the passing side of the equation, you have to be pleased, they get the job done and give Kyle all the time he needs to progress through his reads.

The wide receivers.....Hold. Until Marshall gets onto the field, I'm holding. This stock is priced high and it's not getting higer...for now. Denver's offense needs to get Marshall on the field. Marshall, Royal, and Stokley are Denver's three best receievers and if they can mix in Gaffney, they'll have a great corps of guys who can really do most anything asked of them, however, without Marshall on the field, there's something the are missing badly: Size. Orton can get the ball into tight spots, but his life will be far easier with Marshall on the field drawing coverage away from others and being able to get mismatches where Marshall is simply bigger, faster, and stronger than any corner on the field. I'm not opining what Denver should do with Marshall's contract, but if Marshall is on the field, this is a BUY all day long. Royal is fantastic; great routes, fast, and durable. Stokely is consistent, catches everything, and is reliable. But Denver needs a big play threat and their biggest one is Brandon Marshall, like it or not.

The secondary.....Hold. This is also a nice stock, but I want to see Dawkins on the field. We all know that any corner playing opposite Champ will get picked on, so no surprise that Goodman has 'given up' a few scores, but he was in great position on the first TD against Seattle (I have NO IDEA how he DIDN'T break that play up) and on the second play, it was a fabulous throw and catch from Housh and Hasselbeck. I haven't really heard Renaldo Hill's name much, but not hearing a name in the secondary is ALWAYS a positive. It means he hasn't really made any mistakes yet. We should know more by this time next week, but I'd say that it would be fair to say the secondary looked about how we'd thought they'd look versus Seattle.

The running backs.....Buy. Knowshon will be back and from the limited camp and practice game action he's gotten that I've seen, I think he looks fast, quick, and strong. Hillis looks tough and like he's out to make a point this year. I love that Jordan knows the offense and can help the team out both on the field and in the classroom. I also think he has a great nose for short yardage situations. Buckhalter looks good too. He looks fast and like he can handle anything the coaches throw at him. You have to love the depth here and unless you're a fantasy drafter, you have to love that as a defensive coordinator, you have no clue who's doing what and where when it comes to the backfield for Denver.

The quarterbacks.....Buy. The price is midrange to low on this stock, so I'm buying more. Orton will get better and that's why I'm buying. He just hasn't been "better than advertised", not that he's been worse either. He'll make stupid throws. But he'll make strong ones too. I think that as he digests the playbook, he'll be far better. Like he said, it's a great offense. He does look very confident and in control. He knows what he's doing and he's made some very nice passes. I like that he plays within the pocket and the system. I think his pocket clock is good. He will settle down and pass to spots that look more open than they have so far in a few weeks, but it will take at least a few weeks into the regular season before we see Orton play like most fans want him to play now and that's when buying this stock should pay off. As far as Simms, I'm happy with him as a backup, but that's it. He has a nice arm, but he still looks a little rusty and hasn't swallowed half of what Orton has when it comes to the offense, although that may not entirely be his fault.

The linebackers....Hold. I like the linebackers right now, just not enough to buy more yet. The linebackers' stock price would be midrange right now, but I want to see a bit more. I'm a huge fan of Andra Davis' leadership and experience combined with the raw athletic power of DJ Williams. So far, I think Dumervil looks like he's getting it and progressing how I hoped he would. Haggans has looked good to and although unspectacular, that can be okay too. I like (don't love) where Ayers is (I mean, what did you expect?) and expect to see lots of him on passing downs. I'm not sure Nolan's figured out exactly where Ayers is most dangerous yet. I really like the depth here too. Davis looks to be a vocal leader and for all of the detractors out there who want to complain about his speed, I bet he could beat Tedy Bruschi in a footrace any day of the week. I really think Doom is turning the corner, so that gives me confidence in at least 75% of the staring linebackers.

Specialists.....Hold. Although I don't love the funbles from the return guys, I expect Eddie Royal or Smith to return punts and I expect Smith to return kicks and I trust the starting kickoff and punt teams. I liked Prater's boot the other night, and he hasn't done anything wrong, yet. The punters in camp are both strong, but Kern should win out. As far as the coverage teams, they've only kicked and returned kicks a handful of times each game. Have you nocticed that our punt team is pretty good at not giving much up? Denver had zero punt returns against versus the 49ers and the 'Hawks averaged just over 5 yards on 5 punt returns. Pretty solid work. The kickoff team has some work to do on catching and controlling the kick, but that's a pretty easy thing to fix in practice.

The coaching staff.....Buy. They have work to do, but the potential for greatness is there. Nolan's already done a good job in just a few months time improving the hold and penetration at the point of attack. The guys seem to be having fun and flying around on defense. The personnel isn't perfect and won't be for a year or two, but the play has been about all we could have realistically hoped for. McDaniels is going to win. Maybe not this year, but he's going to win. He seems to be way ahead of the defense and for the most part, it seems like Denver's offense if cutting through first team defenses like a hit knife through butter. I'm impressed. He will make mistakes. So will Nolan. But they will get more things right than wrong and give a little bit of time, I expect Denver to challenge for the division next season.

Realistically, Denver shouldn't get 10 plus wins this year. I think 10 wins is their ceiling, but my guess is .500-ish and that's fine. If coach Shanny and Cutler were still in Denver, I'd still think .500-ish is realistic, so let's hope the team can sneak into the postseason, but realistically, lets look at this team on at LEAST a two year window. I'm not selling on aything right now, and that's great. After next week, it may be a different story, but for right this second, I'm buying and holding.

Open discussion regarding Denver's new offense

super7 — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:33:15 -0000

I'm a big believer in the the adage that 'past performance predicts future success'. However, it's tough to say that when the offense has changed, the coach has changed, and personnel has changed to the degree that it has.

In hoping to keep this objective, I put together two charts. The first charts New England's offensive yards and points production from 2002 to last year. The second charts Denver's offensive yards and points production over the same span. I figure that coach McDaniels took a huge role with the offense in 2005 but had some effect on the team before then (however small) and over time I wanted to see where the offense was and what it did once he took a prominent role with the offense and see if I could draw any conclusions regarding what he's hoping to accomplish in Denver over the next few seasons. Also, the Pats are generally the measuring stick for a successful NFL franchise, so why not look at the tale of the tape and compare the Broncos with New Engalnd.

I'm not neccesarily trying to prove anything, rather I'm attempting to look to MHR for some conclusions and hypothesis for what did and could possibly happen in the short term future of the Broncos offense.

I have a handful more of these charts and I hope to get them out onto MHR in the next few weeks.

Top Chart: Pats' Yards and Points rankings in the NFL from 2002 to 2008

Bottom Chart: Denver's Yards and Points rankings in the NFL from 2002 to 2008

via i636.photobucket.com

The first thing I noticed is that New England typically ranks higher in points than in yards. My assumption is that the Pats typically have a very high ranking in the all important yards per point statistic. In 2008, they were ranked 14th (just behind New Orleans and Indy and just ahead of Pittsburgh) in the NFL which is a fairly low ranking considering that they are typically in or near the top 5 in the league. McDaniels took a prominent role in 2005 and since that year they ranking has been up and to the right with the exception of 2008 when they lost their best offensive player in the first game of the season. I think the fact that New England still ranked how it did with a QB who hadn't done anything, ever, is very impressive. Aside from last year's inefficiency relative to a higher yards ranking to points ranking, the only other time we see this is 2005, when New Engalnd was beaten in the divisional playoffs in Denver. Since 2002, the Pats have gone to the Super Bowl or AFC Championship every year (sans 2002) that they have had a better points ranking than yards ranking.

Note that the one year Denver ranked higher in points than it did in yards, it switched QBs midseason and had a very conservative offense. In 2008 Denver ranked 28th in yards per point (behind Oakland and KC and just ahead of the Browns and Bengals). Denver typically ranks higher in yardage than points and since 2002 their ranking seems to worsen over time. In 2008, there was a marked difference in yardage, but no such dramatic jump in points. What caused such a disparity? Much has been made of it but the inability to execute in the red zone, turnovers, missed opportunities, personnel deficiencies in the backfield, and (possibly) a generally unimaginitive red zone playbook. It looks like Denver can move the ball well, just not past the goal line.

I don't want to get into the numbers too deeply without opening this up to MHR. I don't think that this information is black and white but it does draw attention to the big picture, which is that Denver's offense was getting more ineffieceint while New England's was learning to get generally more effiecient.

What are your thoughts?

Broncos getting new uniforms for 2010?

super7 — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:04:15 -0000

I LOVE the 1960 throwbacks (this was originally a reply post to Broncotodd's recent fanpost). I love the 80's unis. I even kinda sorta like (hate) the current unis even though...well...

Okay, so I have had a love/hate thing with the current "swoosh" uniforms because they have a VERY short "style shelf life". We’ve had the "new" unis for 12 years and I think that we’re again "out of style". Can I use "quotation marks" any more?

Anyway, what I’m getting at is that the Broncos need a face lift on the style front. In the mid 1990’s there was rumor that a change was coming. I started to see jackets and t-shirts with a navy blue clor instead of the royal blue that we’d seen for so long. We knew that Denver’s color scheme needed updating. We assumed that we’d see a darkening of the colors and a "tougher" logo. I didn’t expect the swooshiness (made up word) that we went with and was FURIOUS at first. We lost our identity and Bowlen tried to BS the fans with the 'predominnantly orange' comment. I still think the unis are a bit silly.

Then we made a Super Bowl run and the new unis became part of our identity. Then colleges and high school started to roll with the swoosh design. "Cool", I thought, they are copying us. Well, all of those teams that switched to the swoosh unis have switched away from them and gone with a more modern design. Now, instead of darker/tougher/more intimidating uni’s, we’re seeing a move towards simpler, cleaner, and more "old-school" looks.

I, for one, think Denver needs to come up with a hybrid of the 60’s, 80’s, and current unis.

Here’s my required list for unis:
1) We must keep the orange and blue (especially an orange predominance) only because Denver’s become known as Orange & Blue. Plus, in another year or two, we can be the second comming of THE ORANGE CRUSH.
2) Get rid of the swooshes.
3) Lets go with a more simplified helmet design. Our current set up looks like 1998 threw up on it. Not only do we have the new logo, but we have 3 orange stripes over the top (are they supposed to be kinda like a horse’s mane?).
4) Lets go with dark pants on the road like we did back in the day – maybe we go with blue though instead of orange? (Coolest Floyd little photo ever)

5) We need more stripes on the socks – just saying, they’re cool!

via cache.gettyimages.com

So…long post..but fun topic…

What do you guys think? Still undecided on may favorite road unis. This is just my ghetto mock up of what I think we should be doing.

SImple home unis, kept the logo, got rid of the helmet stripes, pant stripes, swooshes, and jersey stripes. Added sock stripes (I mean is any other team synonymous with sock stripes, regardless of horizontal or vertical orientation more than the Broncos?). I kept the 1980’s block lettering/numbering although you can’t see it that well. The jersey is a combo of the 1960 throwback and the 80’s color scheme. The pants are boring, which I like. As far as the road unis go, I think the blue pants/white socks look tough and the simple – all orange number without a border color looks cool to me, so I put the same jersey with orange pants on the last one just to see what it looks like. I even went with a gray facemask because I love that the 1960 uni had the gray facemask and in the mid 80's we had grey facemasks too.

We could always go with this too: A real Orange & Blue lover's uni:

via img269.imageshack.us

For the roadies, I love the darker pants. The first one has the same numbers as in the 80’s and essentially is the same exact concept as the late 1960's/early 1970's roadies (like the Floyd Little photo above) just without sleeve and pants stripes. I kept the pants all stripe free. I think my fave (aside from the home unis) is roadie #3- nah, I like roadie #2 because it's simply more Bronco-ey than the other ones.

What do you think?

via img38.imageshack.us

Poll

Broncos uni's - what should we do?

Stick with the current swoosh unis

148 votes

Back to the 1980's

51 votes

Make some sort of hybrid of all the old ones - like I did here

95 votes

Go with the vertical socks/1960 unis

4 votes

Stay with the current uni's but change to an orange (current alternate) jersey instead of blue

154 votes

452 votes | Poll has closed

Why the eff...

super7 — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:31:15 -0000

…don’t the Broncos run the no-huddle/hurry-up offense (is there a material difference?) at home?

I read an article featuring Malcolm Gladwell (author of Blink, Outliers, and many other great works) this week and Gladwell is blown away why the Broncos aren’t using the best home field advantage in the league to their advantage.

I considered an article by KaptainKirk that I read on May 7th that was both fantastic and eye opening. Even elite athletes have a harder time recovering in the altitude in Denver.

Gladwell has a great point and although it’s not novel, it resurfaces something painfully obvious. In this day of pro football where coaches and trainers evaluate shuttle times, blood-oxygen levels, vo2 max, and mental capacity, why don’t the coaches in Denver use this to their advantage. I mean, coaches actually videotaped other coaches’ signals (even though Belichick was the only one fingered for it) to gain a perceived advantage. Why would the franchise in Denver not take advantage of the elevation where their stadium is?

Maybe, just maybe someone will figure it out. But what would that take? It would take a quick fire passing game. It would take an offensive line that is very athletic and quick and just as good paving the way for a running back as it would be in pass blocking. It would take great receivers that have differing but interchangeable skill sets that can present a multitude of problems for the pass defenders. It would require a quarterback who could play within the system, take his checkdowns, and keep the chains moving, while staying away from sacks and interceptions. This quarterback would need to move well in the pocket and be able to manage the other players and the pace of the team. He would need to be able to change the play at the line of scrimmage. It would certainly require a huge stable of runningbacks. They would have to have runningback personnel that could adapt and stay fresh and get on and off the field in a hurry. It would require very smart players who truly understood the system and the concept of the plays. Even if we run the fast break, our guys will get tired too. Depth is key. Speed and execution take on heightened importance.

Who has that kind of offense? Just food for thought….

Mock - 7 round

super7 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:39:49 -0000

I don't love mock drafts (other than stuff like Colinski or Draft Tek puts together) but what the heck, right?

I'm putting this together as if Ty Jackson and BJ Raji don't make it down to #12. If we draft Sanchez, I'm going to go out to my car and slam my head in my car door.

I have a reach or two and a huge value falling into our laps once or twice (Shonn Greene).

1a) Brian Cushing (OLB/USC)

1b) Sean Smith (CB/Utah)

2) Jason Glibert (DE/San Jose St.)

3a) Shonn Greene (RB/Iowa)

3b) Dorell Scott (DE/Clemson)

4) Kevin Olgetree (WR/Virginia)

5) Scott McKillop (ILB/Pittsburgh)

6) Chris Baker (DT/Hampton)

7a) Ray Feinga (OG/BYU)

7b) Pierre Walters (OLB/Eastern Illinois)

Denver's Running Offense in 2009

super7 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:00:26 -0000

via bleacherreport.com

Buried in the phenomenal Horse Tracks pu pu platter put together by NYC today was this gem from the first item in Horse Tracks:

Never mind the new set of running backs (Buckhalter, J.J. Arrington and LaMont Jordan) the Broncos acquired through free agency. Perhaps the most significant change to the Broncos' offense this year will be the diminished role of the zone-blocking scheme that had been a Denver staple since the Mike Shanahan era began in 1995.

"That was really their bread-and-butter," McDaniels said. "We did more gap schemes in New England, where we're going to pull a guard. I can't give that up. That's kind of my baby. But you're going to see both."

We've had multiple conversations and posts in the past few months about what we should expect in 2009 and beyond, but this small quote is a BIG ONE considering what it means to the offensive look we've become accustomed to.

Now, I know what the Zone Blocking system is and what kind of players it uses, but although I have a general idea of what the "Gap Scheme" is, I don't have an in depth level of understanding of what it is, what kind of players it likes best, and what it means for the Denver Broncos, so......um.....

Hoosierteacher......can you help us out? Pleeeeease? Anyone?

Thanks in advance, everyone...